like the english word "tetric"

Explains why Tetris is anxiety inducing when the blocks start piling up

Theoretical physicists ARE the most likely people to open some gate to Hell someday, so that tracks.

Oh, dark matter, the holy grail of modern astronomy! The elusive substance that only exists in theories and equations, yet manages to explain everything we don't understand. It's like the Swiss Army knife of cosmology - whenever there's a gap in our knowledge, just whip out the dark matter card, and voilà, problem solved! Now, I must admit, there's something charming about watching astronomers cling to their beloved dark matter like a toddler clutching their security blanket. Whenever something doesn't quite add up in the universe, they chant the sacred mantra: "Dark matter did it!" It's almost impressive how they've turned a lack of evidence into an entire belief system. Move over ancient religions; we've got a new faith in town! Imagine being an astronomer with an unexpected observation. Instead of scratching your head and pursuing alternative explanations, why not just yell "Hallelujah, it's dark matter!" and call it a day? Who needs empirical evidence when you have faith, right? The beauty of dark matter is that it's an all-purpose excuse for any conundrum - from the rotation of galaxies to the distribution of cosmic structures. What a convenient catch-all! It's astounding how this intangible substance, which allegedly makes up around 85% of the universe (according to devout believers), has yet to be directly observed. But, no need to worry, because dark matter is the dark knight of physics - it lurks in the shadows, refusing to reveal itself to mere mortals. It's almost as if dark matter enjoys playing hide-and-seek with scientists, giggling behind its metaphysical veil while astronomers scramble to explain its mysterious behavior. I must commend these astronomers for their relentless devotion. They won't rest until every tiny inconsistency in our understanding is sanctified by dark matter's divine touch. It's as if they've sworn a sacred oath to defend the faith against any heretics who dare to question its validity. The dark matter zealots will stand firm, clutching their equations like holy scriptures, unwilling to accept that perhaps, just maybe, they're barking up the wrong celestial tree. I can picture them huddled in their observatories, chanting their hymns of equations and models, trying to convert every cosmic mystery into a testament of dark matter's divine influence. The faithful fervently preach the gospel of dark matter, and woe betide anyone who dares challenge their beliefs. They've become so dogmatic that questioning the existence of dark matter is akin to cosmic heresy, punishable by excommunication from the hallowed halls of mainstream astrophysics. In the end, dark matter has become the comforting bedtime story astronomers tell themselves to lull their minds into peaceful slumber. It serves as a convenient explanation for the unknown, sparing them from confronting the uncomfortable reality that perhaps the universe is more complex and enigmatic than they'd like to believe. So, let us raise our telescopes to the dark matter disciples, the steadfast defenders of the invisible and the masters of the mysterious. May their faith continue to shine like an undetectable halo, guiding them through the darkness of ignorance. And may we, mere mortals, continue to ponder the absurdity of it all, wondering if dark matter is the ultimate cosmic truth or simply the greatest celestial myth ever conceived. Amen.

​@@esecallum a. Some people still have to be able to justify the singular big bang theory so as to still be able to justify God's existence. b. Some people still have to be able to justify dark energy and/or dark matter so as to still have a job looking for dark energy and/or dark matter. c. Some people still have to justify a certain position in physics because to do otherwise would mean they wasted time and money in college learning stuff that was wrong.

Does it remain constant though? How do we compare it to what it was 10 billion years ago?

since we don't understand QM+GR and all this dark stuff, it's more honest to say "we lack a model in which energy is conserved" than it is to say "energy is not conserved".

I think dark energy remains mostly constant, but since it’s not energy …idk.

​@@anywallsocket I dont think you need to come up with a theory of QM+GR to assure energy conservation. Energy,is conserved on a classical level so no need for a quantum theory of gravity for that ( as in classical electrodynamics)

HAHAHA... "Energy density of the Vacuum remains constant as the universe expands"... How stupid can you be. Space and Vacuum is NOT a constant, it fluctuates and shifts all the time due to all that is happening everywhere. Simplified for idiots: Think of the universe as a big ocean... And like any ocean it has warm and cold patches that constantly moves and shifts. Idiots will say: but in vaccum there is nothing so it is a constant.......Vaccum is just absence of air... Air are not the only particles that exist !!!!!!.

No one thinks they are first principles, you aren’t special

so, you are still confused, but on a much _higher level_ than me :) lol

@@brad.fuller Yeah that's the world for you. The more you understand, the more confused you will be. Anyone who says anything is "obvious" is profoundly ignorant on whatever topic they are discussing... 🙄

🤫

@@juliasophical- ROFL. To a point, you are correct. Now try this on for size: "It is obvious to me that the more I understand, the less I know... At least _know with certainty._"

Existence.

It’s French, exstAnce Capische?

@tortoisebeetle9741 I'm Italian and it's definitely "Capisce" in both Italian and French. A video about Quantum Physics and nobody can spell....in any language apparently...too funny.

We have all ascended, you just can't see it yet.

@@myradioon Not being able to spell is a prerequisite of being a smartass on KZfaq 🤷‍♂

she is wearing a pink sweater. Do you really think pink is a dark color?

​@@clydewmorganshe has a new sweater though, as modelled at the end during the Brilliant sponsor read

At the end of the video Sabine wears a black sweater with the Brilliant logo.

@@clydewmorganyou clearly didnt watch till the end of the video

Incorrect. Zero point energy is the only free energy. Hundreds of zpe devices are known of, and the only explanation is that atoms use zpe to function, and all physics is fully kinetic. She quotes Einstein but omits Einstein's last words ; "Everything is relative". The only solution to this and the force proof tied to the prime spiral found by Azra Wind, is that electron neutrinos are fueling the progressive kinetic reaction of everything as they are hydraulically superior. If you even attempt to use any second force of any kind, anywhere, it splits the prime spiral so that's impossible. Everything must branch off the electron neutrino wind found by Ice Cube to flow into the galactic bulge. I've done this 30 years and nobody has any valid unification without progressive kinetics.

Gobbledygook BUSTERS!

I liked those papers about fixing relativity and throwing Einstein's GR out the window

"There's just one problem" "The phone will ring"

My thoughts exactly!

Shouldn't we expect a redshift when looking at far-away galaxies? Isn't all the space dust going to absorb more of the higher energy blue light anyways, leaving behind mostly red wavelengths? So why are they surprised to find that galaxies are more and more redshifted the farther away they are? So surprising, that we come up with an expanding universe instead of just space dust blocking all the bluer, shorter wavelengths?

@@effectingcause5484 If we were talking about the envelope of light (e.g. the average wavelength) then, sure, but that's not what redshift is. Redshift looks at specific wavelengths that are absorbed/emitted by atoms/ions/molecules. Therefore, any blocking effect can only possibly block these spectral lines, not change what wavelength they are.

@@tomfeng5645 aaahhhhh of course! That is the answer i've been needing for this curiosity i've been wondering. I've been considering this space dust possibility for months now and you just crushed it.. thank yu sir!

@@effectingcause5484 No problem! It's a common theme for many of us in the sciences that we kinda gloss over "obvious" details that are actually quite technical. It's always a huge challenge in science communication, and I'm glad to clear this up for you.

Saying there exist imaginary energy is like saying there magic exist

@@whiteeye3453 My point is only that if you reversed the expansion of the universe you'd get back exactly the same amount you lost. That would be a very realistic scenario in a cyclic universe, and the ONLY sensible way to interpret that would be to acknowledge it as having gone and parked somewhere in the interim. We have no problem dealing with that in smaller situations, where we count energy flows out of and into some "system" we've defined. Bottom line is that if this effect occurred to a "non-negligible" extent (insofar as our daily lives go), then we'd include some quantification of it in our laws of physics. It doesn't, so we don't. It's not imaginary - you could easily think of it as being stored in the "stretched fabric" of expanded space, much like how when you blow up a balloon elastic energy gets stored in the skin. As noted above, we don't because we don't need to in order to get good answers to our questions. Instead we just neglect it, and things work out fine. But it's not neglected because we don't know what's going on - it's neglected because it's too small to care about.

@@KipIngram exept we don't know how universe is big or made since we have these theories Wich isn't proof

I would say: The energy went into the expansion of space. If you lay a piece of string on your desk fashioned into a sine wave, (or look at the illustration of expanding photons shown,) and pull the ends of the string, it occupies a larger space, the wave length is longer, the amplitude is less, but the total length of the string is the same.

@@charlesbruneski9670 string theory isn't real and and any explanation is same as Bible creation story

The guy's right though, and it will be proven in next 7 years.

​@@UltimatePerfectionOk time traveler. Mind telling us how the theory will account for every observation we have ever made validating GR on various scales?

@@davidhand9721 No spoilers.

@@davidhand9721 You’re conveniently ignoring galactic orbital characteristics not matching what’s predicted by GR as explained in the video.

The importance of conservation law goes as far back as Emmy Noether and Immanuel Kant.

I think you are correct. If everything is made of the same stuff, then the energetic stuff attributed to dark energy, dark matter, and matter are all interacting via conservation of energy. I predict conservation of energy will be found to be always conserved. I find it interesting that in one video she clearly states that Einstein and the standard model are not complete (because they can not be resolved) and then in other videos she uses them to ridicule new theories. It is easy to see her argument in this case. That nothing has changed but it is annoying how she goes back and forth just so she is always right.

Right. Just change the words. The average _energy density_ is conserved. Or something like that, up to an effective global conformal scale factor. Also, there's something fishy about it all, you know ... from the classical notion that there is no such thing as absolute energy, only the differences matter (a gauge principle). The vacuum energy makes that a bit more subtle. That'd be the interest follow-on topic.

Unfortunately all observations to date suggest the universe is flat or slightly open, so this isn’t something we can count on.

I wouldn't say the contraction follows as a conclusion to a premise of energy being locked into expansion. The energy coming back due to universe contraction implies some sort of spring-like behaviour. It doesn't have to be that way: take a metal rod and pull it to beyond it's elastic limit. This way the energy is locked into the metal rod having been deformed plus some thermals - the rod will not go back to the way it was.

@@Grak70 And this doesn't make sense at all. Maybe we can only observe the flat part and not the cross section. This is realy why I think focusing on maths to much is not gonna help at all. Logic and observations say there is 3D and 6 major directions from a center. And all observable forces like gravitational waves. Electromagnetic waves all show spherical behaviour from center source. Same goes for transmitters if they not steered. But no the universe is flat... Comon where is the logic in it? How does it even makes sense next to a zillion other observable facts micro and macro? Also if it a disk it still aint flat. Absolute flat means only 2D and thats 4 directions. not 6.

You still can't do work with it. You can only do work with a temperature *differential* (see Carnot cycle), but not with heat content in and of itself.

@@SmartassEyebrowsI think it might be possible to use geometry and different material properties to design something that can create a local temperature (energy) differential upon an object (or molecule) that can cause the object to acquire a non-random vector. This vector can then be utilized to harness work in some way. Consider how a DC rectifier operates in an AC electrical circuit; it follows a similar concept. While this seems logical to me, i suspect you may disagree.

Well, some would argue that the radiative heat exchange between you and the other molecules in the space is what keeps you from freezing solid. We know that radiation exists and functions this was from an abundance of *applied* physics done over a dew centuries. Establishing that a separate process applies, when the electron shell(s) of an air molecule randomly interacts with the electron shell(s) of one of your molecules, isn't a given and takes some experimental elbow grease because there's a LOT which can be explained by radiation transfer and radiation transfer can't be ruled out in the case of materials in contact. Moreover, it's not ruled out as the process of heat transfer within a solid.

@@alexgonzo5508 Yeah, there is. Fourier's Law. Otherwise heat wouldn't dissipate down a thermal gradient because randomly moving entities pool, statistically, around their source. However, throw in the second law of thermodynamics and heat can't travel up the thermal gradient in any significant (i.e. measurable) quantity. This is why energy can't be used to do work unless the potential of the source is higher than the sink. And, that fact scuttles your logic. Like panacea, font of eternal youth, and perpetual motion machines, the ability to put waste or ambient energy to work has been a mirage chased by many for centuries and dark energy can't help if it's purely imaginary.

@alexgonzo5508 I've thought of a similar concept that strips the randomness of heat through magnetic induction to convert it into useful energy. Would you like to get in contact so we can exchange designs? Creating a heat to energy generator would create almost unlimited free energy, and would also double as a cryogenic refrigerator.

We gotta install microwave emitters.. Quantum refrigerators, mass spectrometers

@@MOSMASTERING🤣😂

And I want my CMB...

I came here to make a similar joke. Gotta move those microwave emitters.

I wanna learn to play with quasars, I wanna learn to play them drums

Yeah, my brain stopped hearing her talk and went somethings amiss here, only the amplitude is changing but talking wavelength change... Two people need floggings, graphics creator and the editor.

so, i'm not the only one...

I knew I wouldn't be the only one. Paused to scroll down to see who else was about to comment!

It looks like she was just showing those waves so she could compare them to after she stretched them at 3:08. I don’t think she meant to compare those 6 waves with different amplitudes to each other. It would’ve been clearer if she only showed a single sin wave before and after expanding, to denote the delta length- instead of all 6 before and after.

That's what I heard years ago, the expanding universe result in an increase in the gravitational potential energy. But theories change so I don't know if that is the consensus today.

This is one of those 'physics folklore' things. Truth is, energy is nonconserved _locally_ in GR _regardless_ of specific model considered (in this case, cosmological); check out in the arXiv Tavel's English translation of Noether's paper on her _two_ eponymous theorems - the _second_ of which relevant to GR - which she even mentions as one of her chief motivations for publishing the paper, on behest of Hilbert. Also, Sabine didn't mention this, but the reason for the "generalized conservation law" is a differential-geometric result called the contracted Bianchi identity - dunno if you knew that already, but bonus trivium.

@@thstroyur According to me the conservation of energy always holds true. It cannot dissapear into empty space as far is we know. It radiates into it. But not leak into it as far as we know yet leaks onto other matter/energy. Which indicates that probably space is all you need to conserve energy as a whole. It conserves itself because it occupies space. And since we still all agree that each force has an equal opposing force. We probably think we might be able to observe something. While space itself that kinda affects nothing is enough to be this opposing force (absolute negative I like to call it) yet not measurable as something.

@@Syphirioth That might be - but alas, mathematically this is an indisputable fact within GR: energy isn't locally conserved. That doesn't mean I like it - in fact, it seems to be one of the greatest weaknesses of GR - one that isn't shared by my own theory: you can check in the e-print viXra:2204.0115 that just above eq. 49 the case is made that energy is indeed conserved: *dT = 0* - with no Noether caveats, because background spacetime is Minkowski. Oh, and before you flinch, notice that I've already sent some preliminary results to the RS and, after weeks sitting and waiting, the paper finally hit 'under peer review' status a few days ago - so I'm a serious playa, boya 😉

@@thstroyur Yes I agree it not locally conserved. Simple fact that when I push something the energy is transfered to the object. Also seems to be the fact when something radiates (pushing outwards). Or when the gravity pulls. Energy transfers. Transforms. But is not magically gone. And localization changes obviously cause the energy moved from A to B. And if that energy is once again transfered we can only see that result. Not what happened before. Also because of this localization in my opinion.

what's wrong with the old theories? can you explain?

​@@janthranwell what's wrong with stasis ? For me, it's not in alignment with life 's flow.

Happily you're not alone, but I trust in Dr. Sabine.

​@@Thomas-gk42Do not be fooled by these liars

Yes indeed 1 Klasse.📗

Exactly! I can't believe that was put out as an explanation. I'm not even a physicist and I understand this. Why is it that when physicists talk about entropy and energy etc they completely allow themselves to forget that they're allowing goalposts to change in some quantity which should remain constant, or allowing a quantity to remain fixed when it should vary - depending on the type of measurement/reference frame being considered. This is why physical theories and the way they're taught (and poorly understood) are in such a mess!

Does it equate to the energy needed to boost you to the speed of the baseball?

@@karlbarlow8040 No, the energy of you or the train relative to the stands is very large compared to the energy of the baseball. It's because of the difference in mass. You and the train have a lot more mass and need a lot more energy to acquire that speed.

@@ShawnHCorey Thanks for the answer.

Where has Turok said that? I never heard him say that.

If you watch a rotating galaxy from the side, you will see one half with a red shift (rotating away from us) and one half with a blue shift (rotating towards us). How is this explained with that model?

hehe😂😂...he aint Jesus..his words are not absolute.Bring logical arguments not who said what.

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of what was said, or the intent of saying it. Unless you have a link?

@@O_Lee69obviously it’s alien children fooling around with the settings of our school project zoo/universe.

Not really

Dark energy is created as space expands which in turn makes space expand faster. Seems very open that it can fuel a positive feedback loop.

I’m not an expert but I understand that no, they stay the same size, just the underlying spacetime changes. Bad analogy: marbles on a stretching rubber sheet...

No, because of quantum mechanics. A photon can be of literally any wavelength: the wavelength is a continuously varying parameter, not quantized. Matter has a fixed wavelength (or in other words, a particle of matter has a fixed mass that corresponds to a fixed quantity of energy), because it is fundamentally quantized.

@@Spherical_Cow I have a bachelor's degree in physics and there was nothing we covered in quantum I or II that suggested to me that the expansion of space should stretch the wavelengths of radiation but not matter. The debroglie wavelength is a continuous variable that depends on momentum. You're probably thinking of the Compton wavelength. I'm pretty sure mass isn't quantized because it doesn't only come in integer multiples of some base unit. I don't know that there's any evidence to justify the assumption that matter particles had the same mass ten billion years ago that they do today either.

Don't know about evidence that masses of elementary particles were the same 10 billion years ago, but isn't it a pretty fundamental assumption we make? ​@nzuckman

Wow, that's a lot of authoritative sounding wrong answers. Mass _is_ quantized, obviously, because we never see 3/4 of an electron. In QM, a particle's wavelength is related inversely to momentum, not at all constant. (Linear) Momentum is _not_ quantized. Particles will lose momentum to stretching space just like light does.

I concur.

Make that "prior to the", not "prior the the."

Yes and no. We have all of these records, but they are academic journals.

Yes, but did you know that your refrigerator is an over unity energy device? It is in fact a free energy device , the physics teachers, elite controllers of this world won't tell you that will they ? I wonder how many other free energy devices they have suppressed from the public to keep us buying , coal, gas, electricity , keep us slaves ?

Space itself doesn't change but gravitational fields carried by space change in the presence of mass energy increasing the lengths of the geodesic paths that objects must follow through space, objects including photons.

@@cloudpoint0 wut

@@cloudpoint0 you missed my point, because that doesnt change anything. The point is, expansion and compression of anything, places that thing into a higher or lower energy state. From red/blue shift, to the heating and cooling of thermal pumps, its the same. I just never considered that for EM with changes in the curvature of spacetime. This actually solves a physics problem where we dont have a way to convert electrons into gamma. We can get up to xray, but gamma always requires a radioisotope. If spacetime curvature can be used, theres that problem solved-ish.

@@therealquade I’m not disagreeing with your main point. I’m just restating your terminology to agree with what cosmologists understand. What you said still applies. An object moving away redshifts in the observer’s perspective (not physically though, newly emitted photons still have the same wavelength). My point is spacetime curvature is a useful mathematical interpretation of the phenomenon but it is not a real world interpretation. Empty space does not do anything - it’s nothing.

Yes, I think that pink shirt needed a wash anyway…

​@@zdenekkindl2778...or she has as much as varieties of string theories exist

Do you think there could be undiscovered instances where something can exceed light speed? We already know some quantum particles don’t follow rules of forward causality and isn’t the speed of causality one of the main reasons it’s said nothing can exceed light speed?

relativistic inertia , as represented by the particle mass , is velocity dependent in Relativity Theory .If the velocity super-pass light velocity , mass became an PURE imaginary number . Perhaps we live in a complex space-time .....(as happens in the world of elementary particles!).

It will do less work than it took to create. She means the air isn't going to do any work for free.

And that's why energy conservation is not happening in our universe , it's an open system ,energy is leaving and new energy is coming in from somewhere else into our universe !

Light is quantized. Every photon of that light is stretched. I don't know about how it would affect their arrival times, but the total energy is indeed lower.

@@davidhand9721 Wouldn't a stretched photon have its energy more spread out?

@@JCAtkeson3 no. A photon is a photon. That's what "quantum" means.

@@davidhand9721 But you just said they were stretched. Wrong choice of words?

@@JCAtkeson3 You're getting caught up in wave-particle duality. I can't make it make sense for you, unfortunately, it just is what it is.

Given how they recently rejected a paper of mine, I'm not going to jump in their defense; go for the jugular, Sabine 😆

I guess you haven't noticed that massive amounts of articles and science papers have been found to be basically nonsense, even though they went through peer-review and were approved? It has put the whole peer-review process in question, and there's worry, that most scientific databases are so "contaminated" with them, that they're essentially worthless.

she´s great, thank you

Yes it has not gone down in fact it has gone up. The total energy of the observable universe is now higher than the total energy just after Inflation.

100%

Dark energy is constant for a given volume of space so as the universe expands more dark energy is created. Where did that extra energy come from?