The Cosmological Constant Blows My Mind. (video)

VariableConstant
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

I've enjoyed your videos for a long time now. Interesting subject matter on top of gameplay.

Can't tell you how glad I am to see that Campkill can't be killed, after all it took to make it happen (dresses included).

edit on 31-12-2013 by VariableConstant because: (no reason given)

Replying slowly, so sorry! BUT-

Thank you for the kindness. Yes yes I had to wear a dress for a video AND show my face…but it was worth it cis it saved the channel. nothing like a lil stupidity to save a lil nonsense…that's my motto (now). lol.

Thanks again man for the love. All love back and hope your new year is kicking butts.

MM

Mon1k3r
I wish we could just throw out the phrase, "...the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate." Simple observation tells us that's not really what's happening.

Oh? lol. I am afraid that is not true. I assure you that the metric expansion of space (modeled by The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solution) is what we "observe". And there is clear and long explanations on all matters on this but "why".

And does the cosmological constant describe the universe, or does the universe define the cosmological constant? That is, if we lived in a different universe, say an older or a younger one, and our observations of what is going on were different, would not the cosmological constant also be different?

Ummm…I do not entertain/attend metaphysical questions/debates in alternate Universes, unless the argument is delivered by someone who thinks the Universe is Expanding…lol.

I for one believe that the cosmological constant and relativity theory, and our religious love and devotion to them are screwing us, blinding us, making us slaves to a world that is incorrectly described by mathematics and it's arbitrary nature.

Respecting mathematical expressions in reality is not a religious move. And mathematics are the only language truly "attempts" to speak truth of reality. You see a sunrise…you say its "pretty". That means nothing. Math would have given me the distance of the sun, its level of brightness down to the photon, its temperature, size and circumference, the age of there star, its weight and so much more.

Religion is not math.

If you like it then you better put a number on it... then you can't get rid of it.

Don't like numbers eh? Well…in this expanding universe- you better get used to them.

Hugs.

MM

ChaoticOrder

Scientists only speculated that the cosmological constant was zero before they had hard proof that the universe was expanding. Before that most scientists liked to believe that the expansion was slowing down because that seemed like the most logical explanation. Once they were certain that the universe is expanding then they were forced to accept the existence of dark energy / the cosmological constant.

Which points, again, to it simply being a fudge factor hastily stapled on to existing calculations to make them fit with new information. Meaning that decades down the road, we ran into the same insurmountable wall as Einstein.

The factor was not stapled onto anything, it was originally a left over constant as a result of integral mathematics. The theory has a spot for it that is physically and mathematically sound. Just so happens the current observational data fits it out to be none-zero.

I partially agree that there is a strange pre-disposition to find mathematical series or elegance when dealing with nature. But it is something I am largely against. While not cosmology, there is for example, no reason why people suggest that super symmetry is dead in the water.

'Oh but you need fine tuning' So? You are willing to say that you have a number 10^32 which you cannot move, but wont move something down at the bottom end which is around 10^6, It makes no sense that there must be a nice pattern or any kind of beauty involved at all.

Nature is being unraveled slowly, its what us scientists spend our live times doing...

CrikeyMagnet
If I remember correctly, Einstein discarded the cosmological constant (or at least disavowed it) because it was simply a number he made up to fix calculations that didn't work out. It was a fudge factor with no meaning, meant to fill a gap in understanding.

During this video, I don't think there was any mention of a meaning for this constant... just the statement that it was important for some reason. Without that reason, I don't think we can say Einstein made a mistake here. What he was saying is that there is something wrong with this -- and it can be patched with this number. This isn't the solution, but I've gotten it as close as I can.

Until it has a meaning, it's not a solution... just a number that magically makes things work. Much like Dark Energy and Dark Matter. These are things that make the numbers work, but which we haven't and cannot observe right now. We'll get back to you on that.

Most likely, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are vast groups of forces and particles and interactions we have not yet even conceived of or measured, and not any one distinct thing.

I agree that the cosmological constant is interesting, but largely because we can't tell what it means yet. Maybe it's a number meant to represent "...and all that other stuff"

The video stated the importance of the constant. It is the value of "the density of the vacuum of space".

No, its not a "fudge factor", not even remotely close to a "fudge factor". What Einstein used it as was a factor to explain observable physics of space, but since it did not allow his expectations of a static universe (Albert was dead set on a static universe as were most back then) he threw it away, dubbing it "a mistake".

When Hubble discovered space was indeed expanding, as Albert's calculations demanded (but he refused), the cosmological constant resurfaced as an evident truth of math.

In 1998 the need for this factor was once again needed to explain what is observed.

It is not a fudge factor or some magical made up theory. It is a mathematical explanation of physical movement and density that we can easily observe.

Considering one of physics most accepted constants as a simple "fabrication" or "made up thing" is a long leap from science to fallacy.

The cosmological constant is disputed by so few that only a handful disagree on it. But when they DO disagree, it is not that they say its a fudge factor or absolutely wrong. They point towards a different meaning behind it's origins. They argue its interpretation as a vacuum energy is incorrect and actually a mysterious force from a microscopic quantum theory of gravity, which is currently beyond physics.

You will find almost zero credited physicists who agree with you that the constant is actually a "fudge factor" invented to clean up maths. I'm sorry but your laymen way of explaining away one of physic's most eye popping realities- is just….I dunno…laymen.

Hugs and thanks for watching.

MM

double post.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Greetings you tube, ergh ATS, uhh Mr. Mask, Brotherman here bringing you another episode of camper killer commentary suggestions. Can you do a video of the singularity before the big bang rolled up tightly and smoked with some string theory and a twist of some multiverse??? Your videos are entertaining as hell much love bro!

Brotherman
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Greetings you tube, ergh ATS, uhh Mr. Mask, Brotherman here bringing you another episode of camper killer commentary suggestions. Can you do a video of the singularity before the big bang rolled up tightly and smoked with some string theory and a twist of some multiverse??? Your videos are entertaining as hell much love bro!

Hey homie!!! Big cyber hugs!

I do hope to do a video on the big bang soon, along with the various models that have been accepted, rejected or offered as a dispute to the standard model. I also hope to do a multiverse and many-worlds video. There are so many science subjects I wanna commentate, and I am always looking for more. SO if you have ideas, hook me up!!! lol.

Thanks again for watching my silly vids and I love you.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


Another good one would be "what could go wrong going back to the future" while playing GTA with the dalorean mod hahaha

Brotherman
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Another good one would be "what could go wrong going back to the future" while playing GTA with the dalorean mod hahaha

Hahahahaha. I have no love for GTA, but that sounds amazing hahahah.

Its so hard to think up usable content thats fun and/or informative. If it wasn't, I'd upload daily.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


You could rap about the chicken-o-saurus featuring Dr Jack Horner trying to devolve a chicken into a bird with a tail, teeth, and claws. Lately I've been doing a $hit ton of reading into evolution and abiogenesis stuff interests me.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I gave your double post a star just to give you another star for this fine video and explanation of the CC (as we down at the pub call it). Thanks, and hopes for many more of your vids this year.

Here's the Wikipedia page on the Cosmological Constant (and its talk page is a trip in itself):

en.wikipedia.org...


The number you quote isn't on the page and should be, to shake up Wikipedia and give them something to think about while editing.