As an experienced civil engineer, we should take the average and round it to the nearest integer and then call it a day. Any difference would be not constructible any way.

😅

As an experienced unemployed person, I advise to just put off actually solving the problem until tomorrow, you really need to relax every now and then

@@Tinil0 why do tomorrow what can wait for the day after tomorrow.

That might explain why doors are flying off our planes.

I designed over 9000 sounds (over the course of about one decade). I can confirm that resonance is indeed a tricky thing, and unexpected cancellations can occur in both the most bizarre ways, but sometimes also the "obvious yet not so obvious" manners as well. 😁 There was one particular sound I generated (of those 9000+) which essentially resonated at the exact frequency of the speaker tubes it was going to be played within. ANY other speaker system was fine... but not the typical place where the sound was going to end up being played. Lemme tell ya... THAT... was a *disaster*. 😂 I chased that issue around until I realized everyone was usin' tinier speakers (28mm?), but my test projects had 36mm and 40mm ones. 🙄 Yeesh. *ONE* sound out of 9000. Drove me nutttzzz.

@@Novastar.SaberCombatgood old resonance and destructive interference. Standing waves in the path of the sound waves can also make life interesting.

Sound canceling?

@@jeebusk Yep.

@@EhmannJasonno, the sound of the machinery and of the alarm canceled each other out.

That was exactly my thought! And the solution was light is only emitted in quanta. This is I guess why that space time quanta was suggested.

Or string theory :)

I think knot@@crazieeez

hehehehe@@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer

I just posted nearly the same comment. They really do sound very similar.

No dude, you rock!

Santa Lincoln roared 👍

+1

Well, he rocks for a physicist. Having played in a band with physicists, it's not a high standard. Except for Brian May.

@@soaringvulture Brian May rocks enough for ALL the physicists, though.

🥦

When wavelengths are mentioned I think about electromagnetic radiation, which has frequency and amplitude. Would the amplitude of the "hum" decrease as the frequency increased, with the amplitude approaching zero as the frequency approaches infinity? I've been a radio comms engineer for half a century, and the two waveforms are probably different things, and I'm talking garbage. But if you don't ask, you don't get.

​@@petermainwaringsxthe frequency doesn't surpass the plank limit though.

Your mistake was in ordering pizza when the universe is really pasta.

exactly, there is one choice of frequency per piece of space/fabric according to your idea amirite?

Time to start working on the question.

​​@@anonymes2884 We know what the question is, it's in the books.

It is not incorrect, but what is the question.

What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?

That is not the question. Earth prevented from computing the true question due to interference from the Golgafrinchans. Furthermore, even without said interference, Earth was destroyed minutes before the question was scheduled to be complete. Also, it is suggested that it is impossible for the question and the answer to be simultaneously known in any given universe.

Physic is simple tho

Yeah that happens a lot, Just click the video tab so you can go through them in chronological order.

Who is Lincoln? Who are you writing to?

@@patricklincoln5942GODS! You guys multiply!?!?!? AAAAGGGHHH!

​@patricklincoln5942 he's obviously talking about the man in this video. His name is Don Lincoln, but even if I didn't know that, it would be easy to infer from the comment that the man in the video is named Lincoln.

@@mygirldarby: You are right. I think I was in disbelief, because it is my last name too. Not very common.

@@mygirldarbyNah, he’s clearly using the name of the 16th President of the United States as an exclamation, as in “Oh, God!”

I was about to say exactly the same. 👍

That is what I was thinking.

I imagine that's partly the inspiration for quantized spacetime theories?

I actually said the same in a separate comment, ha!

I was thinking it seem analogous. It seems those low frequency stacking is a problem and other physics stops it. This is lay person conjecture, but it also seems similar to the mystery of matter or how matter and anti-matter canceled except a small percentage did not.

The heart of science is don't know.

By measuring the energy of vacuum? The Heisenberg rules are also measurable. Zero point energy is directly related. As far as I know....

When physicists talk about the Higgs Boson giving mass to other particles, they're actually talking about the zero-particle state (vacuum state) of the Higgs Field. If there were no residual fluctuations in fields in their vacuum state, this wouldn't work, and electrons would be massless (most of the everyday stuff around us would still have mass because most of the mass of protons and neutrons isn't from the Higgs).

'SPACE': Consider the following: a. Modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy. Quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them. b. Light, 'electromagnetism', in the visual light portion of the spectrum fills outer space as well here on this Earth. That is why we can see things here on this Earth as well as far away stars, galaxies, etc. c. 'Electromagnetism' ('em') also comes in other energy frequencies besides visual light: Radio waves, Microwaves, Infrared waves, Visual light waves, Ultraviolet waves, x-rays, and gamma waves. (Also in outer space and here upon this Earth at various locations). d. Modern science claims that 'em' can interact with matter. QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) whereby 'em' interacts with electrons in atoms and molecules and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics) whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms. e. 'Gravity' also appears to actually exist, with at least varying densities if not even varying frequencies. So, 'space' is energy itself, primarily energy fields with the primary modalities of gravity, electrical and magnetic. 'Time' most probably is the 'flow of energy', 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. And the current analysis indicates that both space and time always existed and never had a beginning (also as modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed). * The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons.

What if such a thing as "empty space" or what we imagine as zero of anything doesn't exist , or doesn't exist in in our dimension. There is always us moving through something. Same with the concept of zero. I see how we use zero for counting but it might not really be just a value of opposing forces which also is never absolute zero but just zero average of those opposing forces... (different mathematics). I don't know...

Good reason to stay strong and healthy, live long and see the break through in science.

"It's the best science *_fiction_* outreach video I've watched in a long time: Informative, interesting, and thought provoking" FYP. :)

I feel that absolute "nothing" or zero doesn't actually exist. To define nothing you need something and therefore we are. Nothing of what? Nothing of something. Just the thought of nothing creates on a quantum level a change (something). Nothing doesn't exist. It's always negative and positive opposites of something.

Those non-integer angels like to dance at Pi beats per measure, I just can't follow along.

@@Aracuss Interesting philosophically, but it doesn't solve the problem. We can take the limit where less and less exists in a space. And even if not, the quantum vacuum energy actually also exists when we don't assume a vacuum, on top of the other stuff, and is still incompatible with GR.

Electric universe ⚡️

​@@Aracussnothing exist outside of something.

(from Henry V, spoken by King Henry) Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead. In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect; Let pry through the portage of the head Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it As fearfully as doth a galled rock O'erhang and jutty his confounded base, Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean. Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his full height. On, on, you noblest English. Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof! Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn till even fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument: Dishonour not your mothers; now attest That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you. Be copy now to men of grosser blood, And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture; let us swear That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not; For there is none of you so mean and base, That hath not noble lustre in your eyes. I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start. The game's afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

​@@GradyPhilpotton and on and on and on, I think the phrase originated prior from the infamous dispute between Thomas Nashe and Gabriel Harvey, where Harvey writes: "The eagle does not catch flies"

Quentin Tarantino's favorite game

FFS

Most people seem to misunderstand the meaning of "The game's afoot", including script writers for modern adaptations. "Game" here isn't in the sense of "play" or "sport". It means an animal that is being hunted. Hunted animals will often seek a hiding place and remain there, so hunters would use dogs, other people, or whatever to scare the game out of its hiding place. The game would then be in the open, running away, and it was time for the hunters to start chasing it. Hence the cry "The game's afoot!", which grew into the wider sense of "After waiting, it's time to act".

yea, it has too many variables

The potential for a vibration is associated with a certain energy, sorta like potential energy

isn't there some weighting?

I don't know why that doesn't result in infinite energy everywhere, but all wavelengths / waveforms extend on infinitely, it's just that they weaken the further you go, and mostly cancel out. I can't explain why some things cancel out and some things don't, but the important thing to keep in mind is that most things *do* cancel out. If a positive and negative charge occupy the same place, for example. Even things that don't per se have a positive and negative equivalent can cancel out by having an equal and opposite phase. Meaning the sum of all possible wavelengths usually adds up to nothing.

Fields extend throughout the universe. It’s like ripples on the surface of a pond. As long as the exciting force is present, so will the fields be. Pond ripples die down because of friction and some other reasons I won’t go into. But that’s not the case for these fields.

@@LB-vf2hmBecause it is quantized, at least I see an analogy with the black body radiation problem that was solved by quantizing light. Here Don indicates they take into consideration the planck length as a minimum and suggests the value may be further brought down by quantizing space and time.

Top Quark!

The Hubble and the JWST telescope cosmological constants are different.

@@VatsekConstantly so.

@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight Ironically, my former physics colleague Don Franks was part of the team that first observed the top quark 🙂

@@Vatsek Which fits my prediction perfectly as to varying rates of the passage of time as one make observations further and further back in time - consistent with the two observations of gravitational waves traveling faster than light, the further the greater the difference in arrival time. BTW - gravitational waves are not demonstrating any "redshift" - let THAT sink in 🙂

"Wake up, Neo..."

If only the universe program code were annotated...

As a programmer, somebody is gonna make you walk the Planck.

After some thought agree with the two field approach ... The worst prediction in physics is often attributed to the cosmological constant problem. The cosmological constant itself is a purely derived constant and not a fundamental one. So, which fundamental constant should we consider when addressing this problem? Another constant used in general relativity is referred to as Einstein’s constant kappa, which Einstein merely considered as a constant connected to Newton’s gravitational constant. From a quantum perspective, the energy density of empty space is equal to or proportional to Planck’s energy density. Restating Einstein’s constant in terms of energy density, it becomes the Planck frequency squared divided by the Planck energy density. If we express the cosmological constant in terms of frequency squared, we can determine the energy density of the universe. After rearranging some terms, the energy density of the universe becomes the Planck energy density multiplied by the ratio of the cosmological constant’s frequency squared to the Planck frequency squared. This frequency squared ratio is crucial for understanding the cosmological constant problem. In mechanical vibration, the frequency squared ratio often serves as an amplification/damping ratio or coupling constant. Therefore, we can assume that the cosmological constant’s energy density is coupled to the Planck energy density, accounting for the 120 orders of magnitude difference.

@@rogerkearns8094 No source available, that's why we have reverse-engineers (scientists).

the issue is it doesnt tell us where to look. there is no general starting point. its all just untestable extra dimensional nonscense.

Yeah, we just need to prove that a multiverse or higher dimensions are a thing (both of which are untestable and unfalsifiable, in other words fantasy) or super find proof for some exotic theoretical particles which we will need to build a particle accelerator so large that we would probably have to build it in space (it can take years just to get everyone to agree on building a bridge, let alone get a dozen nations to agree to give up some of their land to just to test some theoretical physicist’s pet math equation. We need a new idea.

ah yes, fizzicks

Not as stupid as it sounds.

Then all our science equations can not predict anything accurately anymore.

@@digitalife8719 that's the joke.

another round on rounding ! but I keep wondering if there is a base in which the natural constants make more sense.

Dark energy is specifically the difference between centrifugal force and our observations

Casimir Effect

That doesn't really matter though. The problem is our two best theories _predict_ vastly different values. Even if the situation isn't physically possible, _at least_ one of those predictions is presumably wrong so the question is which one and why.

Space is merely a byproduct of particles and their angular references to each other. There is no “distance”. There are only spherical functions for each particle where every point on each spherical function is a reference to some other particle.

​@@anonymes2884Why is that a problem, though? Couldn't it just be undefined, like division by zero is in mathematics? (Come to think of it, the problems are superficially pretty similar.)

Yeah I'm not convinced empty space exists either. Seems like a silly assumption to make.

But it's more important to be crazy enough.

Never forget, no matter how many ways we have to force order on complex numbers, the square root of -1 is neither larger nor smaller than zero, it's just different. Complex number, unlike their subset the Real number system, lack order. That means any physical activity that requires complex numbers to describe it, has some aspect that is time and size independent. Good Luck.

lmao

No of course not

@@theklaus7436 Your proof being?

planck length expansion probably could be measured if it were a thing

@@josefanon8504 Against what?

@@glenncurry3041 Afaik planck length is tied to the planck constant, which can be measured to an accuracy of 13 ppb for now.

Dark energy has observable and measurable effects, therefore it is real. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it isn't real. Was air not real back before we could explain what makes the leaves move on the trees?

​@@stargazer7644 perhaps the problem is its name. sounds more like bogus than physics. perhaps it reminds of the aether theory.

@@josefanon8504Perhaps some time spent understanding why it is named what it is would help.

@@stargazer7644 It makes a ton of sense to me, but I understand why it wouldnt appeal to everyone, especially if they didnt dive deeper into the concept and only know physics from school.

We know what dark energy does, where it is, how much of it there is, how it effects spacetime, and that it cannot directly interact with normal matter/energy. How much more do you want? We’ll never have a picture of the stuff because it can’t interact with normal matter, including photons, so if you’re waiting for the day where a scientist points to a physical object and says “we found the dark energy, here it is.” Then you’ll be waiting forever.

we know were wrong but we just dont know how were wrong. its very simple.

I didn't make a calculation mistake. It was um.. neuklidions! Yeah! Now please give me 5 billion dollars so I can prove to you they're real.

@@whiteobama3032 this money you get for the machine. do you have to spend the money on the machine or can you keep the money? "i was gonna look for hyperaxioms but i cahnged my mind. im gonna use the money for something else". is this possible?

That it is negative. The Casimir effect gives you the difference in vacuum energy in two places, not the absolute value of it.