The Vacuum Catastrophe: Physics' Worst Prediction—Wrong By 10^122 (Still Unsolved) | Penrose Reveals скачать в хорошем качестве

The Vacuum Catastrophe: Physics' Worst Prediction—Wrong By 10^122 (Still Unsolved) | Penrose Reveals

Nobel laureate Sir Roger Penrose reveals physics' most embarrassing failure: The vacuum catastrophe (cosmological constant problem)—quantum field theory predicts vacuum energy density of 10^113 J/m³, but cosmological observations measure 10^-9 J/m³. Wrong by 10^122 (120 orders of magnitude). Worst prediction in science history. Discover why vacuum isn't empty: zero-point energy (quantum fields never reach zero—uncertainty principle), Casimir effect (measured—proves vacuum energy real), virtual particles (quantum fluctuations everywhere). The calculation: sum all field modes up to Planck cutoff → enormous energy. The observation: dark energy/cosmological constant → tiny energy. Why we're catastrophically wrong: (1) Supersymmetry cancellation? (SUSY not found at LHC—incomplete solution), (2) Anthropic principle? (multiverse selection—giving up on explanation), (3) QFT wrong about vacuum? (but QFT spectacularly successful elsewhere), (4) GR wrong about how vacuum gravitates? (but GR spectacularly successful), (5) Fine-tuning to 120 decimal places? (absurdly contrived). Penrose's CCC angle: maybe vacuum energy evolves across aeons (conformal rescaling). 50 years unsolved. Something fundamentally wrong with vacuum/QFT/gravity understanding. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The content shared on this channel is prepared for educational, informational, and commentary purposes. Scientists mentioned or whose visuals are used in the videos are introduced based on information obtained from publicly available sources. The photographs and visuals used are utilized for the purposes of criticism, commentary, education, and information within the scope of fair use principles. This channel has no official affiliation, partnership, or representative relationship with the individuals or institutions mentioned. The shared content does not constitute academic advice or an official opinion; it aims to provide the audience with general knowledge and scientific awareness.