Big Mysteries: Dark Energy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- Scientists were shocked in 1998 when the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down as expected by our best understanding of gravity at the time; the expansion was speeding up! That observation is just mind blowing, and yet it is true. In order to explain the data, physicists had to resurrect an abandoned idea of Einstein's now called dark energy. In this video, Fermilab's Dr. Don Lincoln tells us a little about the observations that led to the hypothesis of dark energy and what is the status of current research on the subject.
Related video:
• Big Questions: Dark Ma... 
Наука
![Latto - Sunday Service (feat. Megan Thee Stallion & Flo Milli) [Remix] (Official Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9gL0F1xIt2I/mqdefault.jpg)
5:58 "The dude could have been famous" hahaha I died at that part
me too!
he was right in some sense, dude could have been called a god if he stood up with his original idea (cosmological constant). Now we'd know him not only for E=mc2 or relativity but also for gravity :D
physics humor ftw
Einstein who ? .....
@@coltmerg4202 who tf are these guys talking about?
Dr. Lincohn, you are my hero. just started to listen your audio book as well. thank you!
You are honestly doing probably the best possible thing you could possibly be doing thank you
You are getting better and better at video making.
Keep going!
Great presentation and humor throughout. Thank you for spending your time to help educate me. Keep this great work up!
I always learn so much when I go to Fermilab. Kudos. Rock on.
Thank you very much, this video was purely awesome. Just because of you I can now make a better presentation about dark energy. Keep up the good work, and props to the animation guy, he/she did a great job.
I hate you man . You never let me sleep . Once i open one of your videos i just can't stop . So informative and well organized . I guess i just like physics
Great video as always
"I won't ask you to be patient because it's hard for me too" IKR?!?!
Dr Lincoln, good job.
Another great video!
It would be interesting to hear more of the competing theories.
I agree dark matter and energy seem like bullshit to me..... don't agree with multiverse either
@@richardaitkenhead "Dark" just means that doesn't measure or interact with matter the way we know how to interact with and the way we understand it. Hard to disagree with something we don't know, that's a nonsecuater
Electric Universe theory is far more coherent. If you'd like to understand why the "standard" model of physics is so gravely flawed, you'll need to undergo a paradigm shift in thinking.
@@steveoh9025as webb is a time machine. The faster expansion "over there", is the faster expansion at the beginning of time, no?
Keep up the videos!
Thanks again, Doc!
Great video.
Awesome … very clear & understandable … thank … !
Question, I noticed that you did say the brightness measurements said the super novae where further away but you didn't say what the red-shift measurements told us. So...was the data in agreement?
10 years on and we're still waiting for someone to figure it out. That Dude will be famous.
Yeah... imagine if that Einstein guy became famous! Great vid.
very informative i always wondered how a scientist, cosmologist measured everything in the universe, although it might not always be accurate at least we can have a rough estimate
great explanation of dark energy and different different concepts.😘😘
THANK YOU... PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
It might be the gravity is an effect caused by the expansion of space. Expanding space also expends higgs fields that interact with mass particles. There is much more space outside the matter so we might imagine the gravity as being the outside pressure caused by the expending outside space and outside higgs field that push down and go trough the matter.
Bravo Stefane ja mislim da razmisljamo slicno i ja se slazem sa tvojim razmisljanjem, poz
Stefan Teofanovic that's stupid, imagine 2 objects. Your idea doesn't tell the direction of the force.
Before you move on to dark things... How exactly does this gravity work? And is it pulling or pushing?
Things with mass curve spacetime.
So it curves the path of an object.
It was tested on light. Light has no mass. So if gravity were a force, it would not work on light. The path light follows through curved spacetime is exactly as predicted by Einstein.
Also, gravity does not pull nor push. When you are in free fall, you are actually stationary in spacetime. You're not accelerating. If you were accelerating relative to spacetime, you'd be able to measure the force of it. (in G's...like the G's you would experience in a rocket).
Good Morning,
Sir please make a video on vaccum catastrophe
At around 7:30, it is said there are 10^80 atoms in the universe, and then that “this is 1 followed by 80 zeroes”. Actually, it’s 1 followed by 81 zeroes.
Very interested in learning more about quintessence and the different theories that are being bandied about...
Dennis Costa Essentially, the major difference is that the cosmological constant is, well, constant throughout space and time, while in quintessence models, the vacuum energy is variable. Most of the evidence supports the thesis that the effects of dark energy are the result of a cosmological constant; in fact, this is so widely accepted today that the ΛCDM model (e.g., lambda being the symbol for cosmological constant, CDM for cold dark matter) is increasingly referred to as the "standard model of cosmology." We've yet to rule out quintessence models, but Λ fits observations very well and involves fewer unknown phenomena than quintessence, so Occam's Razor favors ΛCDM.
Thank you.
I've just come up with a hypothesis for dark energy, when a sphere is rotated the part coming towards you appears to expand, whilst the part moving away appears to contract, likewise in the Universe there are two main systems that have contracting & expanding space-time, that of Black Holes & the Universe as a whole respectively, my idea is that these are the two "Poles" of a rotating hyper-dimensional Universe. It may be that the expansion isn't real but only apparent.
5:37 I love the eyebrow raise!
5:33 considering repulsive gravity, once a black hole collapses, the repulsive gravity should become stronger and stronger to the point where the very black hole should expand. But since it twists our space and time towards a single point thus creating a hole in our spacetime, the expansion can only happen in an alternate universe (in a form of a big bang). That would mean we are currently living in such a black hole that resides in an alternate parallel universe, and the dark energy (the expansion of our universe) is our momma black hole "feeding" on matter in its own universe.
Nope
Could open space have opposite space time curvature, or the Universe itself tends to have positive space time curvature? This would create anti gravity pushing galaxies apart, but as you get to the boundary, it would cross over into standard curvature and gravity would go the right way inside the galaxy?
What kind of uncertainty is there in a distance measurement made using the Type IA supernova method? At huge cosmic distances, does the expansion velocity become high enough you have to take relativistic effects into account? Does time-dilation due to the relative motion cause an additional red-shift to the doppler red-shift ?
That has all been taken into account. What is a bit uncertain is the amount of dust in the trajectory of 10 billion lightyears….
Por favor, si pueden envíar los videos con sub títulos en Español
From your explanation of the way the comparison, between Red-Shift and brightness of 1A Supernovas, are done suggests that one of the two methods is wrong. I do not see how this could be translated to mean that there is a hidden Dark Energy. Correct me if I am wrong, please!
Does dark matter and dark energy follow E=MC2? If not, can we really call it matter and energy in the same sense?
The distance measurements based on the inverse square law can be overestimated if the light is absorbed by interstellar media which follows an exponential decay. The conclusion oof that an universe in accelerated expansion might be wrong.
As I currently understand it to be, modern science recognizes that from a singular, very small, very dense, mass that basically existed in another dimension, (dimensions for me being defined as having different forces of nature, ours weren't in existence yet, but yet that mass had to exist and expand somehow, someway and had to have some sort of forces of nature that it existed by), everything in existence in this universe, including the forces of nature that it all operates by, all came into existence.
BUT, WHAT IF:
1. That singular mass wasn't so small?
2. That singular mass expanded in basically a 360 degree spherical shape?
3. That our universe is basically spherical with a hollow center?
4. That galaxies are actually expanding "up" and away from this central dimension that the singular mass existed in?
5. From our perspective in this universe, wouldn't we still perceive galaxies far from ours appear to be speeding up away from each other and away from us? (With the possible exception of a very slim line of galaxies along our "upward" expanding portion)?
6. If we existed long enough, would light photons "bend" around the spherical horizon to show us that the universe is spherical? Kind of like when early humans thought that the Earth was flat but yet in time found out it really wasn't?
What if there is one fundamental source from which all matter, energy and everything that exists in our universe arises from, similar to a program in a computer. Then the strange properties of the expansion of the universe could simply belong to a different algorithm than any of the forces we can measure (gravity etc) that affect particles and atoms. If that is the case then "dark energy" perhaps doesn't exist, space is simply like a "canvas" or a grid which contains matter and energy and is configured to expand at a certain rate.
That could also explain the instantaneous communication between particles in quantum entanglement experiments. Because at the root fundamental level there is no distance and no dimensions, it all arises from the same program, so no matter how large the universe is it's all ultimately connected in one single program.
And I'm not necessarily suggesting that we are living in a simulation created by something, there could simply be an infinite sea of these "programs" and our universe arose from one of them. If we accept that particles that behave in very specific ways can "pop into existence where there is nothing", then why not accept that a type of program that determines everything within our universe can do the same. At some point there exists something rather than nothing, and if that is true (which it must be) then why should there be a rule which says "only X can pop into existence from nothing, but not Y, because Y is complex".
What if time produce energy to expand space of universe, over and over from one unit of time to the next (planck time?)?
I don't know if I've mentioned this, but I have a pet theory about dark energy.
Imagine space as an infinite membrane. You'll need to reduce it to 2-D to picture it, but that's okay. Gravity well theory tells us that the universe , all matter and energy, is skating around on the top (apos) of this membrane. Like cars following an undulating road, everything follows this membrane. Thus, everything on it is able to interact. For some reason, everything on the top (apos) of the membrane wants to go down (kata), so it forms dips in the membrane. The more matter, the bigger the dip. We don't see it because light conforms to the shape of the membrane.
Two of the biggest questions in cosmic science are: Where is all the antimatter? and Where is all the missing mass?
What if the answer to both is that it's all on the bottom (zakos) of the membrane? If this is the case, the missing matter would form a parallel universe (literally parallel) which could not directly interact with ours. We would only be able to detect it by what it does to the membrane. As matter in our universe pulls down (kata), so matter in the parallel universe would pull up (ana). This would literally be anti-gravity. Matter in our universe would fall down the slopes created by the other universe and collect into enormous troughs, while the other universe would do the same on its side. Each universe would take on the appearance of a collection of strings and bubbles with the other one appearing as huge voids.
In short, it would be exactly what we observe.
Orenotter, okay, how would you test that hypothesis? i.e. What experiment could potentially falsify it?
When matter and antimatter anihilated each other they emitted 2 photons so antimatter is "everywhere" cross universe because everywhere is Electromagnetic radiation
The current matter in the universe that scientists look at does not include chemical element #119 (8s1) that would exist inside black holes and chemical element #120 (8s2) that would exist inside stars. You would have to have all the matter that actually exists to have an equation about the matter in the universe that actually exists, to properly equate.
The faintest galaxies are the most remote from us but are also the most remote in time? So those closer to us are more recent and slower? So aren’t things slowing down rather? Please explain why this thinking is wrong.
If the furthest objects appear to be moving the fastest,then as we are seeing them in the most distant past is it not correct to say they were moving fastest in the past,and if we move our prospective to them would it not appear they are moving at the same speed as we are now and we are moving at the same speed as they were.The time difference would give this illusion
Time machine Webb looks at the past, far away, when the universe was expanding faster then.
we love you...
Even regarding dark matter and dark energy theory, should the universe decelarate after a long time?
Possible. At the present time it seems to be accelerating.
Distant galaxies moving away from us appear reddish. But, relatively speaking, if they were stationary and we were being pulled into our galactic center's black hole faster and faster, the doppler effect seen would be the same. Or then again, maybe both are true, universe expanding plus we are being pulled towards our galactic center's black hole. Has anybody ever looked for a "blue shift" of energy between Earth and our galactic center's black hole along our spiral arm of our galaxy? Would probably be a complex curve also, kind of like a pin wheel.
In addition, if space and time were not truly a one to one relationship, maybe although space might be expanding, maybe time is slowing down at a faster rate as energy interactions slow down in this universe as the energy in this universe gets less and less dense. This could also possibly give us an illusion of a space expanding faster and faster.
In my opinion, the universe is expanding and meanwhile we are being affected by the black hole in the Milky Way. BUT we ARENT being pull toward it. Why? Is gravity on holiday? No. In fact, it is trying its best. To understand this, you have to know that there is space between us and the back hole. Every space in our universe are all expanding EQUALLY, so DOES the space between the black hole and us. The reason that the Milky Way isn't being pull apart is that the gravitational pull of its black hole is winning the battle against the expansion of space. But then the force of gravity is no longer enough to pull us toward it, and hence we aren't being pull at all. ( Or it has very little effect on us )
I like the use of the word ''observation'' (at about 6.50 in the video and in the accompanying text ). The subtle use of this misleading word is important as it keeps people believing that the universe is expanding - even though there are no actual measurements (or OBSERVATIONS) which show that the distance between all galaxies is increasing over time.
So in this big bang universe we have over 96% of the contents of the universe totally unaccounted for (the alleged dark matter and dark energy) and this is supposed to be a successful theory - well, I would hate to see what an unsuccessful theory looks like.
Your theory is an example of unsuccessful theory.
considering dark energy ,it is possible to explore other galaxies?????????
and how it will helpful for man kind ?????
this was awesome video thank you
so i learned this as a kid...
- "Every action, has an equal and opposite reaction"
but, i never understood this when it comes to gravity...
it seems obvious when talking about 2 objects touching each other (electromagnetic force)
but, when 2 objects (lets say the same size - 2 basketballs) are attracted to each other at a distance,
then, it is gravity acting on them...
if they both are moving toward each other, is that really an "opposite" force ?
my theory is that since photons can act over large distance, so can gravity...
and if all objects (with mass) are attracted to all other objects with mass,
then there should also be a repulsive force somewhere ?
maybe this is dark energy ?
According to Einstein, gravity is not a force. Gravity is the result of matter curving spacetime (in all four dimentions). This curviture curves the paths of objects.
An object in free fall is actually stationary. There is no force, thus no equal opposite force.
Free falling is exactly the same as just floating in outer space (in "zero gravity")
When a force accelerates you, like a rocket, you will feel the G's. If any force were acting on you, in any way, like "dark whatever" you would experience measurable acceleration. (measurable in G's)
Also, light doesn't have any mass. Yet gravity still works on light. Light follows Einstein's predicted paths exactly, when moving through curved space. (space curved by objects with mass)
So where do electromagnetic forces come in? In the vacuum of space, these properties of matter behave differently than any earth based perspective notions regarding gravity. Also, I thought the speed of light is a constant in any reference frame. So why do we get a red or blue frequency shift really? I'm listening,....
I think you've missed one most important ingredient that is force binding this quarks and leptons to form atom.
Funny how we stress how weak gravity is yet still felt it would hinder the expansion of our universe. . .now i wanna say i've heard the expansion is taking place at a rate equal to or greater than the speed of light. Either i didnt hear it right or perhaps they were wrong? But if this were true, wouldnt that render it impossible to see light originating from a source moving away from us at the same rate? Or would we see light from something long gone??
When Dr. Don Lincoln related the explosion of stars (supernovas), to the train's drop in pitch,it would be referred to as the Doppler Effect.
This is just a thought but, if diffused hydrogen/helium gas makes 5% of all matter+energy then, wouldn't the overall refractive index of space (assuming space is homogeneous over large scales) be >1? giving the illusion, "That the stars were farther away than expected." Or was that already taken into account?
Yes, believe it or not, physicists took into account intervening matter...
04:40" Dr. Lincoln states that the most distant galaxies are dimmer than expected, and therefore the universe is expanding more quickly.
But doesn't that imply that the expansion was faster in the past?
If the expansion is increasing, I would expect that the dimming and frequency shift would be more apparent in the nearest stars, because the light is the most recent. The light from the most distant stars is the oldest and should have had the least amount of shifting (proportionally, of course), wouldn't it?
Maybe the universe acts as a harmonic oscillator ?
Time to shed some light on the Dark or Electromagnetic plasma.
If galaxies further away are moving faster and light takes billions of years to get here from them wouldn't that mean that galaxies were moving faster long ago while closer galaxies with a more recent release of light are moving slower?
6 years later, still waiting 🙇🏻♂️
7 now still no answer
I wonder how they measure the color how red is red?
10 to the 80 in the universe. I'm assuming thats the visible universe?
Yes, I would assume that as well. Which is our big problem. The known universe keeps getting larger only because our instrumentation gets better. The concept of infinitely large seems to have escaped our postulations.
Maybe dark energy is everywhere at the calculated 10 power112; then space expands into dark energy which is reduced by dark matter or quantum gravity in space to 10 power-8
sir how do we know the proportions of the three ?
The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) data. Check it out, it's cool! 😉
@@sunstone6106 thanks man
What if the current understanding of gravity is not correct? Could this also be an explanation for the missing matter?
matter speeding up away in space, so everything ends up turning into light?
No just matter which will be turned/emited as light , for example stars emits their mass as light and black holes emits too like some form of radiation , some planets and moons and asteroids will be live until universe die and lastest source of light will be smallest stars and after them there will be white dwarfs which has ultra long live time.
Given 'errors' between observations and the math.........Is the universe really expanding at an accelerated rate? Or, is it another error due to theory missing a fundamental fact.....like Einstein's space-time correct of Newton?
Couldn't there be an energy source outside of our universe driving the expansion?
We have no way of even looking for it currently
NO
@@supremeeddy7779Why not?
Hi Dr.Don
Sorry for the silly question:
What is the speed of gravity??
I know we have been told it is equivalent to the speed of light...
But if its path is not affected by mass as same as light (my guess is from a center of mass to a center of mass)?
So gravity is faster then light.
Boom!!!
It will explain all the weird observations.
How can you examine my theory???
Thank you,
Oron Pilo.
gravity is a rotation is your 4-velocity vector on the geometry of spacetime.
when we say gravity moves at the speed of light, we mean the change in the curvature of the geometry move at the speed of light.
things only get affected by the local curvature near them, not a direct attraction between them.
i think that dark energy would be cold iron and magnetism. like when the hot iron moon core cools below curie temperature inside earths magnetic field? 🤔🤒 😧
What if the reason its dark is it doesn't exist in our universe but we feel its influence because how both place came in to being are directly related.
what about the idea of primordial black holes before the big bang and universes are just appearing and disappearing by ...........................
I think I could have an explanation what could be a dark energy.
Good luck getting published.
@@mysterymeat586People who publish are morons. They just need more LSD, for insightfulness, and then transmit their thought waves into the mind of others.
so if the universe accelerating what happens when galaxies reach the speed of light???
You have bad image of universe expanding , don´t think about galaxies moving because they don´t (can move on micro level), it´s just space which is moving . And reason of why we have particle horizont is that space behind it is moving faster than light so light can´t reach us. ( particle horizont is limit of our observable space )
@@OfficialDaddys2"space moving"? 🙄 What kind of twaddle is that? Space 1 moving against space 2 into space 3? You have to go easy on those shrooms.
In twenty billion years time, lets compare the two, our calculation now with our light mass theory, and the one then. It could be surely just wrong otherwise? Less not forget, we are just a spot on this scale. :P
What keeps the answer to the 5% value from being: we are in a low density area of the universe and we only see 5% matter in our observable universe?
Because he's talking about what we see (light coming from it) versus what we know is there (its effects). We know dark energy is there because we see the universe accelerating. We know dark matter exists because we can see the gravitational effects, but not light coming from it.
why can't we see this changes in atoms or in solar system.
How do we know that the universe has 1^80 atoms ??
Could dark energy eventually pull the universe into negative curvature?
"Negative curvature", which would be ...?
Only 1 Big Bang? At what point did the trigger occur?
There is no point in time, as time does not exist outside of space. Everything is just estimated measurements from year 0, when Jesus was born as it happens.
Is Vacuum energy an explanation for Dark Energy?
Nope. It produces 150 orders of magnitude wrong predictions.
Thanks Dr Lincoln, could it be that what we perceive as dark energy is evidence the universe is spinning in a higher dimension, i.e. as the universe expands, the centrifugal force imparted by spin is causing gravity to increasingly yield as things get more stretched out.
I have a theory the universe has fallen and crushed itself an infinite amount of times and every time it resurrects itself it becomes bigger and badder which explains the overwhelming scale
10 -22 sec.
Why is it called dark energy? Energy should have a source and due to entropy energy once used up should become useless. Can't it be a fifth force which is repulsive in nature and acts over very long distances thereby overcoming gravity? Part of the Red Shift which is observed for far away galaxies can be a manifestation of this force. Is this possible?
Many things are possible, but how will you test your hypothesis?
"Dark Energy" is just a name. It does not imply anything by itself. There is an observed phenomenon. It isn't completely understood what its causes and effects are, so it just gets a label.
Call it, "Weird Wind" or "Invisible Farts" or whatever you want.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-YourselfWhat's wrong with your literacy. They call it "energy" OK?
Dark matter are just waves of frequencies too low and wavelengths too long to be detectable, and dark energy are waves of still lower frequencies and still longer wavelengths. They may probably be spontaneous or induced radiations from atoms. They may eventually form future atoms.Thus a cycle: the steady state cosmology theory of Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondie and Thomas Gold of the 1950's.
So does gravity actually contract space itself, just the opposite of dark energy? If so why wouldn't dark energy be considered a 5th fundamental force?
We haven't figured out what is it yet and it is not a force, it's energy. By the way, gravity hasn't been explained using quantum mechanics and many people doubt it is a force as well. It makes the curvature of space-time, but this is another subject.
@@metamorph5286"we"? You and who else, please?
we call universe only the observable universe, we dont know how big is really the all universe only the part the light has reach us, so we probably never know big is it cause the light will never reach us.
Is the amount of space increasing, or is the dimension of space increasing?
Amount
What if the galaxies are coloured red from the beginning?
Nope, then we should start all over again with our understanding of stars. We think we got at least that right.
you think a bunch of scientist would be able to make a video that doesn't look like its from the 90's in 2014
Why do you pronounce the word "and", "aay-yand"?
gravity of nabering unaverices
Assumes mass of universe is constant
Einstein, Einstein, Einstein.
Einstein believed that the universe should make sense without "spooky" like dark matter and energy. Remember, these things are fudges to make the math work out and sort fit observations. It makes more sense to think of history....Newton explained a lot but observations didn't quit fit......Einstein see the missing part and then corrects the errors in Newton. So, that means we need to find the concept, non-spooky, to correct the errors in Einstein's equations and observations. Quantum inertia???? Maybe, some improved relativity?
The force of dark energy created a reaction from dark matter thus the Big Bang after all the composition of the universe is dark mater and dark energy
4-D Hypershere model of Universe can easily explain Gravitation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Void, Accelerated Expansion and even the reason why the measurement values of Expansion Rate are around 70 km/sec-Mpc
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Void and Antigravity, ... all these are same phenomena. They just look different.
The problem of modern physics is they're trying to explain everything with particle physics and the physics is being cornered more and more to the dead end. To escape the dead end, they invent or design another imaginary particle in vain instead of trying to revise their way to approach to the problem.
I agree to the idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena.
That's because gravity is not a force.
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Antigravity, Void... all these are just joint effects of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime.
Details are given below.
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass.
This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation.
Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime.
However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass.
This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity.
So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method.
An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime.
In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime.
So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass?
The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time.
Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one.
Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t.
We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time.
Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time.
The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions.
The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it.
The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions.
The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble.
The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects.
So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it.
These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass.
Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter.
Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface.
These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat.
This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other.
It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating.
The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy.
The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy.
Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows.
As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model.
Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second.
Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s.
This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer.
At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc).
Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as:
Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc
The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 +/- 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close.
There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted.
- Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
And what if time is expanding as so the 3D universe? The "second" would be "bigger" than "before". And if time is expanding but our perception of time does not, it appears that universe expands faster. That's just a theory. Let theorical physicits discuss it. ^^
Is dark energy spherical where the universe is flat because of its increasingly greater force?