The vast majority of this work was carried out by PhD students Zac Lane, Antonia Seifert, and Marco Galoppo. They did a fantastic job working through a whole lot of problems to get to this point!
I’ve worked on a great concept similar to this one but no one on forums will listen to me 😅 Can I share it with you? Are you a safe space? I just wanna help contribute to the progression of mankind. We are so intelligent, all of us. There’s no reason we are still dealing with this bs we deal with today 😭
Congratulations! I greatly admire their courage to explore an alternative cosmological model!!! I spent 21 years mis-teaching the dark energy and dark matter concepts to undergrads. Sadly, I had never heard of timescapes. I retired from teaching this past May. As with the proposer of Timescapes, I was born, raised, and educated in NZ.
Exquisite explanation, ended up here from Cool Worlds. It’s marvellous to live in a time where the deepest scientific questions are available to a layman such as myself because of expert presenters such as yourself. Thank you for helping me experience the scientific process in action. Subbed right away. Merry Christmas.🏍️🇨🇦
I greatly admire your courage to explore an alternative cosmological model. I spent 21 years teaching undergrads about dark energy and dark matter. Over time, my doubts only grew. Toward the end, I felt like I was in a mental prison where I was forced to deceive hundreds of students. I am so HAPPY to hear about a highly plausible alterative!
As a science teacher you are deceiving your students if you are selling them the idea that a scientific theory is definitive and is the "truth". If instead you are emphasising that a theory is valid until new observational evidence comes along that forces it to be improved, adapted or outright abandoned, then there's no deception.
@@kwarsha Exactly. I'm not a scientist, just a layperson who enjoys popular science. I never take dark matter or dark energy too seriously. They're just models. They're not necessarily "the truth". I assume in the future they might or might not be confirmed. In any case, I doubt our current understanding would be entirely correct. That's how I explain it to my kids. This is our current model but it's jut a model that might be right or might not be right. Go to college, maybe you'll figure it out.
The "smoothed out" measures of the Universe always made me worry. The vast voids and the Cosmic Clusters and Strings, had densities that were not homogeneous. The Great Attractor, is a mystery. Measurement itself is more difficult and imprecise, the further away things are. Great works all.
There are a lot of science theories that work from flawed assumptions and this is just one example, and a painful one at that! It is astonishing that this and dark matter have existed as long s they have. 95% of the universe's mass and energy is not detectable? Bah, not a chance! The problem is in the model, obviously. I just can't believe it took this long to come up with the right model (I've been arguing for this same thing but I never heard of this model name before). I believe it is due to that basic assumption of homogeneous you mentioned. Scientists just don't look too hard at assumptions made by the theorists.
Yeah, the universe we can measure doesn’'t appear very homogeneous to me as a geospatial scientist rather than an astronomer or physicist. Read my words carefully: It doesn't have to be dark matter or energy that we cannot measure, it can also be interactions with other universes, including even many worlds forks of our own.
Questions over the structure of the universe - at the scale of the universe itself - are for philosophers not physicists or astronomers! Otherwise you'll watch physicists trying to pull their own theories up by their own bootstraps!
@@TheGotoGeek (Taps keys on keyboard to find paper showing where we actually "observe" dark matter) Hm, I cant find the paper to support your assertion that dark matter is an observation. We cannot seem to observe it. We observe the EFFECTS of it, though. So what it is called when we can't see/observe something that we think should be there? We create a theory about what it is and how it should work. That is a model.
@@stevenverrall4527 And while QM is a good model for explaining how the subatomic world works in a predictive sense, it is not reality, but rather CM is reality.
Dark matter is an observation, not a model. There’s currently no viable model to explain the observations of what we call dark matter. Dark energy is an observation that can be explained in an homogenous universe GR model by bringing back a term that had been discarded from GR after the Hubble expansion was observed. The thinking probably went along the lines of 1. Observations indicate an acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. 2. GR already has a term to account for acceleration in the expansion rate. C: We’ll just use that term, even though it was an ad hoc addition to the theory in the first place. There’s an obvious flaw in this argument.
@@TheGotoGeek Yea but it is a "thought" that we created to make the observation work with out mathematics. I feel exactly like Cheesepuff here, it feels like it was put in place to make everything work the way we thought it works. I am all in for the Timescape model.
Found you via Cool Worlds. I don't want to jump the gun but I have to confess this is unbelievably exciting news. I never thought a satisfactory solution to dark energy would be proposed within my own lifetime, how amazing it would be for that to be proven wrong.
The Timescape model just feels right. Occam’s razor also favors it, unless it is falsified with future observations/data analyses. What does it predict for the future size/development of the universe? Big Crunch? Would love a video on that front :)
it does seem to imply that the accelerating expansion of the universe through dark energy is an illusion caused by the effects of these supervoids on the redshift of light, the question remains to be answered: can gravity catch up to the expansion? so while we can't say it's for sure a big-crunch, it seems more likely as matter condenses and its higher density creates stronger gravitational pull.
@@lionelmessisburner7393 the expansion of the universe is still a thing with the timescapes model, but because it rules out dark energy, it explains the apparent "acceleration" of the expansion as being the effect of gravity on time dilation . the universe still expands, but doesn't seem that the expansion is speeding up
@@LightBringer666 I'm a proponent of a universe that is not expanding at all. The big bang theory, just like dark energy, is just an illusion, caused by this same mechanism. The data coming out of JWST is certainly pointing to this when you consider that it looks like there are fully formed galaxies in the "early universe just after the big bang". I suspect that for the big bang/expansion to finally die we need a better explanation of the CMB, then the big bang goes pop.
I love this. It's emotionally comforting to have a potential explanation for cosmic expansion that doesn't need dark energy. It always felt like dark energy was similar to ether in the early explanations for light propagation.
I read one estimate of a 35% decrease in the speed of time (average) in the Milky Way compared to a void. Assuming an object could grow 1 mm an Earth year, if you place one in the Milky Way for 50 years, it would grow to 50 mm yet we would observe the same object growing to nearly 77 mm in the void. It really changes my perception when we say the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, but objects/places in the universe could have experienced 21 billion or more years of time.
Time being relative is one of the coolest, and most mind bending things to come from relativity. Its fascinating to think that a ship lost in a void could have billions of years more time pass by compared to us.
If time is 35% faster in the Milky Way, than that would mean 18.6 billion years passed in the void while 13.8 billion passed here. The "average" timed passed throughout the universe, across void and galactic space, would probably be somewhere between those two numbers, right?
I vividly remember being in Cosmology class as an undergraduate learning the Friedmann equations and thinking ‘this is all based on quite an assumption’. The first ‘dark energy’ supernova study data were announced while I was an undergrad. Interesting how things are developing….
Thanks Ryan - I wish I had found your video before I read the paper (3 times), your crisp and clear explanation makes a lot of sense and answered some lingering niggles I had - decades since I did anything this mathematical so the video really has helped. One thing that got my attention recently was a documentary I was watching that showed how a line of whirlpools formed during tidal races where a tidal river flows thorugh a really narrow and shallow gap between two islands - it reminded me of the models of the Universe we see with all the galaxies embedded in the "strings". What I found amazing was how many small whirlpools ended up "orbiting" bigger whirlpools, often absorbing them, and some of the bigger ones would interact with each other - spiral in, swing past each other, then move apart, with the gap getting smaller and smaller until they combine. In the video this happened in minutes, you could literally watch thermodynamics (inflow and outflow water are at different temps apparently) and fluid dynamics at work - it just looked like a minute string of the Universe - I did wonder if the galaxies are simply "eddies" in the flow of matter as the Universe expands and this is, in part, why we have the "strings" and the voids - perhaps the voids are not voids at all, but areas of stability where the matter remains largely inert. Anyway, enough of a ramble through the weeds of my mind, I have subscribed so look forward to seeing more informative videos. Hope you, the team and all your families have a great Christmas and wonderful New Year.
The Timescape model is an incredibly exciting way of interpreting the cosmos that makes so much sense and for me, an approach that feels far more in alignment with GR. It has had my head spinning since its publication. Approaching red shift from the perspective of time dilation is so eloquent. Best of luck with the testing and additional research!
The standard model is built on a fundamental assumption everything is roughly homogeneous at sufficient scale, which allows for a lot of simplification. The timescape model throws out that assumption, meaning things that could be previously ignored are suddenly important.
Thank you Ryan, Or perhaps better Dr. Ridden these days, lol. Took years of work, but you've earned your place and I mean no disrespect for my casual reference. You and Cool Worlds (David Kipping (Dr) have given me years of mind expanding knowledge and both of you have such enthusiasm for science and space. The older I get, the more I realize that no matter how much knowledge we gather, there is always something more to be learned. Thank you for acknowledging the work of humble students, their research is and always has been vital and they never seem to get the recognition they deserve. Academia has a bad habit of being hidebound and resistant to new and "radical" theories that challenge their views, but you're a bit different in that you want the TRUTH, instead of blindly seeking confirmation of your own ideas. Never change, that joy of discovery is what brought me to your channel, and keeps me tuned in to see what you've found out.
The mathematical complexity of General Relativity needs to be appreciated. The Einstein Field Equations look straightforward enough, but applying them to come up with solutions to create cosmological models is indeed difficult. The thought and hard work that went into creating the Timescape model as a possible alternative to Lambda-CDM certainly deserves credit, whatever the eventual verdict turns out to be.
After deciding against a PhD, I wound up working in software instead of physics. 3 years ago I left my career in software behind to work on a model that's loosely related to this. I was able to derive multiple directly observed quantities that are completely unaccounted for by either SR or GR, and this was achieved with only the slightest modification to Einstein's SR that then of course produces a modified GR. The difference is that SR and GR and much more formally unified in the model I've been working on, and this is all accomplished without the need for time dilation or even 4-vectors. To sum up the model: - All 4 vectors are collapsed to relativistic 3 vectors. - Gamma is applied to space, with time dilation occurring only as a secondary effect. - This space dilation is then bound with the equivalence principle. - By binding this proposed spatial dilation with gravitational acceleration, it's straight forward to find a velocity required to produce our local gravitational acceleration. - Cosmic inflation becomes just a sum of all gravitational accelerations in the Universe, multiplied by some proportionality scalar. - After modifying that formula to accommodate the use of relativistic 3 vectors instead of 4 vectors, as time itself is now described by the principle of gravitational acceleration/ cosmic inflation, we find a value that fits well within 1% of direct observation through SNe and CMB data. Where it's going: - The proposed model describes our 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension as a 3 dimensional, expanding geometry. - Because of this, there exists new opportunities to unify electromagnetism with gravity through some modifications to Maxwell's equations. This is what I'm currently working on now, or at least when I have time to work on it. I gave up everything for this model, and became homeless in the process. Over the course of this fiasco, I created my own academic/STEM focused note taking app/framework that I'm now hoping to release to the public for free in the next month in an attempt to draw attention to this model. Alongside the documentation for that framework, I've published some of my notes on the matter as a sort of demo. If you're curious, you find those docs if you look up my username.
Fantastic work, this is an exciting model to shake up cosmology. What sort of cosmological simulations are needed in the future to aid the Timescape model? Assuming the current dark matter nobody/SPH simulations aren’t adequate.
The size of the universe both terrifies & fascinates me, looking at nebula & other structures like filaments the vastness of it is mind blowing, but i suppose to a virus the human body is a massive universe with incredible structures, muscle that close up probably looks like the star nursery's in the nebula. Its all relative i suppose. Edit: sorry if i waffled a tad i was typing and thinking at the same time and i don't always make sense to anyone bar me lol.
Thank you for such a clear explanation on what is undoubtedly an incredibly complicated subject. This sounds like it could be very significant in our understanding of the universe's evolution. I wonder, if the timescape model is shown to be more accurate, if it would have an indirect implication for dark matter too.
I think there's always been something unsatisfying about dark energy and dark matter of LCDM, perhaps because it's been a placeholder for something we can't observe and don't understand. I hope many scientists will revel at idea of doing away with it. I certainly do.
*IF*, in the coming years, this new model becomes more widely accepted, won't it throw a spanner in the works of lots of other "currently" accepted models such as: The age of the universe, its evolution toward the future etc? I think I prefer this new model as it negates the "need" for something unknown/imaginary to describe what we see. It kinda makes sense that the CMB looks homogeneous simply because of its scale and the "averaging-out" of all its components between the voids and filaments. It also neatly accounts for all the massively red-shifted galaxies JWST sees at ridiculous distances where there (theoretically) shouldn't be any. This is VERY exciting!
I wonder if this relativity can eliminate the need for dark matter too, or provide a basis for MOND and why the rate of gravity effects don't dissipate as quickly as we expect. As we move further from the galactic core, time moves faster, making objects appear to orbit faster.
MOND is quite a different beast. We have galaxies that seem empty but seem to contain a lot of dark matter, and ones that seem empty that seem to contain lower amounts. That is hard to fit with modified gravity. It is much easier to make those work with invisible matter.
@@marsovac haha certainly a fudge factor has the ability to match observations a lot more closely by definition. And, yeah, MOND has some discrepancies which, I'm wondering, might be addressed by the consideration of this timescape.
Nice video on this work, I’ve read several of the (Wiltshire) group’s papers from recent years. The problem I had was the issue of homogeneity scale, say 300Mpc+. As you say, the early universe was homogeneous, but with the growth of structure the scale has changed. How much more data and at what distances is required to solidify this scale? Does it overlap with the era of where dark energy is measured to accelerate expansion?
You may wish to buy Prof. Kipping a beer (or other beverage of his choice). His shout out pointed me here. This paper represents an excellent move forward; it also reduces the level of the suspension of disbelief in the conversation around "dark stuff".
What I find weird with cosmology is it seems to confuse frame of references. Like the lamdaCDM model is supposed to be general and absolute, it's why structures don't matter and the point of view does not matter either. If you calculate candles, now you are not in that relativistic framework anymore, but in a cartesian one. So I would expect the other model would not work, but another one that looks from our point of view to work. The most important structure is our own. Now, is it really the structure of baryons that create the expansion? I doubt it. I would suggest it is just time, which leads to entropy, which leads to the structure. You have to get rid of the relativistic vision of time if you are to use candles. In cartesian/Newton frame of reference, which is our point of view as being the center of the Universe, time goes forward, which gives the impression of the Universe expanding. It just takes the light longer to reach us because the events are at different times. If you look at something like 1 billion years ago, it takes time to reach us. It's that difference that makes us see a red shift and give us the impression the Universe is expanding, but it might not be true. You have to take that difference out before checking an actual expansion. In theory it could be crunching and we would still see an expansion. So your research seems to suggest that the Universe "expanded" at first, then reached an harmony with the relativistic model, and now is crunching a bit (which could be caused by far away galaxies gaining energy in some way, or more mass). It's hard to tell without looking at each of those candles individually.
I, as many, came here from cool worlds, and am amazed at not having found this channel before, as well as it not having subscribers well above its current number.
Came to your channel after cool worlds mentioned it. Great video with a clear explanation that even I, as someone with no astronomical/cosmological background can follow. Thank you and I subbed to watch your old and new videos.
This feels much more sensible than the Dark Energy Model. Could it also explain Dark Matter? If clocks spin faster in lower gravity environments, the outer reaches of galaxies with less mass would appear to spin faster than expected relative to the high-mass, slow clock center of the galaxy.
This is the first explanation for dark energy that I find truly interesting. It seems to hold some actual, tangible potential. And it also "simplifies" the explanation to once again, as has happened multiple times before, being an effect of general relativity. A theory that has proven time and time again that it's incredibly solid and accurate. Instead of some hypothetical but as of yet undiscovered particle or field, or an effect of the already incredibly weird and hard to understand world of quantum physics. I'm going to keep an eye on this one. :) If proven to be true it would make the universe a bit less mysterious, but at the same time it would be a huge step forward for physics. (If only so we can maybe, for the most part, stop looking for something that doesn't seem to exist.)
One thing that is not explicitly stated about this model is if the universe as a whole is expanding or not, and if it is accelerating or not? If it is not, then how did the homogeneity at last scattering come about? If it is, then what is driving the expansion if not dark energy? I am assuming that this model does not get rid of the initial singularity, inflation, and dark matter of the current standard cosmological model.
The timescape model leaves everything but the _acceleration_ of universal expansion the same as the current lambda CDM model, replacing dark energy with the underlying thesis is that expansion is affected by time dilation. So while every reference frame sees growth at the same number of kilometers per megaparsec per second, space in voids will see more time pass than space in galaxies, effectively accelerating expansion as dilation goes to zero. I should also note that dark energy itself is also only an explanation of the acceleration. It's got nothing to do with why universal expansion exists in the first place.
If aliens ever did come down and we had an exchange of ideas, if then we try to explain to them our theories of dark matter and dark energy they would probably laugh at us
Lookin back in time is more like looking down an energy gradient. Looking further away for light does nothing on the larger scales. As each level of the gradient is here with you now.
Finally! I don't know how so few people seemed bothered that cosmology was relying on two "dark things" about which we know nothing but are necessary for our "best" model to work. In many ways it seems even worse than a God of the Gaps. Something like this is far more satisfying, and dare I say... Scientific?
Great video! Could you explain exactly how slower clocks in voids creates the effect of all supernovae at a certain redshift appearing further away than we’d expect?
Timescapes sounds very interesting but isn't it incompatible with measurements of the fine structure constant at high z? Like, the expansion of space isn't identical to time dilation. Both can create a redshift, but you can tell one from the other by checking that the fine structure constant is, well, constant. Right?
Is it possible that the red shift itself is impacted by immense time, mass, and distance of the universe causing our interpretation of the shift to be inaccurate?
In short, can you explain to the layman how much slower the clock runs in the filaments, galaxies, voids and so on? I would think that the difference would be very small, but it somehow adds up?
A model where there is no acceleration of expansion cannot predict heat death. Either expansion perfectly balances gravity as is and remains an infinite universe, or gravity wins over expansion at some point and it ends up in a big crunch. However in TimeScape there is no realy heat death since at local scales there is no expansion of the universe, in gravity dense areas gravity wins a priory to the expansion, and if expansion acceleration doesn't exist, then these regions will never experience heat death. At most it will be distant galaxies go futher away and close ones get closer and that's it. You will "see less stars", but you will not dissipate.
If you need a programmer and animator/technical artist to help create data visualizations, animations, simulations, etc to aid this research or help communicate it then let me know. I really like and support this research because "dark matter" has never really sat right with me and I've long suspected we'd just gotten things wrong and were trying to add "cosmic fudge" to fix our mistakes, lol.
@@RyanRidden it's post doctoral research followship temporary or permanent position? Are you have professor permanent job position at current university? Do you have to finding the permanent professor job opportunities at different universities( or current university)?
@@asiagreen5658 most postdocs are temporary like mine. My current funding covers me for the next year or so. I'm definitely on the hunt for a permanent position, but they are pretty challenging to get. There are a lot of fantastic astronomers out there!
I hope the triumphant ‘I knew my ignorant emperors new clothes assumptions would be proven correct!1!!’ comments that also lump in dark matter aren’t too depressing
At the least, if there is no dark energy, then the expansion of the universe will slow down eventually. That could be an interesting thing to study for future scientists.
On a different but similar note, do you think that Dark Matter is real? I always assumed that it is not, that Relativity should explain the effect. My understanding is that when calculating the proper rotation curves of spiral galaxies Astrophysicists (and the like) are using Newtonian gravity because GR is too complex, and they assume the added effects are too small (2nd+ order). But if you do not include GR you are leaving out the gravitation effects of galactic angular momentum, frame dragging from the galactic spin, and time dilation. I do not have access to the stellar database, nor the prerequisite math, in order to confirm if the effects are small or are as large as I suspect that they are.
I've never bought into the idea of dark matter and dark energy. They have a strong "Our math didn't math so we made something up to make it math" vibe. It also pushed science in an almost faith-based direction. "Trust me bro, you can't see it but it's there". "There" conveniently being "not here". While the timescape model may yet be disproven it is a far more simple and elegant explanation of what we observe.
It would be nice to avoid The Emperor's New clothes syndrome for every single scientific theory out there. Science *should* always roll with the punches. It could be different issues like maybe some insecurities are there or it's necessary for putting up a facade for funding purposes.
Well, the math bro's have a good track record though. Bunch of jolly old dude from the 19th century with hardly any tools to look in the sky, made some bold statements that in the past 50 years proved to be true. They did it purely based on you guessed it, math...
It's very tempting. The big bang relies on relativity, why then can't it just explain the apparent expansion itself? If this turns to be truth it would be the biggest palm face ever.
I think dark matter and dark energy is the vacuum. You can't have nothingness, we know the vacuum presses against things depending on the distance of things. The vacuum takes up 90%~ of everything just like dark matter and dark energy. The issue is we view things in a limited amount of dimensions. I believe the solution is treating the number of dimensions to be unique directions. Basically making the number of dimensions equal to the reverse square law. The further away from a point the higher the number of directions or dimensions. Quantum phenomenon is due to there being so few dimensions at that scale. Entanglement is when things are only sperated by some dimensions but not all. The waveform collapse happens when you introduce a mix new dimensions in the quantum system through interaction.
I have serious doubts about dark matter as well so I wonder if the Timescape model depends on assuming the existence of dark matter or if dark matter were taken out of the calculation how that graph would look. Pavel Kroupa falsified dark matter halos (which supposedly explain the galaxy rotation curves) in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies to five sigma in his 2016 paper based on observational data. The recent paper by McGaugh et al. based on JWST data showing early galaxy formation matches a MOND model much better than a Lamda CDM model. Add to that 100 percent failure of every experiment to detect any type of dark matter and I think it's reasonable to doubts.
Dark matter as an explanation has a lot of data behind it. The McGaugh paper itself acknowledges that the paper does not invalidate Dark Matter. I am not sure if MOND is right or not but it has some serious issues itself.
The Universe is still expanding in Timescape, its just that the voids are expanding. The more volume the voids occupy the faster the observed expansion. The same observable phenomena happen, just without dark energy.
@@mr.mirror1213 i have no clue at all but my guess is that gravity driven aggregation of mass would lead to concentration of mass in more and more dense regions while leaving more space without mass in it. i.e. thinning out of cosmic strings due to the flow of mass towards local centres which themselves should become denser and denser while the density of mass in the surrounding areas gets less: less space with things in it and more space without things in it.
@@RyanRiddendoes that mean the Friedman equations and scale factor ‘a’ are still valid in Timescape? They just represent voids instead of space itself expanding?
@@mr.mirror1213 Could be wrong, but I think it's the pull of the areas where mass is concentrated. Relating it to the trampoline analogy of spacetime, it's not that the trampoline is being pulled apart outward, it's that each of the masses on the trampoline are getting more concentrated and poking deeper into it and thus stretching the trampoline surface in the direction of all the masses on it.
First time watching the channel. I've subscribed. It's becoming increasingly difficult to get recommended legit channels like this in science as most are AI channels ugh 😒
![The Dark Matter of AI [Mechanistic Interpretability]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UGO_Ehywuxc/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
The vast majority of this work was carried out by PhD students Zac Lane, Antonia Seifert, and Marco Galoppo. They did a fantastic job working through a whole lot of problems to get to this point!
I’ve worked on a great concept similar to this one but no one on forums will listen to me 😅 Can I share it with you? Are you a safe space? I just wanna help contribute to the progression of mankind. We are so intelligent, all of us. There’s no reason we are still dealing with this bs we deal with today 😭
Dr. Wiltshire would like to have a word...
Congratulations! I greatly admire their courage to explore an alternative cosmological model!!!
I spent 21 years mis-teaching the dark energy and dark matter concepts to undergrads. Sadly, I had never heard of timescapes. I retired from teaching this past May.
As with the proposer of Timescapes, I was born, raised, and educated in NZ.
It's beautiful...
Thank you for honoring your PhD students! Shows integrity!
Came from Prof. David Kippings channel Cool Worlds, subscribbed right away, don't know how i've never seen this channel before but great content.
Same for me and to add an excellent explanation
Same here 👍
Same! It came up in my feed after watching Cool Worlds
Me too. This feels far more likely. No need for a made-up thing.
Exquisite explanation, ended up here from Cool Worlds. It’s marvellous to live in a time where the deepest scientific questions are available to a layman such as myself because of expert presenters such as yourself. Thank you for helping me experience the scientific process in action. Subbed right away. Merry Christmas.🏍️🇨🇦
And not only "experts" but THE very people that are working on all of this.
I greatly admire your courage to explore an alternative cosmological model.
I spent 21 years teaching undergrads about dark energy and dark matter. Over time, my doubts only grew. Toward the end, I felt like I was in a mental prison where I was forced to deceive hundreds of students. I am so HAPPY to hear about a highly plausible alterative!
That’s so interesting
As a science teacher you are deceiving your students if you are selling them the idea that a scientific theory is definitive and is the "truth". If instead you are emphasising that a theory is valid until new observational evidence comes along that forces it to be improved, adapted or outright abandoned, then there's no deception.
@@kwarsha Exactly. I'm not a scientist, just a layperson who enjoys popular science. I never take dark matter or dark energy too seriously. They're just models. They're not necessarily "the truth". I assume in the future they might or might not be confirmed. In any case, I doubt our current understanding would be entirely correct. That's how I explain it to my kids. This is our current model but it's jut a model that might be right or might not be right. Go to college, maybe you'll figure it out.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter have always felt like the Phlogiston model of combustion in early chemistry.
It’s interesting to me how this “feels” more accurate and gives me that reality flavor
The simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be true.
@ Occam is still sharp
The "smoothed out" measures of the Universe always made me worry. The vast voids and the Cosmic Clusters and Strings, had densities that were not homogeneous. The Great Attractor, is a mystery. Measurement itself is more difficult and imprecise, the further away things are. Great works all.
There are a lot of science theories that work from flawed assumptions and this is just one example, and a painful one at that! It is astonishing that this and dark matter have existed as long s they have. 95% of the universe's mass and energy is not detectable? Bah, not a chance! The problem is in the model, obviously. I just can't believe it took this long to come up with the right model (I've been arguing for this same thing but I never heard of this model name before). I believe it is due to that basic assumption of homogeneous you mentioned. Scientists just don't look too hard at assumptions made by the theorists.
Yeah, the universe we can measure doesn’'t appear very homogeneous to me as a geospatial scientist rather than an astronomer or physicist. Read my words carefully: It doesn't have to be dark matter or energy that we cannot measure, it can also be interactions with other universes, including even many worlds forks of our own.
Questions over the structure of the universe - at the scale of the universe itself - are for philosophers not physicists or astronomers! Otherwise you'll watch physicists trying to pull their own theories up by their own bootstraps!
@@ronrothrock7116 (Taps sign) Dark matter is an observation, not a model.
@@TheGotoGeek (Taps keys on keyboard to find paper showing where we actually "observe" dark matter) Hm, I cant find the paper to support your assertion that dark matter is an observation. We cannot seem to observe it. We observe the EFFECTS of it, though. So what it is called when we can't see/observe something that we think should be there? We create a theory about what it is and how it should work. That is a model.
Thanks for being so good at explaining complex things in a way an enthusiastic layman can understand!
Feyman said if you think you understand QM then it means that you do not understand QM
@@chazwyman However, Timescapes and general relativity (from which Timescapes is derived) are purely classical models.
@@stevenverrall4527 And while QM is a good model for explaining how the subatomic world works in a predictive sense, it is not reality, but rather CM is reality.
I always thought dark matter and energy were kinda placeholders for less wacky explanations, same with some of quantum physics
Dark matter is an observation, not a model. There’s currently no viable model to explain the observations of what we call dark matter.
Dark energy is an observation that can be explained in an homogenous universe GR model by bringing back a term that had been discarded from GR after the Hubble expansion was observed. The thinking probably went along the lines of
1. Observations indicate an acceleration of the expansion of the Universe.
2. GR already has a term to account for acceleration in the expansion rate.
C: We’ll just use that term, even though it was an ad hoc addition to the theory in the first place.
There’s an obvious flaw in this argument.
@@TheGotoGeek Yea but it is a "thought" that we created to make the observation work with out mathematics. I feel exactly like Cheesepuff here, it feels like it was put in place to make everything work the way we thought it works.
I am all in for the Timescape model.
Found you via Cool Worlds. I don't want to jump the gun but I have to confess this is unbelievably exciting news. I never thought a satisfactory solution to dark energy would be proposed within my own lifetime, how amazing it would be for that to be proven wrong.
The Timescape model just feels right. Occam’s razor also favors it, unless it is falsified with future observations/data analyses.
What does it predict for the future size/development of the universe? Big Crunch?
Would love a video on that front :)
it does seem to imply that the accelerating expansion of the universe through dark energy is an illusion caused by the effects of these supervoids on the redshift of light, the question remains to be answered: can gravity catch up to the expansion? so while we can't say it's for sure a big-crunch, it seems more likely as matter condenses and its higher density creates stronger gravitational pull.
@@LightBringer666does this theory rule out inflation/eternal inflation? Or just have not much relation to it? Or just rule out some types?
@@lionelmessisburner7393 the expansion of the universe is still a thing with the timescapes model, but because it rules out dark energy, it explains the apparent "acceleration" of the expansion as being the effect of gravity on time dilation . the universe still expands, but doesn't seem that the expansion is speeding up
@@LightBringer666 I'm a proponent of a universe that is not expanding at all. The big bang theory, just like dark energy, is just an illusion, caused by this same mechanism. The data coming out of JWST is certainly pointing to this when you consider that it looks like there are fully formed galaxies in the "early universe just after the big bang". I suspect that for the big bang/expansion to finally die we need a better explanation of the CMB, then the big bang goes pop.
I love this. It's emotionally comforting to have a potential explanation for cosmic expansion that doesn't need dark energy. It always felt like dark energy was similar to ether in the early explanations for light propagation.
Very glad to see a good challenger to Dark Energy.
I read one estimate of a 35% decrease in the speed of time (average) in the Milky Way compared to a void. Assuming an object could grow 1 mm an Earth year, if you place one in the Milky Way for 50 years, it would grow to 50 mm yet we would observe the same object growing to nearly 77 mm in the void. It really changes my perception when we say the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, but objects/places in the universe could have experienced 21 billion or more years of time.
Time being relative is one of the coolest, and most mind bending things to come from relativity. Its fascinating to think that a ship lost in a void could have billions of years more time pass by compared to us.
No. Graviational time dilation in the Milky Way, away from black holes and neuttron stars is quite negligible.
@@rogerphelps9939 Yeah, I got a time dilation of less than a percent of a percent...of a percent (on average)
If time is 35% faster in the Milky Way, than that would mean 18.6 billion years passed in the void while 13.8 billion passed here. The "average" timed passed throughout the universe, across void and galactic space, would probably be somewhere between those two numbers, right?
Source?
I vividly remember being in Cosmology class as an undergraduate learning the Friedmann equations and thinking ‘this is all based on quite an assumption’. The first ‘dark energy’ supernova study data were announced while I was an undergrad. Interesting how things are developing….
Thanks Ryan - I wish I had found your video before I read the paper (3 times), your crisp and clear explanation makes a lot of sense and answered some lingering niggles I had - decades since I did anything this mathematical so the video really has helped. One thing that got my attention recently was a documentary I was watching that showed how a line of whirlpools formed during tidal races where a tidal river flows thorugh a really narrow and shallow gap between two islands - it reminded me of the models of the Universe we see with all the galaxies embedded in the "strings". What I found amazing was how many small whirlpools ended up "orbiting" bigger whirlpools, often absorbing them, and some of the bigger ones would interact with each other - spiral in, swing past each other, then move apart, with the gap getting smaller and smaller until they combine. In the video this happened in minutes, you could literally watch thermodynamics (inflow and outflow water are at different temps apparently) and fluid dynamics at work - it just looked like a minute string of the Universe - I did wonder if the galaxies are simply "eddies" in the flow of matter as the Universe expands and this is, in part, why we have the "strings" and the voids - perhaps the voids are not voids at all, but areas of stability where the matter remains largely inert.
Anyway, enough of a ramble through the weeds of my mind, I have subscribed so look forward to seeing more informative videos. Hope you, the team and all your families have a great Christmas and wonderful New Year.
What's the name of the docu?
Sent here by Cool worlds. Love your idea/research. Thank you for your work.
Here from Cool Worlds. Great explanation of this new theory.
Coming here from Cool Worlds. Great to see the ‘Darks’ challenged.
Great video explaining incredibly complex ideas. Referred here from Cool Worlds. You have a new subscriber.
The Timescape model is an incredibly exciting way of interpreting the cosmos that makes so much sense and for me, an approach that feels far more in alignment with GR. It has had my head spinning since its publication. Approaching red shift from the perspective of time dilation is so eloquent.
Best of luck with the testing and additional research!
I’m somewhat surprised, or not, that varying time through the universe isn’t already factored in in the ‘standard model’?
this was my thought too.
The standard model is built on a fundamental assumption everything is roughly homogeneous at sufficient scale, which allows for a lot of simplification. The timescape model throws out that assumption, meaning things that could be previously ignored are suddenly important.
Thank you Ryan, Or perhaps better Dr. Ridden these days, lol. Took years of work, but you've earned your place and I mean no disrespect for my casual reference. You and Cool Worlds (David Kipping (Dr) have given me years of mind expanding knowledge and both of you have such enthusiasm for science and space. The older I get, the more I realize that no matter how much knowledge we gather, there is always something more to be learned. Thank you for acknowledging the work of humble students, their research is and always has been vital and they never seem to get the recognition they deserve. Academia has a bad habit of being hidebound and resistant to new and "radical" theories that challenge their views, but you're a bit different in that you want the TRUTH, instead of blindly seeking confirmation of your own ideas. Never change, that joy of discovery is what brought me to your channel, and keeps me tuned in to see what you've found out.
I think it would be interesting to see what Timescape does with the microwave background radiation.
The mathematical complexity of General Relativity needs to be appreciated. The Einstein Field Equations look straightforward enough, but applying them to come up with solutions to create cosmological models is indeed difficult. The thought and hard work that went into creating the Timescape model as a possible alternative to Lambda-CDM certainly deserves credit, whatever the eventual verdict turns out to be.
Here from cool worlds - this is so exciting! Thank you for all the amazing work you do ✨
After deciding against a PhD, I wound up working in software instead of physics. 3 years ago I left my career in software behind to work on a model that's loosely related to this. I was able to derive multiple directly observed quantities that are completely unaccounted for by either SR or GR, and this was achieved with only the slightest modification to Einstein's SR that then of course produces a modified GR. The difference is that SR and GR and much more formally unified in the model I've been working on, and this is all accomplished without the need for time dilation or even 4-vectors.
To sum up the model:
- All 4 vectors are collapsed to relativistic 3 vectors.
- Gamma is applied to space, with time dilation occurring only as a secondary effect.
- This space dilation is then bound with the equivalence principle.
- By binding this proposed spatial dilation with gravitational acceleration, it's straight forward to find a velocity required to produce our local gravitational acceleration.
- Cosmic inflation becomes just a sum of all gravitational accelerations in the Universe, multiplied by some proportionality scalar.
- After modifying that formula to accommodate the use of relativistic 3 vectors instead of 4 vectors, as time itself is now described by the principle of gravitational acceleration/ cosmic inflation, we find a value that fits well within 1% of direct observation through SNe and CMB data.
Where it's going:
- The proposed model describes our 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension as a 3 dimensional, expanding geometry.
- Because of this, there exists new opportunities to unify electromagnetism with gravity through some modifications to Maxwell's equations. This is what I'm currently working on now, or at least when I have time to work on it. I gave up everything for this model, and became homeless in the process. Over the course of this fiasco, I created my own academic/STEM focused note taking app/framework that I'm now hoping to release to the public for free in the next month in an attempt to draw attention to this model. Alongside the documentation for that framework, I've published some of my notes on the matter as a sort of demo.
If you're curious, you find those docs if you look up my username.
Thank goodness that we can stop handwaving away the massive conservation of energy headache that "dark energy" has been
Layman here and .... thank you ! yes , I never understood how that just seemed to be ignored out of convenience.
Great video, very interesting. Good luck with your future research !
What the heck! Where have you been? I thought you was gone forever. Welcome back!
Thanks! I'm slowly finding my way back to making videos again. Research has been chewing up a lot of time and energy the past few years.
Fantastic work, this is an exciting model to shake up cosmology. What sort of cosmological simulations are needed in the future to aid the Timescape model? Assuming the current dark matter nobody/SPH simulations aren’t adequate.
The size of the universe both terrifies & fascinates me, looking at nebula & other structures like filaments the vastness of it is mind blowing, but i suppose to a virus the human body is a massive universe with incredible structures, muscle that close up probably looks like the star nursery's in the nebula. Its all relative i suppose.
Edit: sorry if i waffled a tad i was typing and thinking at the same time and i don't always make sense to anyone bar me lol.
Repeated patterns on different size scales is definitely fascinating.
This strikes me as fantastic science. I agree inhomogeneous mass redistribution must affect general relativity metric tensor. Carry on!
Thank you for such a clear explanation on what is undoubtedly an incredibly complicated subject. This sounds like it could be very significant in our understanding of the universe's evolution. I wonder, if the timescape model is shown to be more accurate, if it would have an indirect implication for dark matter too.
Love the clear explanation. Very exciting to see experimental support for timescape cosmology.
Is this Tibees in male form? 😁 Love the channel!
Thought the same. Maybe they're related.
Also here thanks to David Kipping, great stuff and certainly food for thought. Sub'd immediately, binge to follow!
Would this model be able to update our understanding S8 of the tension as well?
I love your channel, because you are a great scientist looking to uncover the unknowns with clear eyes on intuitive simulation analysis.
I think there's always been something unsatisfying about dark energy and dark matter of LCDM, perhaps because it's been a placeholder for something we can't observe and don't understand. I hope many scientists will revel at idea of doing away with it. I certainly do.
Easy to understand, clear explanation of the timescape model. Thank you.
*IF*, in the coming years, this new model becomes more widely accepted, won't it throw a spanner in the works of lots of other "currently" accepted models such as: The age of the universe, its evolution toward the future etc?
I think I prefer this new model as it negates the "need" for something unknown/imaginary to describe what we see.
It kinda makes sense that the CMB looks homogeneous simply because of its scale and the "averaging-out" of all its components between the voids and filaments.
It also neatly accounts for all the massively red-shifted galaxies JWST sees at ridiculous distances where there (theoretically) shouldn't be any.
This is VERY exciting!
I wonder if this relativity can eliminate the need for dark matter too, or provide a basis for MOND and why the rate of gravity effects don't dissipate as quickly as we expect. As we move further from the galactic core, time moves faster, making objects appear to orbit faster.
MOND is quite a different beast. We have galaxies that seem empty but seem to contain a lot of dark matter, and ones that seem empty that seem to contain lower amounts. That is hard to fit with modified gravity. It is much easier to make those work with invisible matter.
@@marsovac haha certainly a fudge factor has the ability to match observations a lot more closely by definition. And, yeah, MOND has some discrepancies which, I'm wondering, might be addressed by the consideration of this timescape.
Nice video on this work, I’ve read several of the (Wiltshire) group’s papers from recent years. The problem I had was the issue of homogeneity scale, say 300Mpc+. As you say, the early universe was homogeneous, but with the growth of structure the scale has changed. How much more data and at what distances is required to solidify this scale? Does it overlap with the era of where dark energy is measured to accelerate expansion?
You may wish to buy Prof. Kipping a beer (or other beverage of his choice). His shout out pointed me here. This paper represents an excellent move forward; it also reduces the level of the suspension of disbelief in the conversation around "dark stuff".
What I find weird with cosmology is it seems to confuse frame of references.
Like the lamdaCDM model is supposed to be general and absolute, it's why structures don't matter and the point of view does not matter either.
If you calculate candles, now you are not in that relativistic framework anymore, but in a cartesian one. So I would expect the other model would not work, but another one that looks from our point of view to work.
The most important structure is our own. Now, is it really the structure of baryons that create the expansion? I doubt it. I would suggest it is just time, which leads to entropy, which leads to the structure. You have to get rid of the relativistic vision of time if you are to use candles. In cartesian/Newton frame of reference, which is our point of view as being the center of the Universe, time goes forward, which gives the impression of the Universe expanding.
It just takes the light longer to reach us because the events are at different times. If you look at something like 1 billion years ago, it takes time to reach us. It's that difference that makes us see a red shift and give us the impression the Universe is expanding, but it might not be true. You have to take that difference out before checking an actual expansion. In theory it could be crunching and we would still see an expansion. So your research seems to suggest that the Universe "expanded" at first, then reached an harmony with the relativistic model, and now is crunching a bit (which could be caused by far away galaxies gaining energy in some way, or more mass). It's hard to tell without looking at each of those candles individually.
I, as many, came here from cool worlds, and am amazed at not having found this channel before, as well as it not having subscribers well above its current number.
Came to your channel after cool worlds mentioned it. Great video with a clear explanation that even I, as someone with no astronomical/cosmological background can follow. Thank you and I subbed to watch your old and new videos.
Those numbers seem really promising!
This feels much more sensible than the Dark Energy Model. Could it also explain Dark Matter? If clocks spin faster in lower gravity environments, the outer reaches of galaxies with less mass would appear to spin faster than expected relative to the high-mass, slow clock center of the galaxy.
This is the first explanation for dark energy that I find truly interesting. It seems to hold some actual, tangible potential. And it also "simplifies" the explanation to once again, as has happened multiple times before, being an effect of general relativity. A theory that has proven time and time again that it's incredibly solid and accurate. Instead of some hypothetical but as of yet undiscovered particle or field, or an effect of the already incredibly weird and hard to understand world of quantum physics.
I'm going to keep an eye on this one. :) If proven to be true it would make the universe a bit less mysterious, but at the same time it would be a huge step forward for physics. (If only so we can maybe, for the most part, stop looking for something that doesn't seem to exist.)
One thing that is not explicitly stated about this model is if the universe as a whole is expanding or not, and if it is accelerating or not? If it is not, then how did the homogeneity at last scattering come about? If it is, then what is driving the expansion if not dark energy? I am assuming that this model does not get rid of the initial singularity, inflation, and dark matter of the current standard cosmological model.
The timescape model leaves everything but the _acceleration_ of universal expansion the same as the current lambda CDM model, replacing dark energy with the underlying thesis is that expansion is affected by time dilation. So while every reference frame sees growth at the same number of kilometers per megaparsec per second, space in voids will see more time pass than space in galaxies, effectively accelerating expansion as dilation goes to zero.
I should also note that dark energy itself is also only an explanation of the acceleration. It's got nothing to do with why universal expansion exists in the first place.
If aliens ever did come down and we had an exchange of ideas, if then we try to explain to them our theories of dark matter and dark energy they would probably laugh at us
Lookin back in time is more like looking down an energy gradient.
Looking further away for light does nothing on the larger scales. As each level of the gradient is here with you now.
Probably way too early to even speculate about, but would be curious to know if the timescape model could also resolve the Hubble tension.
Could the Timescaped model also be used in Dark Matter modelling?
David Wiltshire is also skeptical of dark matter.
Finally! I don't know how so few people seemed bothered that cosmology was relying on two "dark things" about which we know nothing but are necessary for our "best" model to work. In many ways it seems even worse than a God of the Gaps. Something like this is far more satisfying, and dare I say... Scientific?
hey, just saw "cool worlds" did a video on the Timescape model and Dr Ryan had a cameo!
So, is the universe smaller? Is there still some expansion?
This is awesome dude 🤩
Outstanding explanation and comparison.
How much of the "missing" mass &/or energy is just outside of our observable universe?
Nice video Ryan!
Great video! Could you explain exactly how slower clocks in voids creates the effect of all supernovae at a certain redshift appearing further away than we’d expect?
Timescapes sounds very interesting but isn't it incompatible with measurements of the fine structure constant at high z? Like, the expansion of space isn't identical to time dilation. Both can create a redshift, but you can tell one from the other by checking that the fine structure constant is, well, constant. Right?
How much slower does a clock run on earth compared to the Boötes Void?
Or say halfway between the sun and Alpha Centauri vs the Boötes Void?
Is it possible that the red shift itself is impacted by immense time, mass, and distance of the universe causing our interpretation of the shift to be inaccurate?
In short, can you explain to the layman how much slower the clock runs in the filaments, galaxies, voids and so on?
I would think that the difference would be very small, but it somehow adds up?
I'm so excited! This seems like a viable path out of the 'era of dark energy'. One day we will look back at dark energy like we do the aether. ✨
What does this theory predict about the long term future of the universe? Is it different from the heat death of the universe?
A model where there is no acceleration of expansion cannot predict heat death. Either expansion perfectly balances gravity as is and remains an infinite universe, or gravity wins over expansion at some point and it ends up in a big crunch.
However in TimeScape there is no realy heat death since at local scales there is no expansion of the universe, in gravity dense areas gravity wins a priory to the expansion, and if expansion acceleration doesn't exist, then these regions will never experience heat death. At most it will be distant galaxies go futher away and close ones get closer and that's it. You will "see less stars", but you will not dissipate.
If you need a programmer and animator/technical artist to help create data visualizations, animations, simulations, etc to aid this research or help communicate it then let me know. I really like and support this research because "dark matter" has never really sat right with me and I've long suspected we'd just gotten things wrong and were trying to add "cosmic fudge" to fix our mistakes, lol.
@RyanRidden what does this mean for dark matter?
Nothing really. This model does not deal with the rotation of galaxies or anything on that scale.
How much baryonic matter there is then?
That's gone right up my flagpole.
Are you still post doctoral research follow?
Yep! I'm still working at the University of Canterbury. A lot of fun things are coming up soon from the research that my group has been working on!
@@RyanRidden it's post doctoral research followship temporary or permanent position? Are you have professor permanent job position at current university? Do you have to finding the permanent professor job opportunities at different universities( or current university)?
@@asiagreen5658 most postdocs are temporary like mine. My current funding covers me for the next year or so. I'm definitely on the hunt for a permanent position, but they are pretty challenging to get. There are a lot of fantastic astronomers out there!
If 95% of the universe doesn't fit our cosmological theory, I'd say the theory is 95% wrong. "Dark" ages is more like it... :-)
I hope the triumphant ‘I knew my ignorant emperors new clothes assumptions would be proven correct!1!!’ comments that also lump in dark matter aren’t too depressing
Agreed, it’s a shame the name Dark Matter stuck and not non-Baryonic matter.
Came from Prof. David Kippings channel Cool Worlds.
what changes about our understanding if it turns out to be verified by more supernova observations in the future ?
At the least, if there is no dark energy, then the expansion of the universe will slow down eventually. That could be an interesting thing to study for future scientists.
Maybe this also explains the black holes (masses) and dark energy development relationship
I can't take my eyes from the sculpture on the right in the background!
Thank you so much for this video.
This was very interesting, thank you for posting.
On a different but similar note, do you think that Dark Matter is real? I always assumed that it is not, that Relativity should explain the effect. My understanding is that when calculating the proper rotation curves of spiral galaxies Astrophysicists (and the like) are using Newtonian gravity because GR is too complex, and they assume the added effects are too small (2nd+ order). But if you do not include GR you are leaving out the gravitation effects of galactic angular momentum, frame dragging from the galactic spin, and time dilation. I do not have access to the stellar database, nor the prerequisite math, in order to confirm if the effects are small or are as large as I suspect that they are.
I've never bought into the idea of dark matter and dark energy. They have a strong "Our math didn't math so we made something up to make it math" vibe. It also pushed science in an almost faith-based direction. "Trust me bro, you can't see it but it's there". "There" conveniently being "not here". While the timescape model may yet be disproven it is a far more simple and elegant explanation of what we observe.
It would be nice to avoid The Emperor's New clothes syndrome for every single scientific theory out there.
Science *should* always roll with the punches.
It could be different issues like maybe some insecurities are there or it's necessary for putting up a facade for funding purposes.
Dark matter has it's precedent. (e.g. Neptune causing anomalies in the orbit of Uranus.)
Well, the math bro's have a good track record though. Bunch of jolly old dude from the 19th century with hardly any tools to look in the sky, made some bold statements that in the past 50 years proved to be true. They did it purely based on you guessed it, math...
@@goldennuggetz5312is it realistic to expect a lucky streak to continue though ?
@@goldennuggetz5312 Yeah, but they didn't just add in something they made up to make the math work. That's the difference.
this is very promising , I am going to be following closely . also .... traumatizing the computational servers .... :)
Dr. Patrick Moore, Climatologist and Founder of Greenpeace, is the greatest scientist of this modern age
It's very tempting. The big bang relies on relativity, why then can't it just explain the apparent expansion itself? If this turns to be truth it would be the biggest palm face ever.
Its redistribution of space-energy lessening local space density...giving it back to the field...its space escaping the energy hole
I think dark matter and dark energy is the vacuum. You can't have nothingness, we know the vacuum presses against things depending on the distance of things.
The vacuum takes up 90%~ of everything just like dark matter and dark energy.
The issue is we view things in a limited amount of dimensions. I believe the solution is treating the number of dimensions to be unique directions. Basically making the number of dimensions equal to the reverse square law. The further away from a point the higher the number of directions or dimensions.
Quantum phenomenon is due to there being so few dimensions at that scale. Entanglement is when things are only sperated by some dimensions but not all. The waveform collapse happens when you introduce a mix new dimensions in the quantum system through interaction.
10:14 traumatizing the computational service … I’m going to steal that phrase…
I AM Balungi Francis (Author) I WAS HERE
So, what happens with the 68% of the energy in the cosmos?
I have serious doubts about dark matter as well so I wonder if the Timescape model depends on assuming the existence of dark matter or if dark matter were taken out of the calculation how that graph would look. Pavel Kroupa falsified dark matter halos (which supposedly explain the galaxy rotation curves) in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies to five sigma in his 2016 paper based on observational data. The recent paper by McGaugh et al. based on JWST data showing early galaxy formation matches a MOND model much better than a Lamda CDM model. Add to that 100 percent failure of every experiment to detect any type of dark matter and I think it's reasonable to doubts.
Dark matter as an explanation has a lot of data behind it. The McGaugh paper itself acknowledges that the paper does not invalidate Dark Matter. I am not sure if MOND is right or not but it has some serious issues itself.
Very curious and interesting… does feel good.
If both are real this will make things hard
I wouldn't be surprised if later theyse guys get Nobel prize for physics in the next 8 years
I HATE the Dark Energy think to prove something else, this sounds WAY better than that theory
Professor Kipping sent me, cheers.
How is cosmological redshift explained if there's no dark energy? what's stretching out the light's frequencies if the universe isn't expanding?
The Universe is still expanding in Timescape, its just that the voids are expanding. The more volume the voids occupy the faster the observed expansion. The same observable phenomena happen, just without dark energy.
@@RyanRiddenwhat causes the voids to expand?
@@mr.mirror1213 i have no clue at all but my guess is that gravity driven aggregation of mass would lead to concentration of mass in more and more dense regions while leaving more space without mass in it. i.e. thinning out of cosmic strings due to the flow of mass towards local centres which themselves should become denser and denser while the density of mass in the surrounding areas gets less: less space with things in it and more space without things in it.
@@RyanRiddendoes that mean the Friedman equations and scale factor ‘a’ are still valid in Timescape? They just represent voids instead of space itself expanding?
@@mr.mirror1213 Could be wrong, but I think it's the pull of the areas where mass is concentrated. Relating it to the trampoline analogy of spacetime, it's not that the trampoline is being pulled apart outward, it's that each of the masses on the trampoline are getting more concentrated and poking deeper into it and thus stretching the trampoline surface in the direction of all the masses on it.
somebody actually got it right. im impressed..
First time watching the channel. I've subscribed. It's becoming increasingly difficult to get recommended legit channels like this in science as most are AI channels ugh 😒