Sabine, I told you more than a year ago that "dark energy" isn't real!! Neither is "dark matter". They're just plug-ins that are intended to gloss over the incongruities between more recent observations and erroneous cosmological theory. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that something is very seriously wrong with cosmology.
I think the explanation here missed out the main point - which is that time will run slower in regions of 'high' density (galaxies and galaxy clusters) than in regions of low density between the galaxy clusters. If this time dilation is factored into the observations for expansion of the universe, the apparent acceleration of the expansion drops out as a consequence. In other words, the acceleration is not real, it is an artifact due to the variable "timescape" nature of the universe.
Yes! This was also my takeaway from another discussion of the paper (by Anton Petrov), was hoping for a deeper explanation by Sabine, maybe when she has had more time to look into it...
Hard to believe that galaxy clusters are dense enough to account for that much time dilation though. Unless cosmic acceleration is much more subtle than I'd been given to expect. Seems like the gravity fields that really count should be those near the supernovas whose light is being used as a benchmark. I wonder how those compare to the red shift of normal stars in the same galaxies.
A faulty initial assumption combined with a strong mathematical model can sometimes predict and explain observations with incredible accuracy. Most ancient scholars believed in the geo-centric model. But they introduced complex concepts like epicycle and predicted planetary motions with high accuracy with their rigorous mathematical model. This is the reason why it was so hard to establish the heliocentric model.
That is also because the geocentric model is just as "right" as the heliocentric one. The universe has no center so we are free to choose what we would like for a center. The ecliptic neatly carves out the orbit of the Sun around the Earth. We can watch the whole universe turn around us.
@@mikemondano3624 No. The heliocentric model is for the solar system, not the universe as a whole. You are incorrectly using one to describe the other. The planets in the solar system orbit the sun and not the Earth like what is described in the geocentric model.
@@andrewn7365 But they do, if you ignore gravity (that was not a thing, and we now know that it's the cause for the motions) and just focus on motion, you can choose the center being earth and just describe motions around it. It works just as fine as a model for predictions. (Even Newtons formulas couldn't explain mercury's orbit, but it was a better model, because it included the reasons for the motions, and then Einsteins was even better)
The ancients never got extreme accuracy. The errors were on the order of 6 to 8 minutes of arc. Heliocentric models with circles got the same accuracy without epicycles.
From a video design standpoint, I appreciate how the color gradient in the blouse and sleeves matches the background gradient into the desktop, and emphasizes the hand gestures.
Thanks, I have not come across that in a bit. It supports my inner conflict with self deception. "All models are wrong, but some are useful." It might help. My mindfulness practice to helps me remember to consider the possibility that perception might grant data that helps to build models, rather than the means to understand what is. If a model turned out to accurate and precise, et al, it would be reality and not just a description of reality.
Agreed. Dark matter may similarly be a placeholder for new science as well. Developing cogent theories for these two phenomena would be a huge step forward in understanding the nature of the universe we live in.
My hypotheses for "negative pressure" less than atmospheric and more than zero is temporal pressure from cosomological cycloid arc vibration. Principle of least action from brachistochronon cycloid.
Your thoughts and emotions have effects upon the world around you, is something known by science but not really taught. A major clue to this is those random number generators that stop being random when major world events happen. It's called magic, which is real. We're all magical creatures, but gaslit it's not a thing. To like explain that negativity and rubbing off on others and then bad things start happening in you and yours life. Also, your rulers gather at places like stone henge and have it all blocked off. for no reasons. They know these quantum effects. But there are most of us than them, so if we knew, they'd lose power. Mmmmkay? Oh and the large particle accelerators are a means to cancel out Earth vibrations to spiritually ruin the globe. It's really a lot like Doom (2016). It's why they barely come out with 5hit about 5hit. It's for the rulers to suppress the peoples magic and spiritually disconnect them from God so others can cosplay it. Have a blessed New Year. -God in fleshy meat sack form
Negative pressure? Vacuum? So I'm assuming your mother is from another universe? The only reason why I'm asking is because you said "negative pressure does not exist in the universe though." If your statement is correct, she is not from this universe. 🤔 Although I do concur. Parents can seem like black holes at times.
Just a note, astrophysists are beginning to think that the local group (which makes up the Milkyway, Andromeda, and M-87) are actually within a void (voids are not empty, but they do have smaller amounts of galaxies within them). They think that it is this void that is causing the issues seen with the Hubble tension.
Back in the 1980s, I'd built a model (and subsequent paper which I could never find a publisher due to it being some 60 pages long and, in the words of one journal editor, "Too radical" back in 1991) which posited that spacetime could be lumpy. The areas of higher density (hence lumpiness) would have gravitational pulls all themselves. The downside of this approach was the realization that universal constants of physics might change over time as the universe expanded and changed. This meant the variation of energy and momentum, instead of being exactly zero, became a regional integral of a function whose limit approached zero over time. (BTW, this approach held open the possibility of breaking the Femtosecond barrier near the Big Bang) I still stand by that hypothesis, even though my Physics days are some 35 years behind me. I failed, but I'm glad to see that others have begun moving where I was initially about 45 years ago. It's good to see Astrophysics starting to break out of its dogmatic phase. I never agreed with the Dark Energy/Matter hypothesis. It always seemed overly complicated as an explanation. When theorizing about Cosmology, the simplest models should be the ones pursued.
In a group on Facebook, we used to discuss the fact that time doesn't move at the same rate everywhere as the effects of gravity are not evenly distributed throughout the universe.
I really appreciate how you avoid the sensationalist clickbaity bs, and just make a honest effort to explain a paper in 5 minutes to a general audience. Thanks. Happy new year!
3 minutes making stale, unfunny jokes, 1 minute explaining the topic in a way that conveys no valuable information on the topic covered, 30 seconds criticizing scientists, physics and academia, 30 seconds shilling sponsors.
@@xMorogothxdon't watch and don't post. Go do something you enjoy. To counter your criticism, she did effectively convey the summary and conclusions of a recent cosmology paper. You probably just remember "sour dough"
@xMorogothx actually, a minute 30 seconds for the sponsor, and you didn't watch the video. This is just an approximation of the format. She didn't even criticise academia in this one. However, this approximation does describe observations, and I think it could be helpful in predicting future events.
It is clickbait tho, ya funky monkey. The title suggests dark energy isn’t real but she clearly states, it may or may not be real ha ha. Nothing has changed other than a group writing a similar paper to what they did like 8 years ago.
It's good to see the Timescape paper & model being discussed in several RUclips channels. Hopefully it won't be ignored by mainstream cosmologists, and they will feel compelled to try to falsify it.
Is it falsifiable, though? It's just another in a long line of models that fits all the data we have, if it's falsifiable then there should be some data we can collect that it might not fit, and if we do that, then we'll just tweak some parameters, add some complexity, and say it fits again.
This may come off that mainstream cosmologists are being jerks. Well, yes. Yet this is exactly how science works. Many people don’t realize this. It’s not because scientists don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. The model works very well for almost everything. It can be observed and measured and predicted many things before they were discovered. This is exactly how science progresses.
@@justindwight5457 That's kinda the thing, though. Physics models haven't lately predicted much that has actually been discovered. This century, you've got the Higgs boson, and that's it. Experimental physics have made lots of discoveries about the behavior of known particles, but theoretical physics has been facing a brick wall explaining things that require new particles, for decades. There's dozens of puzzling physics phenomena out there that require a bump in complexity from the Standard Model to explain, but none of them really constrain the question enough to falsify any of the options.
@@justindwight5457 That's the sneaky thing about models. I always like to point out that the geocentric model was more accurate at predicting the movements of the planets in the sky than the original heliocentric model, albeit in a very complicated way and which had some notable problems at the edges. It sounds awfully familiar, but it really is just part of scientific progress. Always exciting to watch.
The side issue to this, is possibly more significant. Since cosmic redshift falsely predicted a 'Dark Ages' (JWST showed it to be full of galaxies), using this interpretation to determine Universe evolution is obviously incorrect. Cosmic redshift only determines distance; and even that is open to challenge it we consider Halton Arp's radio galaxy redshift discontinuities.
@@williamschlosser Won't get an argument from me. Demonstrated that jets from active sources exhibited strikingly different redshifts that of the source. So they took away his radio telescope.
@@craigwall9536 The German physicist Max Planck said that "science advances one funeral at a time". Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it....
@@craigwall9536its a well known phrase amongst physicists. You’re more than welcome to steal it cause that guy almost certainly got it from someone else.
more like earth isn't just a uniform sphere of dirt and water mixture, it has landmasses surrounded by water. Would certainly explain the localized clumping of humans.
Well, there is a leading theory as to why expansion occurs, that I haven't seen disproven. It's about how the quantum foam is always causing virtual particle pairs to appear and annihilate in otherwise "empty" space, and that natural repulsion between these pairs causes the space their appearance occurs in to expand a tiny bit. This explains why empty space seems to expand more and more, the emptier it is of familiar forms of matter and energy. But it's a very difficult theory to test.
Gravity causes masses to move towards each other. So how can reasonable person be surprised to see very large groups of galaxies together? Surely it's obvious that gravitational attraction will bring many galaxies together. Is the universe actually expanding at an ever faster rate?
Since we've only been observing far objects for just a few decades we can't actually fully confirm that everything outside the local group is moving away as we basically have a still photograph of the universe around us due to the scales involved.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
@@RecycledBikes-jj No, her shirt has blue shifted. This might tell us something about the "Hossenfelder universe". Instead of moving away - it's now moving in the the direction of it's biggest attractor - the supercluster of her fans.
I studied Physics at Uni Hamburg and the moment they told us about the Dark Matter/Energy theory, I couldn't help but draw the comparison to the old Aether Theory. I could never accept it and thought that somewhere in our theories that lead to Dark Matter/Energy must be wrong.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
Hmm.. That is interesting. I was thinking the same thing. I actually made a simulation of something similar but it goes a bit beyond Aether. doesn't have Newton or Einstein work. I made a short of it and hoping to get some unbiased information about what people think is going on so that i can tune it and produce more. It is just a prototype. Maybe you can take a look at give me your un biased opinion?
What's wrong is basing a theory on gravity. There is only 5% of the real matter in the universe to support BBT. Try Plasma Cosmology, based on EM forces, no "dark" stuff needed.
I did watch a detailed presentation of the Timescape concept (I'd not yet call it a model) and was intrigued--not least because if true it would remove the challenge of finding or at least explaining that mysterious dark energy. But, is there any better chance of experimentally discovering Timescape evidence than for finding ^CDM evidence?
No guys, you don’t claim someone’s Nobel Prize for proving them incorrect. However, you will expose it was never prize worthy in the first place - which may (AND SHOULD) hurt said Laureate significantly greater than recalling their beloved trophy. Scientific peer-review in its purest form and all its beauty!
The best start to a new year! Thank you, Sabine, and a fortuitus New Year to you! Post Script: This is a very intriguing theory to my mind and Its New!
Well... build the following model: 1) Take two points A and B with a const distance R between them and draw two lines (one through A and one through B) so they intersect at point P. 2) Move P, but so that angle phi between the lines remains const, and build a set of possible positions of P. Now compare the sets for P for different phi, keeping in mind that phi is diffraction angle (so the bigger set means which wavelength prevails with increasing of R) and R is the distance between you and source of light
@b43xoit if R is small then they are very close one to another, the bigger R the more difference, so you get "stronger" signal from bigger one (with greater diffraction angle)
I always thought the observed accelerated expansion of the universe was a consequence of time dilation over large distances, but I assumed that was so obvious that smarter minds must have disproved it somehow. Glad to see somebody's finally looking into it.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
Thanks! It looked very similar to Cuenca EC, with similar main river and the same relative location of the airport. But it wasn't quite right, so I was stumped
@@bobkoroua - You beat me to it. Yeah, more fine-grained, beaucoup data to collect and crunch, but more straightforward and doesn't require invisible stuff.
Most definitely yes! But at the same time, probably not. Dark Energy is itself a complication that probably isn't needed to explain the phenomena we can observe. Indeed, Sabine starts off by pointing out that the new paper is calling into question the assumptions and simplifications that underpinned the original paper, and that the complexity of "dark energy" goes away if one accepts that the universe is the way it is. There is a socio-political problem. Dark energy is like the dream topic for physicists looking for grant funding. Whilst the wise sages express certainty that "something odd called dark energy is playing with our universe", the grant funding bodies are keen to stump up cash for physicists to go look for it (in experiments, or in theoretical studies). It provides years of comfortable employment, endless opportunities for speculative papers, etc, all without any real risk of the topic drying up because someone goes and actually finds the wretched stuff. A cool name goes a long way in funding decisions. However, if all of a sudden someone awkward comes up with hard-to-ignore ideas about how "dark energy is a load of bs", there's a lot of people looking at their next grant applications being difficult. It's not something many will rejoice over, and sing the praises of...
@@abarratt8869 This is a science argument. Don't bring your culture war BS into it. There isn't a massive conspiracy of eggheads trying to steal your tax money. Get a grip.
Whenever I see a remarkable science headline I usually wait for your summary presentation on the subject, rather than just clicking on their video. They’re just the right length, and are generally more fun. Thanks!
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
The question this raises for me is why nobody has bothered to do the math before for the effects of time dilation based on the _actual_ distribution of matter. I understand the motivation to simplify the math by assuming smoothness, but not why nobody bothered to check if it was actually a safe assumption.
I think the seven year old paper is a clue. And it's not like I, not being a physicist, haven't had similar musings, and I doubt I'm that special. The question is not why nobody ever had the idea, but why it wasn't popularized. And we have to be honest, it still isn't. The theory might get tabled for another decade.
@thearpox7873 true, but I do think Lambda CDM is getting too many observation-based holes punched in it to remain viable. The end is nigh, and it's not nearly as cold as rumored.
While there are models which connect inflation with the cosmological constant, physicists generally consider them as two different things. The cosmological constant is part of the "standard model" of cosmology (LambdaCDM). Inflation is not. That said, if dark energy disappears again, this would certain cause a lot of rethinking in general!
From what I read of what the Higgs boson detection might have shown, there is a strong suggestion that normal matter with mass is at a higher energy state that rides above one that allows unstable virtual particles to pop in and out of existent as something of a medium. And that medium may also be the means that gravity gets expressed as areas of differing time and space “dimensions”. As it has been noted that the permeability of spaces is effected when there is differing densities of matter in the mix of radiation’s propagation as Maxwell’s equations can be used to calculate. So with some type of virtual matter state in the mix with masses’ generation of gravity and its propagation may be a logical way for it to get expressed that may then describe the quantum gravity that is being looked for.
@@SabineHossenfelder I ain't no physicist, but in my opinion the only constant thing in the universe is the universe's expansion rate. There is nothing constant in our universe as matter, and particles behave differently indifferent areas/environment/ecosystems in space, the only thing that is constant all through out the universe is it's expansion rate, the universe expanse at the same rate, in the middle, at the left, right, bottom, and top ages, an once again that is the only consistent thing through out the universe, everything else, light travel, everything "general relativity" uses is irrelevant to the true understand of how the universe works.
@@SabineHossenfelder image that our world, our live are like a part of a cell(the world bei the cell), and our galaxy being the equivalent to an organ a cell(us) as much as it tried to understand it's place in the universe it never will for it can not comprehend what is happening at the cosmic scale, our universe can be a whole complex leaving organism, and we are just as insignificant in that cosmic scale, as a cell is to us. A cell as much as it study the world around it would never understand that they just play a role as a part of a bigger organism they can't even fathom.
@@josuerizo1 Right. Unfortunately, I asked the wrong question🙄, that Sabine so kindly answered. My Idea is that infaltion is redundant, if the cosmologcal PRNICIPLE is wrong
What if you looked at the universe acceleration thusly: As concentrations of matter gather together, the voids become larger and thus the acceleration of gravity becomes less having less effect on the bodies in motion. So, the mass on the edge of the universe continues to pull mass outward at a faster pace while the inner mater continues to be pulled outward . Thus, the void is expanding at en ever increasing rate reducing the effect of gravity in the middle of the universe according to g = G* (M/R^2) . While the outer universe is moving according to f = m*a. Thus, The sum of g is decreasing while f=m*a remains constant.. In other words, our gravity models are built round mass at the center. Examples being, earth, sun, galaxies. Where as the universe has mass on the outside. So g=G*(M/R^2) has a different meaning: R is not defined, not definable but continually approaching infinity. Thus, where R approaches infinity (M/R^2) approaches 0 exponentially and thus the effect of G approaches 0 at an exponentially increasing rate. In this model f=ma approaches a constant (1). However, a constellation of f=ma vectors in a circle moving away from a center point will all appear to be moving away from each other at an ever increasing speed because in addition to looking at f=m*a being near constant the circle is expanding at cos= M*C/|M||C| (M=Milky Way & C = Camelopardalis A -- although Camelopardalis A is really two close for this example) . Thus -> MC (Vector MC--the rate of change in distance of MC) has two components: 1) f=ma for M & f=ma for C (The movement from the origin of the universe) 2) based on the original vectors and their angle of departure. The triangle MOC has a hypotenuse of MC. MC is increasing based on the angle of departure. As long as MC is increasing at a rate > G*(M/R^2) the universe appears to not only be expanding but accelerating. Thus Newtonian physics is preserved as is Euclidean geometry! And so is one of Einstein's fundamental principals: "God does not play dice." OK, given all of this (MOC ect...) given the mass of three independent galaxy clusters, One of which would be our local cluster (Milky Way, Andromeda...), The origin of the universe calculated by reverse engineering basic triangulation. Like how GPS triangulates a location on earth from 3 origins--except in reverse. Any reverse calculation will come up with two positions one of which the Milky Way is heading toward and one which the Milky Way is heading away from. Likely--but not necessarily--the one we are heading away from is the origin. But the destination point may be obviously irrelevant or point toward a 3rd point beyond our understanding. This reverse triangulation can be confirmed by a second method given the distance between local clusters (lc1 lc2 lc3) given the vector movement of all three galaxies (vlc1, vlc2, vlc3) where: Hypotenuse approaches 0 along negative vectors ~= origin/differentiation and time components are lc1-1c2 approaches 0 along -vlc1 and -vlc2. lc1-lc2-9 & lc1t lc1-1c3 approaches 0 along -vlc1 and -vlc2. lc1-lc2-9 & lc2t lc3-1c2 approaches 0 along -vlc1 and -vlc2. lc1-lc2-9 & lc3t There are other factors here like gravity influencing vector path, the mergers of local clusters before origin and the like. If all local clusters point to the same origin then our simple, spherical, big bang universe is confirmed. Otherwise, a more complex and yet undescribed universe is confirmed and could be something like the Kessler Syndrome where a series of big events fed into each other to create what is observable, our universe could be more toroidal sphere than sphere...pulling itself apart by tangental forces that are not readily apparent in the observable universe. It could be more similar to a jet coming out of a black hole...or any combination of these and other factors. The reverse triangulation and hypotenuse approaching zero methodologies could be applied iteratively to arrive at an improved theory of the universe. The simpler and more established principals leading to an improved theory. Sabine, I've been peppering my cousin Meg Urry (who probably needs no introduction) for roughly 25 years with theories to explain "dark matter". If you're interested in talking more or possibly collaborating -- though my background may not justify it given your extensive experience on the topic, I can be messaged at: bsky.app/profile/originalintel.bsky.social.
@@BobWobbles I will instead postulate that she accidentally put the pink shirt in the washing machine together with a bunch of blue socks and the blue bled into the shirt. Gotta color sort your laundry properly !
This isn't the first time she's changed the color in post. I love that she's been trolling her shirt-whiners all along and upped the game with yesterday's "promise".
I enjoy your video presentations not just because of the fascinating and challenging (...for non-specialist laymen like me...) content, but also because you are, I believe, fair-minded and impartial.
I heard another report on this and noticed 2 things you didn't emphasize 1) it's called "timescape" because it's claiming that the apparent expansion is an illusion caused by time dilation from the effects of gravity in general relativity 2) their calculations are depending on the assumption that dark matter is real 3) even though it is supposed to be explaining the apparent accelerating expansion of the wider universe and the slowdown of that acceleration, they were only able to show its fit in the nearby region, as you called it the "low red shift" area. So, using General Relativity and using the actual distribution of mass instead of assuming uniformity is obviously the right way to get a more accurate model, but I think this should be tried again using every combination of assumptions we'd like to test. For instance on a no-dark matter model.
@@fonzdaii, but it was not useful and convenient. It was so inconvenient that they had to make up things to justify it rather than looking at the model once again.
@@likebot. I don't want to sound rude, but it may come as a bit of a surprise (a shock, maybe) that someone who is not from the USA is also using this site.
If Alice falls into a particularly dense bit of sourdough starter, does Bob still see her freeze on its surface while she, from her perspective, continues through the dough? Can we still describe the entire 3D contents of the dough by throwing it really hard against a flat wall and analyzing the surface? If we put the dough into Schrodinger's quantum box, could it emerge as a delicious baguette, or will the cat eat it first? Is this why Carl Sagan said we have to make the universe before we can make an apple pie? Why do I have a sudden urge to eat a cookie?
I tried this recipe once. Added a bit too much 0 and the electric charges on the proton and electron didn't fully cancel out. The dough clung to everything. And the apples were mushy.
Fascinating. Watching long held scientific assumptions fall away is exciting. Apparently Hubble's research assistant, Milton Humason, disputed the red shift and expanding universe hypothesis. Then again, he started working with Hubble as a janitor. 😉 I'm certainly no physicist but I'm pretty sure the basic idea that "everything is moving away from everything else" has been well disproven. Dark energy always seemed like an invisible magic band aid for an erroneous theory at least to me. Also, apparently a competent mathematician can make the numbers say whatever it is you want. 🤔
This timescape idea is brilliant. Can someone just clarify. Does it mean that the universe expands because time cycles faster in a vacuum space rather than around matter?
Measuring is a temporal process, and relativistic observer can't distinguish between computing more resolution from inside, and the "outside" exapanding.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
once in the oven, there is a rapid acceleration of expansion (spring) after which the size and shape is fixed in place, and it begins to cool. then, we slice.
My money is on the universe not actually expanding (or at least not nearly at the rate claimed) and that it has to do with the decay of light over great distances.
@@RabidxDog I am referencing a paper from 100 years ago that is now being re-examined now. Essentially the wave length elongates over time. If the paper is right, it puts the universe at about 26B years old.
@@ThatGuyz82 you can stretch light into elongated radio wave wavelengths and it still is detectable. Even if the wavelength is stretched infinitely (a straight line) it is still detectable, it doesn't decay ( doesn't just stop/disappear).
"Dark matter" and "dark energy" were mere placeholders for unexplained phenomena. If timescape and uneven distribution of matter turn out to be an explanation, great. (My simple mind thinks that if you need to resort to Bayesian analysis, they your results are preliminary at best.) But it's a big stretch to say that it's "overthrowing" anything. Particularly when Sabine baits and then switches to saying she's skeptical about it.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
Archeologists are even slower to accept new evidence that they are WRONG. So much of “science” has to do with egos and funding that it is amazing that we make ANY progress
What's new in archeology? Edit: It's been hours and you've refused to elaborate after multiple people have asked you to. I'm starting to doubt you have anything substantive.
Archeology is completely different from this, with History and Archeology they usually try to find multiple sources through all sorts of records, such as the archeological record and the written record, it all has to match up for them to accept an explanation for something
There are a couple of places in the world where archeologists are used for political purposes... but otherwise, and even sometimes in those places, they've been very quick to accept real new evidence. You and they might just disagree about what constitutes "evidence".
Why can't we think of Dark Energy / Matter as a gravity-induced coagulation of physical space? If gravity "warps space," then there has to be something physical there to warp. ... After all, an "empty vacuum" does not warp, nor does it do anything at all.
This is why I say that a truly advanced understanding of spacetime needs to have a set of physical definitions of what units of spacetime consist of. If spacetime is curved by gravity, what actual field and particle interactions are taking place, both to cause it and to generate the observed results`? While there is some work being done on this, it seems to be swamped by mathematicians who are trying to prove that the Universe has NO physical manifestations and is just math. They say that the fact that we see (and are made up of) physical manifestations can be dismissed, that it's just some fever dream, and that reality really doesn't exist, except for their equations. As Sabine says, it's the difference between believing that the math DESCRIBES reality vs. believing that the math IS reality.
Comtemporary physicists will tell you that an empty vacuum indeed does warp. They also tell you that an empty vacuum can transport elecromagnetic waves, although there alledgely is nothing in this total vaccum that could swing and transport the waves. It's kind of reminiscent of the Abrahamitic religions that also tell you that there is a God -- when you ask them wehre to find him, the stuff gets very problematic too....
@@DougVanDorn The problem is how we perceive reality. We try define it through math but nothing in universe has obligation to make sense for us. Understanding physics or nature is more understand our self than we think!
If you haven't already, read "Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory", a 2022 paper by Eric Lerner. Still waiting for someone to try to refute it.
Inflation, dark matter, dark energy ... The ad-hoc explanations of our universe's behavior keep building up. At some point, we ought to admit that we haven't a clue as to what's going on.
High pressure / low pressure dynamics on a (literally) cosmic scale. Why do we need to look for esoteric explanations for such behavior when we understand analogous systems right here on Earth.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
sabine cdm is the max assumption model and you criticized ts as being "has assumptions" but it has less and smaller assumptions than cdm. Just a weird criticism. 5:08
Terrible take. Assumptions are always bad. Jumping off a sinking ship onto a ship with holes in it is still an improvement. That doesn't mean you are committing to the new ship.
Any theory that relies on things we can directly observe such as matter and energy over something we cannot directly observe like "dark energy" is good in my book. I am nowhere near smart enough to do the math on these things myself. But, I am eternally surprised at how willing scientists are to use a mysterious force that is impossible for us to measure or see directly as a core and necessary part of their explanation for the universe. Exchange the words "dark energy" for "God" or "higher power" and see how comfortable cosmologists are with publishing that paper.
Well, not exactly. As Sabine briefly mentions, the most basic model of dark energy is that it is just a constant Λ. In this version this is not something material, this is just a parameter in the Einstein equation. This equation is basically how gravity works, nothing more. There was one constant there before, the Gravitational constant G. So it ups the constants from 1 to 2, not tragic, definitely not magical.
@ I get it. But the constant is describing a thing that’s happening to the universe. ie its expansion. But we don’t know exactly how or what’s causing the thing we’re observing to happen. If that expansion can be explained without having to use that constant then that’s preferable.
But this is smth physicists where often succesful with. Neutrinos where postulated to solve a problem in energy conversion in radioactive decay. Just as Quarks are NEVER observed directly, but the model describes perfectly the data and even lead to the discovery of heavier particles.
@@Tablis0 The Timescape equation is way more complex. There is no lambda in it (so no LCDM just CDM). The idea from what I've seen is that less mass in voids changes red shifts compared to light going through high mass regions for the same distance, leading to apparent acceleration with distance due to gravity caused time dilation (which we know is a thing from observation, but no one has ever accounted for it before in cosmological models because of the observably wrong cosmological principle that is being clung to). So, the calculations to correct for all the distribution stuff and resulting time dilations are really complicated. The constant for gravity has not changed, as gravity is still gravity.
I agree with @AdamGross. Briefly, if “SpaceTime” is a real thing, and deformed by mass, why would we assume light has a constant speed? It seems to me we should be looking at a model similar to wave travel through a viscous liquid.
The principal problem with LamdaCDM is that it fails to observe causal closures in complex systems. Such causal closures divide complex systems into integral parts that can be considered separately without destroying the system as a whole; of equal importance, causal closure demands that autonomous sub-systems not be elided with their neighbors.
This actually makes more since to me. The speed the expansion never made since and dark energy never made since. I also never understood why they were confused at how gravity can cause "clumping" in the universe either. This is out there but Im betting down at quantum level when there's absolutely nothing in an area energy and matter can appear/disappear from the vibrations of a quantum field or something below that. Thus instead of a big bang the universe slowly faded in and will take WAY longer than they currently guess to fade away if ever. This field would expand a little as a result of matter appearing sort of like how rain into a puddle would makes the puddle bigger.
The fact that you can spend 40 years looking for something, not find it and still be questioning if something is a mistake tells you how wrong you are and how slowly physics is willing to admit mistakes or look anywhere other than the end of their noses.
Awe, that's cute you think they're actually trying to educate the public on how the Universe really is. It's a big endless rabbit hole actually, Alice. I added a comment in Sabine's main comment. Maybe you'll learn something if you read it. They know, and train others to not know. In short. Only their cult members will know and others won't. It's a bit like the premise of the Doom video games, especially the 2016 version.
its wrong for sure 100% but until we get JWST data to form a more accurate model it works rather well for making predictions about the universe and thats all that really matters at the end of the day. orange juice and a glass of water still do the same job of hydrating us.
Sometimes I am tempted to believe that Physics was perhaps led astray deliberately. "Dark Energy" had been a marketing term since the beginning of this part of "science", I'd say. It served well to acquire money for this "research", and many "reseachers" lived well off this money. That's for sure ... in sharp contrast to the alledged existence of "dark energy"...
@@niteme Turns out Dave was right all along and Sabine indeed picked up some conspiratards with her anti establishment rants. For step one check what is the Dunning-Krueger effect is about.
It can be measured though by it's effects. All you are showing is you don't really understand the ideas behind dark matter and dark energy. They may be wrong but they are based on observations and papers are trying to use observations and measurements to prove or disprove them. Sometimes people get overly invested in a particular idea but it's ultimately testable and people are trying to test it. It's really not like religion at all
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
@@101Mant DM and DE cannot be measured, because they cannot be observed. By "measured" you mean a calculation of the amount of each needed to support the Big Bang theory, which is falsified because there is only about 5% of the real matter in the universe needed to support it. Unless, of course, something is made up to patch over the shortfall.
I wish all scientists, science educators, and science enthusiasts would remember what you said: all models are wrong, but some are useful. Thanks for the video. Happy New Year.
The timescape model is using time dilation as a refutation to the idea that the universe is expanding at a greater and greater rate over time. This idea brings back the theory of the big collapse of the universe in the future and also the big bounce theory. Both theories are heralding the idea of the universe being eternal as the original singularity (big bang model) never happened. Instead at a certain point in the collapsing Universe, inflation forces reverse the collapse sending the Universe back into expansion in an endless cycle. This is very pleasing to the secular materialistic science community. The big problem I see is the time dilation idea introduces other problems of having any constant ruler to measure cosmological distances as everything becomes relative destroying all the of the assumed existing constant measuring models. This could be true but underneath all of it lies philosophical world views that will create camps on both sides of the argument. The Cosmic Microwave Background models will add fuel to the big divide between the camps.
I think i might be on the side of time dilation I think mine is probably quite a bit different from the time scape model. I created a simulation and am getting some interesting results. which i have as a short is there any way you can give me your unbiased opinion on the patterns? doesn't use Gravity / newton / Einstein math. it is just an emergence. Just trying to understand what is going on with the universe and how it works and need some unbiased opinion to see if it is worth going any further with it.
If i stir a flat pond, the water near the stiring would be drawn to the centre but the water under less influence from the stiring will be pushed away from the centre. We use gravity to accelerate away from the Sun, dark energy is maybe just "weak gravity" and cenrifugal force working together.
Step by step we are moving towards the janus model of jp petit. It's now published in EPJC with the title beginning by "a bimetric cosmological model......". What if the voids were made of negative matter conglomerates invisible because it interacts only by gravity, repelling our positive matter?
Accelerating expansion was always going to be more likely to be a systematic measurement error based on flawed models than some weird exception to the most accurate model we've ever come up with.
2 дня назад+2
Finally, someone knows what is a systematic measurement error...
Raw data isn't raw. It is always processed thru a gestalt. See Ohm's Law ... only an effective theory, not actually true. The more elaborate and processes a gestalt is, the more likely you are seeing experimentalist bias. Big Bang polarized light showing primal gravity waves ... being just a recent example.
I have been saying this for years now.. while attempting to show the science community where the REAL Physics Anomalies they SHOULD be paying attention to are... I hope 2025 is the year I am finally vindicated... but I doubt it.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
When the news hit that universe's acceleration was speeding up, I expected they'd recalculate the age of the universe to be much younger. Yet the 13.8 billion year estimate didn't budge at all. I asked 'experts' why doesn't dark energy affect the age estimate and got crickets. Does an age estimate make an sense? Can scientists ever be honest and give 'we don't know' for an answer?
I thought exactly the same when people started talking about inflation (a phenomenon with no underlying mechanism, invented to solve a problem that does not really exist).
That's the main problem with people relying on science for everything... the very behavior stems from trying to control and know everything. Such thinking isn't nearly as objective as they pretend it is.
If I remember correctly (and might very well not be) the acceleration has very little influence on the age calculation (within the margin of error), acceleration does not mean after inflation it suddenly went in overdrive, acceleration can be very slow to be negligable on the limited timescale we are talking about in the cosmic sense. Some scientists can say they do not know, but most won't since their livelihood depends on their paycheck which is dictated by idiotic publish or perish rules.
In a 'n' dimensioned universe, any value that is a constant MIGHT NOT be constant in a universe that is actually an 'n+1' dimensioned universe. Theodor Kaluza discovered [among other things] that he found Einstein's famous formula was easier to derive using one extra dimension. Even Einstein thought Kaluza's observation to be very interesting.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities. Singularities are dual. Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry. Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry. Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
@@wilhelmstanzl3635 "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy is what you know and is used to make predictions. Knowledge is dual according to Immanuel Kant -- synthetic a priori knowledge. If knowledge is dual then information is dual. Entropy or average information is dual to co or mutual information, syntropy. The fact that all observers make predictions about the world is proof of a 4th law of thermodynamics. Waves (generalization) are dual to particles (localization) -- quantum duality. The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
The idea of reinterpreting voids and dense regions without dark energy is fascinating. It feels like we're at the edge of redefining some of the most fundamental assumptions in cosmology, an exciting time for astrophysics enthusiasts and researchers alike.
Mainstream science has led you astray from reality. I think you are familiar with the term flat earther. That's what your 'modern' physicists are. Flat earthers. Gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. This has been exhaustively proven by numerous drop experiments. Newton's gravitational attraction BS is the cornerstone for modern physics. Why is that? If you look at F=G(m1m2)/R2, no matter what m2 is, F (motion) is always the same. There, either gravitational attraction is invalid or G is not a constant. Enter dark matter to rescue flat earth science. What the flat earthers (gravity proponents) don't understand is that the earth is in motion around the sun and this is what causes 'gravity'. Newton's third law of motion. Gravity is a Reactionary force to the acceleration force. What flat earthers don't understand is that the planets get their motion in space from the primordial cloud they were created from. Not the parent star. Even without the star, the planets would still stay in orbit. Just as a hurricane has no common center of mass. The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference. Why would a hurricane, a rotating frame, have different physics than a spiral galaxy? If you research Galileo, his ball drop experiments debunking gravity were dismissed as a thought experiment by his flat earth peers. Brian Cox performed the same experiment in a vacuum chamber and yet still has the audacity to preach the gospel according to St Einstein. These people are either really very stupid or are afraid of reality. E=mc. Everything comes from Acceleration. Including mass. Where then does Acceleration come from. Giordano Bruno theorized an infinite universe with no beginning. So much for the big bang. The Bible lays out a creator god who set the universe in motion. That's why you're modern science is still stuck in the stone age. Outside of religion, there is no explanation for the universe in its current state.
I'm kinda surprised Einstein himself didn't already think of this given he initially thought the universe was static. Or maybe he had, I don't know, but applying relativity to explain what we observe seems like this theory would have been right up his alley.
Cosmologcal redshift is likely caused by refraction. Light is not traveling in a straith line, causing time dilation relative to C. Dark energy is thus simply optical dispersion.
I always imagined 'dark energy' was just a catch-all term for whatever the heck was accelerating the expansion of spacetime. Kind of like how 'dementia' doesn't actually describe anything concrete, just the symptoms of something(s) we don't understand.
To paraphrase (shorten) a story by Cr Donald Scott. ‘A farmer and his young daughter’s car breaks down not far from their farm as they prepare to drive into town. So the farmer decides to walk back to the farm and collect Dobbin the draught horse, which he then tethers to the broken down car using a heavy rope. Dobbin then proceeds to tow the car back to the farm. In a playful mood, the young daughter decides to join in with Dobbin. So she ties a piece of string to the car, before walking beside Dobbin, pretending to be pulling the car behind her’. The problem is that Astronomers and Cosmologists have a psychological disorder which prevents them from being able to see Dobbin or the heavy rope, only the young daughter and the car. So they conclude the car is moving because the young daughter is pulling it. This is a metaphorical explanation of the current situation in our science. Which is why we are apparently supposed to believe there are Pulsars spinning at the speed of a dentist drill for example. Of course, The young daughter represents gravity, and Dobbin the Draught horse represents the electrodynamic force between two electrons in a plasma (of which the universe is 99% in that state). Or, in other words, 1.2 x 10^36 times the force of gravity. Until Astronomers and Cosmologists have their psychological disorder treated, nothing is going to change, and we can expect a continued diet of mathematical magical nonsense.
One thing I've noticed in the GR/QG literature is that dark-energy-like behavior is a very common consequence of a wide range of modified gravity theories (for example, as I recall, it shows up if you try to give the graviton a mass). So assuming that gravity doesn't work exactly according to GR, it seems to me that the chances are decent of there being a nonzero cosmological constant.
It means "we can't see or detect it". There's not some nefarious plot to obscure the truth or be dishonest. We came up with a model that seemed good, then observed things that didn't seem to work right and follow it, but we had no alternative explanation. So we've been in a period of time where we're unable to explain that and reconcile things, hence the term "dark energy/matter" to refer to the discrepancy and the problem. Now, someone thinks they found a good explanation and it's time to investigate and test that.
They're not trying to do anything. They're literally saying "we don't know." That's the point of the term. Why are there so many "gotcha" bros on this subject.
@@GameDevNerd Read "Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory", a 2022 paper by Eric Lerner. It's time to investigate and test that.
@@lukesball1 A whole lot of them treat the "dark" things as real in their papers. They did not bother to use the phrase "assuming dark energy is real". Then they asked for more fundings to write more papers on why the dark things are real but we cannot observe it.
Love the way physicists present theory after theory and no one ever says “We were wrong.” Compare these scientists with geologists and archeologists, also trying to figure out the nature of reality, each in their own domain. Here on YT I’ve heard geologists say “We know this and this but about that other we don’t know yet.” And archeologists “We’ve found this and this but we haven’t found that yet so we can’t say that such and such is true.” Where is similar truth and scientific rigor in physics? Yes, physics is a more “immaterial” science than rocks and dirt, but still, where is the humble honesty? Sabine, I love your work because you challenge those who, less than 75 years after Einstein’s death, purport to have it all figured out.
Inconsistencies in our measurements of the Hubble Constant underline our ignorance about the true nature of Dark Energy. We don't know what it is, but learning about it is essential for cosmology. SOMETHING made spacetime expand in the beginning, and we don't know what it was/is. Also, doesn't time flow differently near high mass/energy density compared to areas of low mass/energy? RUclips click bait "headlines" make understanding modern cosmology more difficult for us laymen.
Imposing an anthropomorphic aspect in the sense of birth or beginning to the universe displays a certain amount of hubris in the arena of cosmology. Is it not more likely that the universe always existed, its age and size therefore being undetermined and undeterminable. Phase changes may occur in regions of this universe leading to some measurable artefacts such as CMB. There may also be more to the “universe” than we know of at present. A hyperspace or sub space may exist which could lead to new possibilities which could be taken advantage of for communication or travel over cosmic distances if we ever developed suitably advanced technologies.
@@michaelthompson5252 Not sure what you mean by "some aspects". Either stellar objects were created by gravity (BBT) or by EM forces (PU and EU).... it's a binary choice.
Happy New Year everyone!! The quiz for today's video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1735660694313x199948480024936450
New Year´s quiz, 14/15, hopefully started😇
Vacuum energy (10^Infinity)!
Sabine, I told you more than a year ago that "dark energy" isn't real!! Neither is "dark matter". They're just plug-ins that are intended to gloss over the incongruities between more recent observations and erroneous cosmological theory. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that something is very seriously wrong with cosmology.
Happy New Year to you and your family Sabine. Looking good in the new colours there
Great video. What about the new paper on arxiv "A bimetric cosmological model based on Andrei Sakharov's twin universe approach" ?😁😁
I think the explanation here missed out the main point - which is that time will run slower in regions of 'high' density (galaxies and galaxy clusters) than in regions of low density between the galaxy clusters. If this time dilation is factored into the observations for expansion of the universe, the apparent acceleration of the expansion drops out as a consequence. In other words, the acceleration is not real, it is an artifact due to the variable "timescape" nature of the universe.
lol, science is a cult.
Fluid dynamics of time has been the main prediction of Wolfram's multicomputational paradigm.
@@santerisatama5409 time is not a fluid. Maths is not physics. Theory doesn't create reality.
Yes! This was also my takeaway from another discussion of the paper (by Anton Petrov), was hoping for a deeper explanation by Sabine, maybe when she has had more time to look into it...
Hard to believe that galaxy clusters are dense enough to account for that much time dilation though. Unless cosmic acceleration is much more subtle than I'd been given to expect.
Seems like the gravity fields that really count should be those near the supernovas whose light is being used as a benchmark. I wonder how those compare to the red shift of normal stars in the same galaxies.
If you prove a previous Nobel prize winner wrong do you automatically get a Nobel prize yourself?
Like highlander? A quickening?
The "anti-Noble"?
An ig-Noble.
What I stopped to type.
😆
A faulty initial assumption combined with a strong mathematical model can sometimes predict and explain observations with incredible accuracy. Most ancient scholars believed in the geo-centric model. But they introduced complex concepts like epicycle and predicted planetary motions with high accuracy with their rigorous mathematical model. This is the reason why it was so hard to establish the heliocentric model.
That is also because the geocentric model is just as "right" as the heliocentric one. The universe has no center so we are free to choose what we would like for a center. The ecliptic neatly carves out the orbit of the Sun around the Earth. We can watch the whole universe turn around us.
@@mikemondano3624 No. The heliocentric model is for the solar system, not the universe as a whole. You are incorrectly using one to describe the other. The planets in the solar system orbit the sun and not the Earth like what is described in the geocentric model.
@@andrewn7365 But they do, if you ignore gravity (that was not a thing, and we now know that it's the cause for the motions) and just focus on motion, you can choose the center being earth and just describe motions around it. It works just as fine as a model for predictions.
(Even Newtons formulas couldn't explain mercury's orbit, but it was a better model, because it included the reasons for the motions, and then Einsteins was even better)
@@vicentemimica4526 The price is, that you just have to give up on all of physics.
The ancients never got extreme accuracy. The errors were on the order of 6 to 8 minutes of arc. Heliocentric models with circles got the same accuracy without epicycles.
From a video design standpoint, I appreciate how the color gradient in the blouse and sleeves matches the background gradient into the desktop, and emphasizes the hand gestures.
You sound like a person
"All models are wrong, but some are useful." Thank you for that! Happy New Year!
George E.P. Box
We keep becoming less and less wrong...
@@explodingstardust Yet still wrong.
@@ThePowerLover What is your point?
Thanks, I have not come across that in a bit. It supports my inner conflict with self deception. "All models are wrong, but some are useful." It might help.
My mindfulness practice to helps me remember to consider the possibility that perception might grant data that helps to build models, rather than the means to understand what is. If a model turned out to accurate and precise, et al, it would be reality and not just a description of reality.
I think we all knew this intuitively. Clearly dark energy is just a place holder for new science.
You take that back, I knew no such thing
Agreed. Dark matter may similarly be a placeholder for new science as well. Developing cogent theories for these two phenomena would be a huge step forward in understanding the nature of the universe we live in.
Yes, it smells like luminiferous aether
agree. Dark Matter too!
My hypotheses for "negative pressure" less than atmospheric and more than zero is temporal pressure from cosomological cycloid arc vibration. Principle of least action from brachistochronon cycloid.
Negative pressure does exist in the universe though. My mother produced quite a lot of it when I was young. She may have been the primary source
That is likely a Universal Constant. Pink Floyd helped me deal with it.
Negative pressure? Could it also be called a void?
Your thoughts and emotions have effects upon the world around you, is something known by science but not really taught.
A major clue to this is those random number generators that stop being random when major world events happen. It's called magic, which is real. We're all magical creatures, but gaslit it's not a thing. To like explain that negativity and rubbing off on others and then bad things start happening in you and yours life.
Also, your rulers gather at places like stone henge and have it all blocked off. for no reasons. They know these quantum effects. But there are most of us than them, so if we knew, they'd lose power.
Mmmmkay?
Oh and the large particle accelerators are a means to cancel out Earth vibrations to spiritually ruin the globe. It's really a lot like Doom (2016). It's why they barely come out with 5hit about 5hit.
It's for the rulers to suppress the peoples magic and spiritually disconnect them from God so others can cosplay it.
Have a blessed New Year.
-God in fleshy meat sack form
😊
Negative pressure? Vacuum? So I'm assuming your mother is from another universe?
The only reason why I'm asking is because you said "negative pressure does not exist in the universe though."
If your statement is correct, she is not from this universe. 🤔
Although I do concur. Parents can seem like black holes at times.
Just a note, astrophysists are beginning to think that the local group (which makes up the Milkyway, Andromeda, and M-87) are actually within a void (voids are not empty, but they do have smaller amounts of galaxies within them). They think that it is this void that is causing the issues seen with the Hubble tension.
The Local Void was discovered in 1987 by Brent Tully and Richard Fisher.
Can you say more?
The Local Void is also a term to describe the lack of good Mexican food in my area.
"They" are beginning to think? Are they clones? Did you ask one and now know what they all would say?
Yes, as long as you understand that voids are not nothingness or the absence of matter, but rather an area of less concentrated matter.
Back in the 1980s, I'd built a model (and subsequent paper which I could never find a publisher due to it being some 60 pages long and, in the words of one journal editor, "Too radical" back in 1991) which posited that spacetime could be lumpy. The areas of higher density (hence lumpiness) would have gravitational pulls all themselves. The downside of this approach was the realization that universal constants of physics might change over time as the universe expanded and changed. This meant the variation of energy and momentum, instead of being exactly zero, became a regional integral of a function whose limit approached zero over time. (BTW, this approach held open the possibility of breaking the Femtosecond barrier near the Big Bang) I still stand by that hypothesis, even though my Physics days are some 35 years behind me. I failed, but I'm glad to see that others have begun moving where I was initially about 45 years ago. It's good to see Astrophysics starting to break out of its dogmatic phase. I never agreed with the Dark Energy/Matter hypothesis. It always seemed overly complicated as an explanation. When theorizing about Cosmology, the simplest models should be the ones pursued.
In a group on Facebook, we used to discuss the fact that time doesn't move at the same rate everywhere as the effects of gravity are not evenly distributed throughout the universe.
The progression of time is dynamic and dramatically affected by temperature.
I really appreciate how you avoid the sensationalist clickbaity bs, and just make a honest effort to explain a paper in 5 minutes to a general audience. Thanks. Happy new year!
3 minutes making stale, unfunny jokes, 1 minute explaining the topic in a way that conveys no valuable information on the topic covered, 30 seconds criticizing scientists, physics and academia, 30 seconds shilling sponsors.
@@xMorogothxdon't watch and don't post. Go do something you enjoy.
To counter your criticism, she did effectively convey the summary and conclusions of a recent cosmology paper.
You probably just remember "sour dough"
Err... Bezos is best... not clickbait to you, no?
Ugh FFS!!
IFLS 2.0 page groupies! 🙄🔫
@xMorogothx actually, a minute 30 seconds for the sponsor, and you didn't watch the video. This is just an approximation of the format. She didn't even criticise academia in this one. However, this approximation does describe observations, and I think it could be helpful in predicting future events.
It is clickbait tho, ya funky monkey. The title suggests dark energy isn’t real but she clearly states, it may or may not be real ha ha. Nothing has changed other than a group writing a similar paper to what they did like 8 years ago.
It's good to see the Timescape paper & model being discussed in several RUclips channels. Hopefully it won't be ignored by mainstream cosmologists, and they will feel compelled to try to falsify it.
You should always try to falsify a theory to test it
Is it falsifiable, though? It's just another in a long line of models that fits all the data we have, if it's falsifiable then there should be some data we can collect that it might not fit, and if we do that, then we'll just tweak some parameters, add some complexity, and say it fits again.
This may come off that mainstream cosmologists are being jerks. Well, yes. Yet this is exactly how science works. Many people don’t realize this.
It’s not because scientists don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. The model works very well for almost everything. It can be observed and measured and predicted many things before they were discovered. This is exactly how science progresses.
@@justindwight5457 That's kinda the thing, though. Physics models haven't lately predicted much that has actually been discovered. This century, you've got the Higgs boson, and that's it. Experimental physics have made lots of discoveries about the behavior of known particles, but theoretical physics has been facing a brick wall explaining things that require new particles, for decades. There's dozens of puzzling physics phenomena out there that require a bump in complexity from the Standard Model to explain, but none of them really constrain the question enough to falsify any of the options.
@@justindwight5457 That's the sneaky thing about models. I always like to point out that the geocentric model was more accurate at predicting the movements of the planets in the sky than the original heliocentric model, albeit in a very complicated way and which had some notable problems at the edges. It sounds awfully familiar, but it really is just part of scientific progress. Always exciting to watch.
Fun fact, the top view of the city at 3:20 is the city of Popayan, Colombia. It made me happy to see a city of my home country in the video 😄
Congratulations 🎉
I'm sure that stock footage of South America at 3:15 gave a few people a jolt when it zoomed right in on their location lol
Popayan, the White City of Columbia
Help! I’m a prisoner in a RUclips factory!
The side issue to this, is possibly more significant. Since cosmic redshift falsely predicted a 'Dark Ages' (JWST showed it to be full of galaxies), using this interpretation to determine Universe evolution is obviously incorrect. Cosmic redshift only determines distance; and even that is open to challenge it we consider Halton Arp's radio galaxy redshift discontinuities.
Arp relies on actual data -- photos you can see -- not theories to make his points.
@@williamschlosser Won't get an argument from me. Demonstrated that jets from active sources exhibited strikingly different redshifts that of the source.
So they took away his radio telescope.
Happy New Purple Year! Dr. Sabine!
Happy New Year to you too!
ruclips.net/video/SkkIwO_X4i4/видео.html
Yep, anything but pink!😂
@@SabineHossenfelder yeah it's not REAL which means Earth is flat and stationary there is no gravity only Electromagnetism
The biggest hurdle to learning new things is when you think you know it all.
The correct term is African American matter
Which should be hammered into the heads of all physics students right from the beginning. But unfortunately isn't...
Second biggest. The biggest is when you think no one knows anything.
The more you know the more you know you don't know.
@@GFJM-y9m
True words.
Physics evolves 1 funeral at a time
Overthrowing big bang theory is going to be a really up hill battle, it's become so accepted, that people will cling on it even if they are wrong.
Auld Lang Syne!
Nice! May I use that?
@@craigwall9536 The German physicist Max Planck said that "science advances one funeral at a time". Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it....
@@craigwall9536its a well known phrase amongst physicists. You’re more than welcome to steal it cause that guy almost certainly got it from someone else.
The accelerated expansion is caused by the mass of universes outside ours. We just can't see it because of the limit of our observational horizon.
I've never been convinced by the homogeneity hypothesis of the model of the universe, it's clear it's not, at least at our scales
Happy New Year, Sabine!
Happy new year!
@@SabineHossenfelder Frohes neues Jahr!
In other news, cows aren't spherical.
😂
Prove that and you'll get a Nobel
@@adirmugrabi Haven't you learned anything from the video? Proving cows are spherical will get me a Nobel prize.
more like earth isn't just a uniform sphere of dirt and water mixture, it has landmasses surrounded by water. Would certainly explain the localized clumping of humans.
I beg to differ. Just because you can't see the remaining body that sphericicise them doesn't make them non spherical.
Dark energy is just a way of saying: we have no clue why expansion accelerates :)
That is the thing, the paper is saying, is the expansion is not accelerating because time is fasting in low density regions like the voids
Yes, but it is a cool way to say it. A clever marketing term to help acquire a lot of money to do" research" on this topic.
Amen!
Well, there is a leading theory as to why expansion occurs, that I haven't seen disproven. It's about how the quantum foam is always causing virtual particle pairs to appear and annihilate in otherwise "empty" space, and that natural repulsion between these pairs causes the space their appearance occurs in to expand a tiny bit. This explains why empty space seems to expand more and more, the emptier it is of familiar forms of matter and energy. But it's a very difficult theory to test.
paper summary: _the angels clearly dont drink *dark ale*, but they have to drink something to make all that rain_
Hoped you’d cover this! Didn’t have to wait long! Thanks Sabine and happy new yr!
Gravity causes masses to move towards each other. So how can reasonable person be surprised to see very large groups of galaxies together?
Surely it's obvious that gravitational attraction will bring many galaxies together.
Is the universe actually expanding at an ever faster rate?
Since we've only been observing far objects for just a few decades we can't actually fully confirm that everything outside the local group is moving away as we basically have a still photograph of the universe around us due to the scales involved.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
Gravity is holding the objects together not the space between it.
Aether
If u can manipulate the aether, u can manipulate the gravity aka space time fabric
Happy New Year! Nice shirt! 😁
I think she has bleached the other one... (The pink one)
@@RecycledBikes-jj No, her shirt has blue shifted. This might tell us something about the "Hossenfelder universe". Instead of moving away - it's now moving in the the direction of it's biggest attractor - the supercluster of her fans.
@red.aries1444 excellent! HNY
I studied Physics at Uni Hamburg and the moment they told us about the Dark Matter/Energy theory, I couldn't help but draw the comparison to the old Aether Theory. I could never accept it and thought that somewhere in our theories that lead to Dark Matter/Energy must be wrong.
I suspect we'll find aether long before we find dark matter or dark energy.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
Hmm.. That is interesting. I was thinking the same thing. I actually made a simulation of something similar but it goes a bit beyond Aether. doesn't have Newton or Einstein work. I made a short of it and hoping to get some unbiased information about what people think is going on so that i can tune it and produce more. It is just a prototype. Maybe you can take a look at give me your un biased opinion?
What's wrong is basing a theory on gravity. There is only 5% of the real matter in the universe to support BBT. Try Plasma Cosmology, based on EM forces, no "dark" stuff needed.
I did watch a detailed presentation of the Timescape concept (I'd not yet call it a model) and was intrigued--not least because if true it would remove the challenge of finding or at least explaining that mysterious dark energy. But, is there any better chance of experimentally discovering Timescape evidence than for finding ^CDM evidence?
No guys, you don’t claim someone’s Nobel Prize for proving them incorrect. However, you will expose it was never prize worthy in the first place - which may (AND SHOULD) hurt said Laureate significantly greater than recalling their beloved trophy. Scientific peer-review in its purest form and all its beauty!
Einstein would love this!
Einstein would have pirated it and claimed it as his own work...
The biggest mistake in his life …. now twice
@Duke_Romilar_III salty! :) why?
@lorddorker3703 look into him and his papers...he took credit for the work of others.
@Duke_Romilar_III now now, he didn't steal, he'd just improve upon other people's ideas. Just ask his first wife.
The best start to a new year! Thank you, Sabine, and a fortuitus New Year to you! Post Script: This is a very intriguing theory to my mind and Its New!
Of course it is, if you call SEVEN YEARS OLD new, that is. 😱🧐😂😂
Einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr, Sabine!!
Happy new year Dr Sabine. We follow you from Uzbekistan.
Well... build the following model:
1) Take two points A and B with a const distance R between them and draw two lines (one through A and one through B) so they intersect at point P.
2) Move P, but so that angle phi between the lines remains const, and build a set of possible positions of P.
Now compare the sets for P for different phi, keeping in mind that phi is diffraction angle (so the bigger set means which wavelength prevails with increasing of R) and R is the distance between you and source of light
Each phi will cause P to trace an ellipsoid?
@b43xoit if R is small then they are very close one to another, the bigger R the more difference, so you get "stronger" signal from bigger one (with greater diffraction angle)
I always thought the observed accelerated expansion of the universe was a consequence of time dilation over large distances, but I assumed that was so obvious that smarter minds must have disproved it somehow. Glad to see somebody's finally looking into it.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
3:15 not that it matters, but the city they show there is real, and it’s Popayan, Colombia.
An obvious choice for a German if you just want to show some random city!
Aguante payanés! 😄
Lovely Popayan❤
Thanks! It looked very similar to Cuenca EC, with similar main river and the same relative location of the airport. But it wasn't quite right, so I was stumped
Surprise surprise, it’s way more complicated than we originally thought
I think the math is more complicated but the idea itself is less complicated.
@@bobkoroua - You beat me to it. Yeah, more fine-grained, beaucoup data to collect and crunch, but more straightforward and doesn't require invisible stuff.
Most definitely yes!
But at the same time, probably not. Dark Energy is itself a complication that probably isn't needed to explain the phenomena we can observe. Indeed, Sabine starts off by pointing out that the new paper is calling into question the assumptions and simplifications that underpinned the original paper, and that the complexity of "dark energy" goes away if one accepts that the universe is the way it is.
There is a socio-political problem. Dark energy is like the dream topic for physicists looking for grant funding. Whilst the wise sages express certainty that "something odd called dark energy is playing with our universe", the grant funding bodies are keen to stump up cash for physicists to go look for it (in experiments, or in theoretical studies). It provides years of comfortable employment, endless opportunities for speculative papers, etc, all without any real risk of the topic drying up because someone goes and actually finds the wretched stuff. A cool name goes a long way in funding decisions.
However, if all of a sudden someone awkward comes up with hard-to-ignore ideas about how "dark energy is a load of bs", there's a lot of people looking at their next grant applications being difficult. It's not something many will rejoice over, and sing the praises of...
@@abarratt8869problem is, when thruth show itself, it is damn difficult to unsee it
@@abarratt8869
This is a science argument.
Don't bring your culture war BS into it.
There isn't a massive conspiracy of eggheads trying to steal your tax money.
Get a grip.
The Sourdough imagery is offhandedly genius. Continuing to love your channel into the new year!
Whenever I see a remarkable science headline I usually wait for your summary presentation on the subject, rather than just clicking on their video. They’re just the right length, and are generally more fun. Thanks!
I was hoping you’d cover this paper, thanks!
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
The question this raises for me is why nobody has bothered to do the math before for the effects of time dilation based on the _actual_ distribution of matter. I understand the motivation to simplify the math by assuming smoothness, but not why nobody bothered to check if it was actually a safe assumption.
I think the seven year old paper is a clue. And it's not like I, not being a physicist, haven't had similar musings, and I doubt I'm that special.
The question is not why nobody ever had the idea, but why it wasn't popularized. And we have to be honest, it still isn't. The theory might get tabled for another decade.
@thearpox7873 true, but I do think Lambda CDM is getting too many observation-based holes punched in it to remain viable. The end is nigh, and it's not nearly as cold as rumored.
Because before JWST there was nothing to compare it to
There weren't enough data to check
@@crawkn Fingers crossed.
It's been a long time coming.
If the cosmological constant turns out to be wrong, that also would question another paradigm of astrophysics, "infaltion", right?
While there are models which connect inflation with the cosmological constant, physicists generally consider them as two different things. The cosmological constant is part of the "standard model" of cosmology (LambdaCDM). Inflation is not. That said, if dark energy disappears again, this would certain cause a lot of rethinking in general!
From what I read of what the Higgs boson detection might have shown, there is a strong suggestion that normal matter with mass is at a higher energy state that rides above one that allows unstable virtual particles to pop in and out of existent as something of a medium. And that medium may also be the means that gravity gets expressed as areas of differing time and space “dimensions”. As it has been noted that the permeability of spaces is effected when there is differing densities of matter in the mix of radiation’s propagation as Maxwell’s equations can be used to calculate. So with some type of virtual matter state in the mix with masses’ generation of gravity and its propagation may be a logical way for it to get expressed that may then describe the quantum gravity that is being looked for.
@@SabineHossenfelder I ain't no physicist, but in my opinion the only constant thing in the universe is the universe's expansion rate. There is nothing constant in our universe as matter, and particles behave differently indifferent areas/environment/ecosystems in space, the only thing that is constant all through out the universe is it's expansion rate, the universe expanse at the same rate, in the middle, at the left, right, bottom, and top ages, an once again that is the only consistent thing through out the universe, everything else, light travel, everything "general relativity" uses is irrelevant to the true understand of how the universe works.
@@SabineHossenfelder image that our world, our live are like a part of a cell(the world bei the cell), and our galaxy being the equivalent to an organ a cell(us) as much as it tried to understand it's place in the universe it never will for it can not comprehend what is happening at the cosmic scale, our universe can be a whole complex leaving organism, and we are just as insignificant in that cosmic scale, as a cell is to us. A cell as much as it study the world around it would never understand that they just play a role as a part of a bigger organism they can't even fathom.
@@josuerizo1 Right. Unfortunately, I asked the wrong question🙄, that Sabine so kindly answered. My Idea is that infaltion is redundant, if the cosmologcal PRNICIPLE is wrong
What if you looked at the universe acceleration thusly: As concentrations of matter gather together, the voids become larger and thus the acceleration of gravity becomes less having less effect on the bodies in motion. So, the mass on the edge of the universe continues to pull mass outward at a faster pace while the inner mater continues to be pulled outward . Thus, the void is expanding at en ever increasing rate reducing the effect of gravity in the middle of the universe according to g = G* (M/R^2) . While the outer universe is moving according to f = m*a. Thus, The sum of g is decreasing while f=m*a remains constant..
In other words, our gravity models are built round mass at the center. Examples being, earth, sun, galaxies. Where as the universe has mass on the outside. So g=G*(M/R^2) has a different meaning: R is not defined, not definable but continually approaching infinity. Thus, where R approaches infinity (M/R^2) approaches 0 exponentially and thus the effect of G approaches 0 at an exponentially increasing rate.
In this model f=ma approaches a constant (1).
However, a constellation of f=ma vectors in a circle moving away from a center point will all appear to be moving away from each other at an ever increasing speed because in addition to looking at f=m*a being near constant the circle is expanding at cos= M*C/|M||C| (M=Milky Way & C = Camelopardalis A -- although Camelopardalis A is really two close for this example) . Thus -> MC (Vector MC--the rate of change in distance of MC) has two components:
1) f=ma for M & f=ma for C (The movement from the origin of the universe)
2) based on the original vectors and their angle of departure. The triangle MOC has a hypotenuse of MC. MC is increasing based on the angle of departure.
As long as MC is increasing at a rate > G*(M/R^2) the universe appears to not only be expanding but accelerating.
Thus Newtonian physics is preserved as is Euclidean geometry! And so is one of Einstein's fundamental principals: "God does not play dice."
OK, given all of this (MOC ect...) given the mass of three independent galaxy clusters, One of which would be our local cluster (Milky Way, Andromeda...), The origin of the universe calculated by reverse engineering basic triangulation. Like how GPS triangulates a location on earth from 3 origins--except in reverse. Any reverse calculation will come up with two positions one of which the Milky Way is heading toward and one which the Milky Way is heading away from. Likely--but not necessarily--the one we are heading away from is the origin. But the destination point may be obviously irrelevant or point toward a 3rd point beyond our understanding.
This reverse triangulation can be confirmed by a second method given the distance between local clusters (lc1 lc2 lc3) given the vector movement of all three galaxies (vlc1, vlc2, vlc3) where:
Hypotenuse approaches 0 along negative vectors ~= origin/differentiation and time components are
lc1-1c2 approaches 0 along -vlc1 and -vlc2. lc1-lc2-9 & lc1t
lc1-1c3 approaches 0 along -vlc1 and -vlc2. lc1-lc2-9 & lc2t
lc3-1c2 approaches 0 along -vlc1 and -vlc2. lc1-lc2-9 & lc3t
There are other factors here like gravity influencing vector path, the mergers of local clusters before origin and the like. If all local clusters point to the same origin then our simple, spherical, big bang universe is confirmed. Otherwise, a more complex and yet undescribed universe is confirmed and could be something like the Kessler Syndrome where a series of big events fed into each other to create what is observable, our universe could be more toroidal sphere than sphere...pulling itself apart by tangental forces that are not readily apparent in the observable universe. It could be more similar to a jet coming out of a black hole...or any combination of these and other factors.
The reverse triangulation and hypotenuse approaching zero methodologies could be applied iteratively to arrive at an improved theory of the universe. The simpler and more established principals leading to an improved theory.
Sabine, I've been peppering my cousin Meg Urry (who probably needs no introduction) for roughly 25 years with theories to explain "dark matter". If you're interested in talking more or possibly collaborating -- though my background may not justify it given your extensive experience on the topic, I can be messaged at: bsky.app/profile/originalintel.bsky.social.
Nice video about sourdough
In the end it turns out that we live inside the construction foam that someone has injected into a crack between some door frame and a wall... 😆
Hey! She has a different T-shirt.
Same shirt, different colour. I postulate she got a dye kit for Christmas.
@@BobWobbles I will instead postulate that she accidentally put the pink shirt in the washing machine together with a bunch of blue socks and the blue bled into the shirt.
Gotta color sort your laundry properly !
you will now see this shirt in the next 10 videos
She said last video it would be a new shirt. The bottom button on the old one was mismatched too.
This isn't the first time she's changed the color in post. I love that she's been trolling her shirt-whiners all along and upped the game with yesterday's "promise".
Happy new year!!!
Same to you!
I enjoy your video presentations not just because of the fascinating and challenging (...for non-specialist laymen like me...) content, but also because you are, I believe, fair-minded and impartial.
I heard another report on this and noticed 2 things you didn't emphasize
1) it's called "timescape" because it's claiming that the apparent expansion is an illusion caused by time dilation from the effects of gravity in general relativity
2) their calculations are depending on the assumption that dark matter is real
3) even though it is supposed to be explaining the apparent accelerating expansion of the wider universe and the slowdown of that acceleration, they were only able to show its fit in the nearby region, as you called it the "low red shift" area.
So, using General Relativity and using the actual distribution of mass instead of assuming uniformity is obviously the right way to get a more accurate model, but I think this should be tried again using every combination of assumptions we'd like to test.
For instance on a no-dark matter model.
*Model doesn’t match reality.*
“Well the model can’t be wrong, so let’s make up something to correct the error”
Main character energy. 😂
It's more like: current model is useful and convenient...so let's add more parameters to it and see what happens...it's all approximations anyways.
Einstein's double greatest mistake
Correct the universe to fit the equation
@@fonzdaii, but it was not useful and convenient. It was so inconvenient that they had to make up things to justify it rather than looking at the model once again.
If you can get a Nobel prize for proposing an improbable and unprovable thesis you should get two Nobel prizes for debunking it.
Unfortunately, we live in a society. The emotions of the useless concierge are of utmost importance.
@@MingusDew_Bebop "The emotions of the useless concierge are of utmost importance." What does that mean?
Happy New Year Sabine, and very interesting report. TY for sharing.
Happy New Year to you too!
I'm old enough to remember when 'CDM' stood for 'Cadbury's Dairy Milk'.
@@likebot. I don't want to sound rude, but it may come as a bit of a surprise (a shock, maybe) that someone who is not from the USA is also using this site.
One of my favorite subjects! Please Sabina....can we have a one on one conversation about this topic? Please.
Does this get us any closer to warp drive? Asking for a friend.
Hi Elon
If Alice falls into a particularly dense bit of sourdough starter, does Bob still see her freeze on its surface while she, from her perspective, continues through the dough? Can we still describe the entire 3D contents of the dough by throwing it really hard against a flat wall and analyzing the surface? If we put the dough into Schrodinger's quantum box, could it emerge as a delicious baguette, or will the cat eat it first? Is this why Carl Sagan said we have to make the universe before we can make an apple pie? Why do I have a sudden urge to eat a cookie?
I tried this recipe once. Added a bit too much 0 and the electric charges on the proton and electron didn't fully cancel out. The dough clung to everything. And the apples were mushy.
Best comment in this whole section
This is genius storytelling. The progression, the arc.
Ha I saw this on Twitter and knew you would have a video on it.
Fascinating. Watching long held scientific assumptions fall away is exciting. Apparently Hubble's research assistant, Milton Humason, disputed the red shift and expanding universe hypothesis. Then again, he started working with Hubble as a janitor. 😉 I'm certainly no physicist but I'm pretty sure the basic idea that "everything is moving away from everything else" has been well disproven. Dark energy always seemed like an invisible magic band aid for an erroneous theory at least to me. Also, apparently a competent mathematician can make the numbers say whatever it is you want. 🤔
This timescape idea is brilliant. Can someone just clarify. Does it mean that the universe expands because time cycles faster in a vacuum space rather than around matter?
More like time moves slower for matter in faster motion
Measuring is a temporal process, and relativistic observer can't distinguish between computing more resolution from inside, and the "outside" exapanding.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
once the dough goes in the oven the expansion of the universe will then fill with tasty bubbles of bread
once in the oven, there is a rapid acceleration of expansion (spring) after which the size and shape is fixed in place, and it begins to cool.
then, we slice.
@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv not if you put sausage in it
Happy New Year 🎉 Love your new shirt 😍
Big disappointment, tbh
Happy new year, I like the new shirt!
It is weird how similar science can be to a bunch of 12-year-olds arguing in the lunchroom.
My money is on the universe not actually expanding (or at least not nearly at the rate claimed) and that it has to do with the decay of light over great distances.
What does the light decay into?
@@RabidxDog I am referencing a paper from 100 years ago that is now being re-examined now. Essentially the wave length elongates over time. If the paper is right, it puts the universe at about 26B years old.
@@ThatGuyz82 you can stretch light into elongated radio wave wavelengths and it still is detectable. Even if the wavelength is stretched infinitely (a straight line) it is still detectable, it doesn't decay ( doesn't just stop/disappear).
"Dark matter" and "dark energy" were mere placeholders for unexplained phenomena.
If timescape and uneven distribution of matter turn out to be an explanation, great. (My simple mind thinks that if you need to resort to Bayesian analysis, they your results are preliminary at best.)
But it's a big stretch to say that it's "overthrowing" anything.
Particularly when Sabine baits and then switches to saying she's skeptical about it.
Bunk! It was always described as 95% of the universe that we couldn't see. A bit late in the game to backtrack that description.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
I was catfished?
You're completely wrong about Bayesian analysis. If you think frequentist statistics is assumption free, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Archeologists are even slower to accept new evidence that they are WRONG. So much of “science” has to do with egos and funding that it is amazing that we make ANY progress
Who is? What archeologist?
What's new in archeology?
Edit: It's been hours and you've refused to elaborate after multiple people have asked you to. I'm starting to doubt you have anything substantive.
Archeology is completely different from this, with History and Archeology they usually try to find multiple sources through all sorts of records, such as the archeological record and the written record, it all has to match up for them to accept an explanation for something
This comment is jst anti - evolutionist vibe, just red herring all over again
There are a couple of places in the world where archeologists are used for political purposes... but otherwise, and even sometimes in those places, they've been very quick to accept real new evidence. You and they might just disagree about what constitutes "evidence".
Why can't we think of Dark Energy / Matter as a gravity-induced coagulation of physical space? If gravity "warps space," then there has to be something physical there to warp. ... After all, an "empty vacuum" does not warp, nor does it do anything at all.
Gravity can be understood as accretion at a lower level rather than remote attraction at ours.
This is why I say that a truly advanced understanding of spacetime needs to have a set of physical definitions of what units of spacetime consist of. If spacetime is curved by gravity, what actual field and particle interactions are taking place, both to cause it and to generate the observed results`? While there is some work being done on this, it seems to be swamped by mathematicians who are trying to prove that the Universe has NO physical manifestations and is just math. They say that the fact that we see (and are made up of) physical manifestations can be dismissed, that it's just some fever dream, and that reality really doesn't exist, except for their equations. As Sabine says, it's the difference between believing that the math DESCRIBES reality vs. believing that the math IS reality.
Comtemporary physicists will tell you that an empty vacuum indeed does warp. They also tell you that an empty vacuum can transport elecromagnetic waves, although there alledgely is nothing in this total vaccum that could swing and transport the waves. It's kind of reminiscent of the Abrahamitic religions that also tell you that there is a God -- when you ask them wehre to find him, the stuff gets very problematic too....
@@DougVanDorn The problem is how we perceive reality. We try define it through math but nothing in universe has obligation to make sense for us. Understanding physics or nature is more understand our self than we think!
These are two completely separate things with similar names. Which do you mean should fit this theory?
I've always liked the scalability of plasma (cosmology) and electric fields from the very small to cosmic scale.
If you haven't already, read "Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory", a 2022 paper by Eric Lerner. Still waiting for someone to try to refute it.
Inflation, dark matter, dark energy ... The ad-hoc explanations of our universe's behavior keep building up. At some point, we ought to admit that we haven't a clue as to what's going on.
Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Based on proven EM forces, no "dark" stuff needed.
Nah it’s all just relativity.
High pressure / low pressure dynamics on a (literally) cosmic scale. Why do we need to look for esoteric explanations for such behavior when we understand analogous systems right here on Earth.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
sabine cdm is the max assumption model and you criticized ts as being "has assumptions" but it has less and smaller assumptions than cdm. Just a weird criticism. 5:08
Terrible take. Assumptions are always bad.
Jumping off a sinking ship onto a ship with holes in it is still an improvement.
That doesn't mean you are committing to the new ship.
i dont think sabine has terrible takes i think at worst she just gets lost in translation.
@@815TypeSirius I meant you.
@@CabbageSandwich ez mute, kid
@815TypeSirius truly a man who makes a terrible point and then runs away. It worked out for the best.
Any theory that relies on things we can directly observe such as matter and energy over something we cannot directly observe like "dark energy" is good in my book. I am nowhere near smart enough to do the math on these things myself. But, I am eternally surprised at how willing scientists are to use a mysterious force that is impossible for us to measure or see directly as a core and necessary part of their explanation for the universe. Exchange the words "dark energy" for "God" or "higher power" and see how comfortable cosmologists are with publishing that paper.
Well, not exactly. As Sabine briefly mentions, the most basic model of dark energy is that it is just a constant Λ. In this version this is not something material, this is just a parameter in the Einstein equation. This equation is basically how gravity works, nothing more. There was one constant there before, the Gravitational constant G. So it ups the constants from 1 to 2, not tragic, definitely not magical.
@ I get it. But the constant is describing a thing that’s happening to the universe. ie its expansion. But we don’t know exactly how or what’s causing the thing we’re observing to happen. If that expansion can be explained without having to use that constant then that’s preferable.
But this is smth physicists where often succesful with.
Neutrinos where postulated to solve a problem in energy conversion in radioactive decay.
Just as Quarks are NEVER observed directly, but the model describes perfectly the data and even lead to the discovery of heavier particles.
@@Tablis0 The Timescape equation is way more complex. There is no lambda in it (so no LCDM just CDM). The idea from what I've seen is that less mass in voids changes red shifts compared to light going through high mass regions for the same distance, leading to apparent acceleration with distance due to gravity caused time dilation (which we know is a thing from observation, but no one has ever accounted for it before in cosmological models because of the observably wrong cosmological principle that is being clung to). So, the calculations to correct for all the distribution stuff and resulting time dilations are really complicated. The constant for gravity has not changed, as gravity is still gravity.
I agree with @AdamGross. Briefly, if “SpaceTime” is a real thing, and deformed by mass, why would we assume light has a constant speed? It seems to me we should be looking at a model similar to wave travel through a viscous liquid.
The principal problem with LamdaCDM is that it fails to observe causal closures in complex systems. Such causal closures divide complex systems into integral parts that can be considered separately without destroying the system as a whole; of equal importance, causal closure demands that autonomous sub-systems not be elided with their neighbors.
This actually makes more since to me.
The speed the expansion never made since and dark energy never made since.
I also never understood why they were confused at how gravity can cause "clumping" in the universe either.
This is out there but Im betting down at quantum level when there's absolutely nothing in an area energy and matter can appear/disappear from the vibrations of a quantum field or something below that.
Thus instead of a big bang the universe slowly faded in and will take WAY longer than they currently guess to fade away if ever. This field would expand a little as a result of matter appearing sort of like how rain into a puddle would makes the puddle bigger.
Sense.
Happy New Year, Sabine, and thank you for the very good update.
The fact that you can spend 40 years looking for something, not find it and still be questioning if something is a mistake tells you how wrong you are and how slowly physics is willing to admit mistakes or look anywhere other than the end of their noses.
It's an electric universe, not a gravity one
Awe, that's cute you think they're actually trying to educate the public on how the Universe really is. It's a big endless rabbit hole actually, Alice. I added a comment in Sabine's main comment. Maybe you'll learn something if you read it.
They know, and train others to not know. In short. Only their cult members will know and others won't. It's a bit like the premise of the Doom video games, especially the 2016 version.
its wrong for sure 100% but until we get JWST data to form a more accurate model it works rather well for making predictions about the universe and thats all that really matters at the end of the day. orange juice and a glass of water still do the same job of hydrating us.
Sometimes I am tempted to believe that Physics was perhaps led astray deliberately.
"Dark Energy" had been a marketing term since the beginning of this part of "science", I'd say. It served well to acquire money for this "research", and many "reseachers" lived well off this money. That's for sure ... in sharp contrast to the alledged existence of "dark energy"...
@@niteme Turns out Dave was right all along and Sabine indeed picked up some conspiratards with her anti establishment rants. For step one check what is the Dunning-Krueger effect is about.
Dark matter/energy that can't be seen or measured reminds me more of religious explanations than science.
It's remind me of ether
Believe doubts knowledges… ❤
It can be measured though by it's effects.
All you are showing is you don't really understand the ideas behind dark matter and dark energy. They may be wrong but they are based on observations and papers are trying to use observations and measurements to prove or disprove them.
Sometimes people get overly invested in a particular idea but it's ultimately testable and people are trying to test it. It's really not like religion at all
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
@@101Mant DM and DE cannot be measured, because they cannot be observed. By "measured" you mean a calculation of the amount of each needed to support the Big Bang theory, which is falsified because there is only about 5% of the real matter in the universe needed to support it. Unless, of course, something is made up to patch over the shortfall.
I wish all scientists, science educators, and science enthusiasts would remember what you said: all models are wrong, but some are useful. Thanks for the video. Happy New Year.
happy new year Sabine
Jean-Pierre PETIT : Janus model ! Look at Arxiv !
The timescape model is using time dilation as a refutation to the idea that the universe is expanding at a greater and greater rate over time. This idea brings back the theory of the big collapse of the universe in the future and also the big bounce theory. Both theories are heralding the idea of the universe being eternal as the original singularity (big bang model) never happened. Instead at a certain point in the collapsing Universe, inflation forces reverse the collapse sending the Universe back into expansion in an endless cycle. This is very pleasing to the secular materialistic science community. The big problem I see is the time dilation idea introduces other problems of having any constant ruler to measure cosmological distances as everything becomes relative destroying all the of the assumed existing constant measuring models. This could be true but underneath all of it lies philosophical world views that will create camps on both sides of the argument. The Cosmic Microwave Background models will add fuel to the big divide between the camps.
I think i might be on the side of time dilation I think mine is probably quite a bit different from the time scape model. I created a simulation and am getting some interesting results. which i have as a short is there any way you can give me your unbiased opinion on the patterns? doesn't use Gravity / newton / Einstein math. it is just an emergence. Just trying to understand what is going on with the universe and how it works and need some unbiased opinion to see if it is worth going any further with it.
Dark matter is made out of sour dough. Got it.
If i stir a flat pond, the water near the stiring would be drawn to the centre but the water under less influence from the stiring will be pushed away from the centre. We use gravity to accelerate away from the Sun, dark energy is maybe just "weak gravity" and cenrifugal force working together.
Step by step we are moving towards the janus model of jp petit. It's now published in EPJC with the title beginning by "a bimetric cosmological model......".
What if the voids were made of negative matter conglomerates invisible because it interacts only by gravity, repelling our positive matter?
Accelerating expansion was always going to be more likely to be a systematic measurement error based on flawed models than some weird exception to the most accurate model we've ever come up with.
Finally, someone knows what is a systematic measurement error...
Raw data isn't raw. It is always processed thru a gestalt. See Ohm's Law ... only an effective theory, not actually true. The more elaborate and processes a gestalt is, the more likely you are seeing experimentalist bias. Big Bang polarized light showing primal gravity waves ... being just a recent example.
I have been saying this for years now.. while attempting to show the science community where the REAL Physics Anomalies they SHOULD be paying attention to are... I hope 2025 is the year I am finally vindicated... but I doubt it.
I also doubt your vindication in 2025.
You have to come out into the open. An Alien Scientist hiding as a RUclipsr just won't cut it with the masses.
Anyone can take a guess and be right, what you have to do to get credibility is prove it....a much more difficult task.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
When the news hit that universe's acceleration was speeding up, I expected they'd recalculate the age of the universe to be much younger. Yet the 13.8 billion year estimate didn't budge at all. I asked 'experts' why doesn't dark energy affect the age estimate and got crickets. Does an age estimate make an sense? Can scientists ever be honest and give 'we don't know' for an answer?
I thought exactly the same when people started talking about inflation (a phenomenon with no underlying mechanism, invented to solve a problem that does not really exist).
That's the main problem with people relying on science for everything... the very behavior stems from trying to control and know everything. Such thinking isn't nearly as objective as they pretend it is.
If I remember correctly (and might very well not be) the acceleration has very little influence on the age calculation (within the margin of error), acceleration does not mean after inflation it suddenly went in overdrive, acceleration can be very slow to be negligable on the limited timescale we are talking about in the cosmic sense. Some scientists can say they do not know, but most won't since their livelihood depends on their paycheck which is dictated by idiotic publish or perish rules.
The acceleration in the observable universe has not gone beyond light speed yet, so prior age estimates are still valid.
@tumultuouscornucopia, what do you mean by this? Could you please explain? I'd love to know more.
In a 'n' dimensioned universe, any value that is a constant MIGHT NOT be constant in a universe that is actually an 'n+1' dimensioned universe. Theodor Kaluza discovered [among other things] that he found Einstein's famous formula was easier to derive using one extra dimension. Even Einstein thought Kaluza's observation to be very interesting.
Dark energy or repulsive gravity = negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation)!
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities.
Singularities are dual.
Positive curvature (Black holes) is dual to negative curvature (white hole or big bang) -- Gaussian or Riemann geometry.
Curvature is dual hence gravitation is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Covariant is dual to contravariant -- vectors, functors or a dual basis in Riemann geometry.
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- divergent.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Synchronic points/lines are dual to enchronic points/lines.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spherical or elliptic geometry is dual to hyperbolic geometry.
Infinitely small is dual to infinitely big.
@hyperduality2838 Please behave yourself.
@@wilhelmstanzl3635 "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Syntropy (knowledge, prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (lack of knowledge) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy is what you know and is used to make predictions.
Knowledge is dual according to Immanuel Kant -- synthetic a priori knowledge.
If knowledge is dual then information is dual.
Entropy or average information is dual to co or mutual information, syntropy.
The fact that all observers make predictions about the world is proof of a 4th law of thermodynamics.
Waves (generalization) are dual to particles (localization) -- quantum duality.
The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics is dual.
The idea of reinterpreting voids and dense regions without dark energy is fascinating. It feels like we're at the edge of redefining some of the most fundamental assumptions in cosmology, an exciting time for astrophysics enthusiasts and researchers alike.
Mainstream science has led you astray from reality. I think you are familiar with the term flat earther. That's what your 'modern' physicists are. Flat earthers.
Gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. This has been exhaustively proven by numerous drop experiments.
Newton's gravitational attraction BS is the cornerstone for modern physics. Why is that? If you look at F=G(m1m2)/R2, no matter what m2 is, F (motion) is always the same. There, either gravitational attraction is invalid or G is not a constant. Enter dark matter to rescue flat earth science.
What the flat earthers (gravity proponents) don't understand is that the earth is in motion around the sun and this is what causes 'gravity'. Newton's third law of motion. Gravity is a Reactionary force to the acceleration force.
What flat earthers don't understand is that the planets get their motion in space from the primordial cloud they were created from. Not the parent star. Even without the star, the planets would still stay in orbit. Just as a hurricane has no common center of mass.
The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference. Why would a hurricane, a rotating frame, have different physics than a spiral galaxy?
If you research Galileo, his ball drop experiments debunking gravity were dismissed as a thought experiment by his flat earth peers. Brian Cox performed the same experiment in a vacuum chamber and yet still has the audacity to preach the gospel according to St Einstein.
These people are either really very stupid or are afraid of reality.
E=mc. Everything comes from Acceleration. Including mass. Where then does Acceleration come from. Giordano Bruno theorized an infinite universe with no beginning. So much for the big bang.
The Bible lays out a creator god who set the universe in motion.
That's why you're modern science is still stuck in the stone age. Outside of religion, there is no explanation for the universe in its current state.
I'm kinda surprised Einstein himself didn't already think of this given he initially thought the universe was static. Or maybe he had, I don't know, but applying relativity to explain what we observe seems like this theory would have been right up his alley.
he called the lambda his biggest plunder, and as always, he was right.
Cosmologcal redshift is likely caused by refraction. Light is not traveling in a straith line, causing time dilation relative to C. Dark energy is thus simply optical dispersion.
I always imagined 'dark energy' was just a catch-all term for whatever the heck was accelerating the expansion of spacetime. Kind of like how 'dementia' doesn't actually describe anything concrete, just the symptoms of something(s) we don't understand.
To paraphrase (shorten) a story by Cr Donald Scott. ‘A farmer and his young daughter’s car breaks down not far from their farm as they prepare to drive into town. So the farmer decides to walk back to the farm and collect Dobbin the draught horse, which he then tethers to the broken down car using a heavy rope. Dobbin then proceeds to tow the car back to the farm. In a playful mood, the young daughter decides to join in with Dobbin. So she ties a piece of string to the car, before walking beside Dobbin, pretending to be pulling the car behind her’. The problem is that Astronomers and Cosmologists have a psychological disorder which prevents them from being able to see Dobbin or the heavy rope, only the young daughter and the car. So they conclude the car is moving because the young daughter is pulling it. This is a metaphorical explanation of the current situation in our science. Which is why we are apparently supposed to believe there are Pulsars spinning at the speed of a dentist drill for example. Of course, The young daughter represents gravity, and Dobbin the Draught horse represents the electrodynamic force between two electrons in a plasma (of which the universe is 99% in that state). Or, in other words, 1.2 x 10^36 times the force of gravity. Until Astronomers and Cosmologists have their psychological disorder treated, nothing is going to change, and we can expect a continued diet of mathematical magical nonsense.
One thing I've noticed in the GR/QG literature is that dark-energy-like behavior is a very common consequence of a wide range of modified gravity theories (for example, as I recall, it shows up if you try to give the graviton a mass).
So assuming that gravity doesn't work exactly according to GR, it seems to me that the chances are decent of there being a nonzero cosmological constant.
Whenever physicists use the term "dark", they're trying their best to avoid saying "I don't know".
It means "we can't see or detect it". There's not some nefarious plot to obscure the truth or be dishonest. We came up with a model that seemed good, then observed things that didn't seem to work right and follow it, but we had no alternative explanation. So we've been in a period of time where we're unable to explain that and reconcile things, hence the term "dark energy/matter" to refer to the discrepancy and the problem. Now, someone thinks they found a good explanation and it's time to investigate and test that.
They're not trying to do anything. They're literally saying "we don't know." That's the point of the term. Why are there so many "gotcha" bros on this subject.
@@GameDevNerd Read "Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory", a 2022 paper by Eric Lerner. It's time to investigate and test that.
@@lukesball1 A whole lot of them treat the "dark" things as real in their papers. They did not bother to use the phrase "assuming dark energy is real". Then they asked for more fundings to write more papers on why the dark things are real but we cannot observe it.
Love the way physicists present theory after theory and no one ever says “We were wrong.” Compare these scientists with geologists and archeologists, also trying to figure out the nature of reality, each in their own domain. Here on YT I’ve heard geologists say “We know this and this but about that other we don’t know yet.” And archeologists “We’ve found this and this but we haven’t found that yet so we can’t say that such and such is true.” Where is similar truth and scientific rigor in physics? Yes, physics is a more “immaterial” science than rocks and dirt, but still, where is the humble honesty? Sabine, I love your work because you challenge those who, less than 75 years after Einstein’s death, purport to have it all figured out.
Nope.
Inconsistencies in our measurements of the Hubble Constant underline our ignorance about the true nature of Dark Energy. We don't know what it is, but learning about it is essential for cosmology. SOMETHING made spacetime expand in the beginning, and we don't know what it was/is. Also, doesn't time flow differently near high mass/energy density compared to areas of low mass/energy? RUclips click bait "headlines" make understanding modern cosmology more difficult for us laymen.
Imposing an anthropomorphic aspect in the sense of birth or beginning to the universe displays a certain amount of hubris in the arena of cosmology. Is it not more likely that the universe always existed, its age and size therefore being undetermined and undeterminable. Phase changes may occur in regions of this universe leading to some measurable artefacts such as CMB. There may also be more to the “universe” than we know of at present. A hyperspace or sub space may exist which could lead to new possibilities which could be taken advantage of for communication or travel over cosmic distances if we ever developed suitably advanced technologies.
The Electrical Universe paradigm will eventually prevail.
Yes, at least some aspects of it. Plasma and electrical cosmologists have been saying this stuff for years.
@@michaelthompson5252 Not sure what you mean by "some aspects". Either stellar objects were created by gravity (BBT) or by EM forces (PU and EU).... it's a binary choice.
I can confirm the Sour Dough Starter theory has sticking power.