No waaaaaay! For scientists to be less than a year away from validating such a cool result feels amazing. Whatever happens though, I can't wait to see more findings from DESI
Thanks Phil! Love all of your content! One question… What does the analysis assume about the curvature of spacetime? I know that the Planck survey indicates a flat geometry but as with all measurements there are error bars and I wonder how that impacts the uncertainty for DESI.
Thank you. Here are my thoughts in the context of CIG Theory: adjective 1.of, from, or characteristic of India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh." Priyanka is a true desi girl at heart 2.unadulterated or pure. "desi ghee" noun * a person of South Asian birth or descent who lives abroad. " the crowd was fantastic, full of desis, we felt like we were playing in India OR Could your DESI data confirm that the stellar entities that are releasing the most ENERGY are also the entities that have the greatest RED SHIFT? Normalized one to the other to an even spatial background field (i.e. isolated and corrected to remove RED SHIFT expansions from other foreground and background "OTHER RED SHIFTS", such that one is only seeing the Red Shift of that specific stellar entity alone. And that the isolated RED SHIFT correlates to the greatest energy release (released from the entity into Space, not contained and not released) (actually not into Space but a creation of Matter to Space) is proportional to the greatest expansion. And this correlates to an expansion (creation of Space from Matter) ENERGY to SPACE based on ENERGY. And does this align in any way with the CUPI as calculated in the book "I Have Become Space" ? In other words, please use your data to confirm CIG Theory. It's right there. CIG Theory is the fundamental explanation for the data you are seeing. Please investigate. In CIG Theory, E=MC2 interprets "E" as new Volumes (SPACE ITSELF). Thank you kindly.Excellent -thank you so so much. Maybe, and a theoretical maybe at that , with of curse CIG Theory in mind, and to further vindicate Halton Arp, and with the Cosmological Non-constant in mind, and to offer that Albert E. has gotten a final word over Neil's B., the following could be considered: According to CIG Theory, the most Dark Energy will be created at a time when the most Energy (light motion of matter) is being released, actually the creation of Space from Matter (not Space from Space as is the current discussions among Cosmologists). So, a slowing over time of Dark Energy will be evident when that light in the Universe has already become Space and as such there is little light leftover to become more Space. This will be gradual. I am trying to explain in the context of CIG Theory why you are seeing the slowing promulgation of Dark Energy over time, since there is less light Matter to turn into Dark Energy (Space). In the EMS the Dark Energy wavelength will be very very long, shorter for Dark Matter, still shorter for Visible Light, and shortest for Black Holes, the full curvature of Spacetime. Please look at CIG Theory in the context of DESI Data findings of a weaker Dark Energy , of Mariangela Lisanti's Dark Matter waves, of Halton Arp's Red Shift Anomalies, of the Measurement Problem, and of the Vacuum Catastrophe. So, the greatest expansion (Hubble Non-Constant) will take place when there exists the most light in the Universe and when there is no light left, the expansion of Space will stop. The Hubble Tension can be explained away as in the early Universe there existed a propensity for less light to escape and become the long long longest wavelength Dark Energy. Then at a later time, the light was much more pronounced, and the fast moving matter unfolded to become the Dark Energy. that Energy is weakening as the light fades. A comment I left on my RUclips website: The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment. So, within the MTS equation we have all wavelengths, from the shortest (Black Hole) to the longest (Dark Energy). Dark Matter then is a wavelength not as long as Dark Energy. But CIG Theory still needs a more direct link to the reality of the electromagnetic spectrum in the context that the spectrum proceeds at "c". Are we sure it always proceeds at "c"? Maxwell made this link yes, but in CIG, the "c" portion of the spectrum is reserved for Dark Energy, while the lesser rates = more solid forms of matter. Quantum Gravity appears resolved in CIG. But this aspect of melting CIG into the spectrum because of the consistency of the spectrum to travel at "c" confuses me. Any help would be appreciated. CIG resolves so many quantum and cosmological conundrums. We know it is correct. While inherent to CIG is the link between Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the direct reference to Dark Matter waves was absorbed from Dr. Lisanti's Simon Foundation video on Dark Matter. She is amazing. The offering then is that we extend the wavelength to Dark Energy which is much much longer than even Dark Matter. The MTS equation links Black Holes to Dark Energy. As stated above though, that issue of "c" as applied to the spectrum bothers me. HELP! The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" . As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment. The Red Shift Cosmological data already confirms CIG Theory. The Double Slit experiments already confirms CIG Theory. A boiling pot of water and the Ideal Gas Law confirms CIG Theory. CIG Theory confirms CIG Theory.
"Much more uncertain for sure." "Dark Energy," "Dark Matter," ever-accelerating expansion of the Universe... The *certainty* with which these unseen extraordinary things are spoken of makes their reality suspicious in the extreme.
If the constant is somewhat inversely proportional to the volume, could the the universe became so large that the constant hit 0, and so it stay that way?
A variable lambda would certainly affect the fate of the universe, tending it to eternal expansion/rip or contraction/crunch. The value would not even need to be negative for contraction as there is a lots of mass in the universe that counteracts some effect of DE.
Ironically, the one thing it can’t do is go to zero and stay there. In fact Einstein’s original equations did not have a lambda term. The consensus at the time was that the universe is static. Only after it was proven that a static universe is impossible did he add the term. See “Einstein’s greatest blunder”.
Most don't know that we didn't need to know how big the universe was to realize we can play musical chairs of scaled super positions to get the answer we want long before Einstein. Our current evidence in the world really helps everyone see the problems With anthromorphized astronomy and geology, mechanize biology now that we are building agency in computation. Where is the human species in all this if everything is projected in nature and machine ? The Frankenstein future inevitability of this is a an issue as well.. I do think the great debate arguments that was unfortunately unjustly portrayed under revisionist history curriculum taught back to ourselves really can now be understood. These arguments for methods, and reorientation allowing nature to dictate orientation and direction was vilinized far to much considering so much was predicted that have since been discovered in many different feilds & diciplines . It's alot of prophetic truth that's turned out in my old lifetime . I'm able to know both those arguments against & what was grand unfinacation evolution truly argued and actually taught to us while fighting against discoverys Old world Deterministic evolutionary form and shape was fine for orfom
I am confused with the sigma rule. The idea is that a result below 3 sigma is not trustable. The fact that your result is at 2.8 thus says that it is not trustable, and statistically there is no guarantee that it might get confirmed. In other words it means that all the results with 3 sigma so far are negative. This is the result. On the other hand, for such bold claim to be made, dark energy is variable, you would probably necessitate a higher than 5 sigma result. I am not excited but appalled by this discussion.
My understanding is the sigma rule depends on the data, in particle physics they need 5 sigma, but in astronomy its lower. Consider is 10 heads in a row a weird thing that needs explaing or not? If youve only thrown it ten times yes, if you've thrown it thousands of times no.
The sigma deviation is akin to probability and there is no black and white line of true or false. 3 sigma is 99.7% and 2.8 sigma is 99.5%. Also, the “claims” proper science makes ALWAYS comes with a confidence qualifier. I see nothing wrong with a claim the they are 99.5% sure that the results indicate a non constant lambda value. Moreover, as discussed, they are still gathering data which will change that confidence level. You can be appalled all you want but I would guess there are things you believe are “facts” that you are less than 99.5% sure of… I know I am. Science is a bit more rigorous than normal humans on what it accepts as fact.
@@LuisAldamiz from what I can understand and not a physicist, lol, but I think if it were the electroweak force then you'd need to have some theoretical or observational reason to explain why this force would accelerate the expansion of the universe and opposition to gravity. There seems to be nothing pointing to this direction i.e. electroweak force causing these effects
@@LuisAldamiz aight bro, I was just commenting so that before any quack comes up I just give an educated elaboration with a disclaimer to my limits. For SCIENCE, bro 🤘
No waaaaaay! For scientists to be less than a year away from validating such a cool result feels amazing. Whatever happens though, I can't wait to see more findings from DESI
Yeah me too
Way
Imagine how anxious thousands of cosmologists are awaiting the 3-year results.
This is fascinating. Thank you!
You're welcome
nice interview👍👍
thanks
Excellent. Many thanks.
you are welcome
8:26 Simultaneously excited and cautious. Christmas morning.
lol
Thanks Phil! Love all of your content! One question… What does the analysis assume about the curvature of spacetime? I know that the Planck survey indicates a flat geometry but as with all measurements there are error bars and I wonder how that impacts the uncertainty for DESI.
thanks, to my knowledge, it is still very close to flat
0:43 phil forgot to close the ad tho 😂
Thank you. Here are my thoughts in the context of CIG Theory:
adjective
1.of, from, or characteristic of India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh." Priyanka is a true desi girl at heart
2.unadulterated or pure. "desi ghee" noun * a person of South Asian birth or descent who lives abroad. " the crowd was fantastic, full of desis, we felt like we were playing in India
OR
Could your DESI data confirm that the stellar entities that are releasing the most ENERGY are also the entities that have the greatest RED SHIFT? Normalized one to the other to an even spatial background field (i.e. isolated and corrected to remove RED SHIFT expansions from other foreground and background "OTHER RED SHIFTS", such that one is only seeing the Red Shift of that specific stellar entity alone. And that the isolated RED SHIFT correlates to the greatest energy release (released from the entity into Space, not contained and not released) (actually not into Space but a creation of Matter to Space) is proportional to the greatest expansion.
And this correlates to an expansion (creation of Space from Matter) ENERGY to SPACE based on ENERGY. And does this align in any way with the CUPI as calculated in the book "I Have Become Space" ? In other words, please use your data to confirm CIG Theory. It's right there. CIG Theory is the fundamental explanation for the data you are seeing. Please investigate. In CIG Theory, E=MC2 interprets "E" as new Volumes (SPACE ITSELF). Thank you kindly.Excellent -thank you so so much. Maybe, and a theoretical maybe at that , with of curse CIG Theory in mind, and to further vindicate Halton Arp, and with the Cosmological Non-constant in mind, and to offer that Albert E. has gotten a final word over Neil's B., the following could be considered: According to CIG Theory, the most Dark Energy will be created at a time when the most Energy (light motion of matter) is being released, actually the creation of Space from Matter (not Space from Space as is the current discussions among Cosmologists).
So, a slowing over time of Dark Energy will be evident when that light in the Universe has already become Space and as such there is little light leftover to become more Space. This will be gradual. I am trying to explain in the context of CIG Theory why you are seeing the slowing promulgation of Dark Energy over time, since there is less light Matter to turn into Dark Energy (Space). In the EMS the Dark Energy wavelength will be very very long, shorter for Dark Matter, still shorter for Visible Light, and shortest for Black Holes, the full curvature of Spacetime. Please look at CIG Theory in the context of DESI Data findings of a weaker Dark Energy , of Mariangela Lisanti's Dark Matter waves, of Halton Arp's Red Shift Anomalies, of the Measurement Problem, and of the Vacuum Catastrophe. So, the greatest expansion (Hubble Non-Constant) will take place when there exists the most light in the Universe and when there is no light left, the expansion of Space will stop. The Hubble Tension can be explained away as in the early Universe there existed a propensity for less light to escape and become the long long longest wavelength Dark Energy. Then at a later time, the light was much more pronounced, and the fast moving matter unfolded to become the Dark Energy. that Energy is weakening as the light fades.
A comment I left on my RUclips website: The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment.
So, within the MTS equation we have all wavelengths, from the shortest (Black Hole) to the longest (Dark Energy). Dark Matter then is a wavelength not as long as Dark Energy. But CIG Theory still needs a more direct link to the reality of the electromagnetic spectrum in the context that the spectrum proceeds at "c". Are we sure it always proceeds at "c"? Maxwell made this link yes, but in CIG, the "c" portion of the spectrum is reserved for Dark Energy, while the lesser rates = more solid forms of matter. Quantum Gravity appears resolved in CIG.
But this aspect of melting CIG into the spectrum because of the consistency of the spectrum to travel at "c" confuses me. Any help would be appreciated. CIG resolves so many quantum and cosmological conundrums. We know it is correct. While inherent to CIG is the link between Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the direct reference to Dark Matter waves was absorbed from Dr. Lisanti's Simon Foundation video on Dark Matter. She is amazing. The offering then is that we extend the wavelength to Dark Energy which is much much longer than even Dark Matter. The MTS equation links Black Holes to Dark Energy. As stated above though, that issue of "c" as applied to the spectrum bothers me. HELP!
The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" . As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment.
The Red Shift Cosmological data already confirms CIG Theory. The Double Slit experiments already confirms CIG Theory. A boiling pot of water and the Ideal Gas Law confirms CIG Theory. CIG Theory confirms CIG Theory.
Nifty !
thnak s
Good Interview, thanks .
Thanks
"Much more uncertain for sure."
"Dark Energy," "Dark Matter," ever-accelerating expansion of the Universe...
The *certainty* with which these unseen extraordinary things are spoken of makes their reality suspicious in the extreme.
have you seen this? ruclips.net/video/h-p5dLQ4Fy8/видео.html
Let's go 3 sigma!
If the constant is somewhat inversely proportional to the volume, could the the universe became so large that the constant hit 0, and so it stay that way?
I think it would just get smaller but why think its inversely proportional to volume?
@@PhilHalper1 Absolutely no idea, something like converting potential to kinetic energy. I simply entertained the thought.
What if it goes negative past some point and we get a big crunch as end result? It would make sense...
A variable lambda would certainly affect the fate of the universe, tending it to eternal expansion/rip or contraction/crunch. The value would not even need to be negative for contraction as there is a lots of mass in the universe that counteracts some effect of DE.
Ironically, the one thing it can’t do is go to zero and stay there. In fact Einstein’s original equations did not have a lambda term. The consensus at the time was that the universe is static. Only after it was proven that a static universe is impossible did he add the term. See “Einstein’s greatest blunder”.
Most don't know that we didn't need to know how big the universe was to realize we can play musical chairs of scaled super positions to get the answer we want long before Einstein.
Our current evidence in the world really helps everyone see the problems With anthromorphized astronomy and geology, mechanize biology now that we are building agency in computation.
Where is the human species in all this if everything is projected in nature and machine ? The Frankenstein future inevitability of this is a an issue as well..
I do think the great debate arguments that was unfortunately unjustly portrayed under revisionist history curriculum taught back to ourselves really can now be understood.
These arguments for methods, and reorientation allowing nature to dictate orientation and direction was vilinized far to much considering so much was
predicted that have since been discovered in many different feilds & diciplines .
It's alot of prophetic truth that's turned out in my old lifetime .
I'm able to know both those arguments against & what was grand unfinacation evolution truly argued and actually taught to us while fighting against discoverys
Old world Deterministic evolutionary form and shape was fine for orfom
I am confused with the sigma rule. The idea is that a result below 3 sigma is not trustable. The fact that your result is at 2.8 thus says that it is not trustable, and statistically there is no guarantee that it might get confirmed. In other words it means that all the results with 3 sigma so far are negative. This is the result. On the other hand, for such bold claim to be made, dark energy is variable, you would probably necessitate a higher than 5 sigma result. I am not excited but appalled by this discussion.
My understanding is the sigma rule depends on the data, in particle physics they need 5 sigma, but in astronomy its lower. Consider is 10 heads in a row a weird thing that needs explaing or not? If youve only thrown it ten times yes, if you've thrown it thousands of times no.
The sigma deviation is akin to probability and there is no black and white line of true or false. 3 sigma is 99.7% and 2.8 sigma is 99.5%.
Also, the “claims” proper science makes ALWAYS comes with a confidence qualifier.
I see nothing wrong with a claim the they are 99.5% sure that the results indicate a non constant lambda value.
Moreover, as discussed, they are still gathering data which will change that confidence level.
You can be appalled all you want but I would guess there are things you believe are “facts” that you are less than 99.5% sure of… I know I am.
Science is a bit more rigorous than normal humans on what it accepts as fact.
@@ArtemisFaulken exactly right
Could dark energy be the electroweak force?
I would say no
How?
@@LuisAldamiz from what I can understand and not a physicist, lol, but I think if it were the electroweak force then you'd need to have some theoretical or observational reason to explain why this force would accelerate the expansion of the universe and opposition to gravity. There seems to be nothing pointing to this direction i.e. electroweak force causing these effects
@@Jabranalibabry - That's why I asked "how?" I make no sense of it but maybe the OP has a reasoning and not just a wild guess...
@@LuisAldamiz aight bro, I was just commenting so that before any quack comes up I just give an educated elaboration with a disclaimer to my limits. For SCIENCE, bro 🤘
Interview too long, too many words. Please be more succinct.
test