Well we are talking about early dark energy. And I’m sure it’s a matter of time before the supposition of super-early-dark energy model. It all sounds like a need to direct attention to the foundations of the structure when the upper floors aren’t square. But I know you are already a pioneer in talking to people in these areas.
Not only is there dark energy there are two different forms of dark energy those that exist in one dimensional existence and two dimensional existence... Energy is mass in motion. One dimensional existence it's part of two dimensional existence, two dimensional existence is part of three dimensional existence which is where the mass exists... The highest spatial dimension would logically be the associated dimensions and whatever it's equal distribution should be... If the third dimension is the highest spatial dimension then we would expect the relative state or shape of our universe to be projected into a spherical manner and if it is part of a four-dimensional structure or higher than we would expect the chain of logic to proceed and we should see the relative state or shape of our universe as compressed or flat into 180° system instead of a 360° system... These are the two mathematically logical conclusions.
Ultimately what kind of accurately map anything from our singular point in space and time because we know that black holes admit non-bearing matter and we have a black hole at the center of our galaxy therefore all of our observations are off and in order to have true accuracy we need to map to truly understand the flow of time... I've done a pretty good job of getting the baseline set up here in this time.
I'm getting convinced that acceleration of the expansion is a variable and that on the end of the road, dark energy is an artifact, a cumulative error of large-scale approximations used to simplify calculations. And I just watched something, timescapes model video. It has issues, but also potential.
I explain it like this: you got a lot of lego pieces on the floor alongside baloons. Inflating baloons expands its volume faster than putting lego pieces together. Expanding baloons move lego pieces away making them more distant to one another, forcing them to stick together in small lumps and only pieces in those regions can combine. When baloon expansion continues, lego structures that are separated by a single baloon move slower from one another than lego structures that are separated by hundreds of expanding baloons between them.
Food for thought-many thoughts. I’ve never liked the concepts of dark energy and dark matter-they seem like mathematical patches to solve equation problems rather than reflecting actual reality. My idea is simpler and could address many of modern cosmology's challenges, including the Hubble expansion and its irregularities, where not all spacetime expands at the same rate. I propose the idea of porous spacetime: a framework where spacetime isn’t uniform but filled with microscopic "pores" or quantum wells, like pixels on a screen. These wells not only interconnect with each other but also connect our dimension to others, allowing energy, matter, and information to flow across boundaries. This interaction could explain anomalies such as faster-than-light expansion in cosmic voids, the fine-tuning of universal constants, and the source of quantum entanglement. This concept could also address longstanding puzzles like the three-body problem, where hidden dimensional influences mediated by these quantum wells might stabilize complex gravitational interactions. It offers insights into the uneven distribution of galaxies, the origin of large-scale structures, and phenomena within black holes, providing a unified perspective on both cosmological and quantum phenomena. Few physicists have directly explored concepts like this, but related ideas in areas such as emergent gravity, quantum foam, and extra dimensions suggest there is fertile ground for further investigation. By integrating interdimensional pathways into the framework, this idea transcends conventional models and eliminates the need for more complex constructs like string theory. It has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe by offering a simpler, interconnected, and dynamic explanation for its mechanics.
@@daytradersanonymous9955 For this idea to work, you’d need a porous spacetime fabric-imagine it like a cosmic colander. This framework allows energy, matter, and information to flow across dimensions or regions of the universe, creating connections that go beyond traditional physics. What’s fascinating is how this concept doesn’t just fit into science; it also touches on metaphysics and theology. The universe, with its three distinct natures-physical, quantum, and metaphysical-could finally be understood as a unified whole, offering what might be the real theory of everything. In the physical realm, this idea explains phenomena like the uneven expansion of the universe or the way matter seems to cluster in cosmic voids, with the spacetime "pores" acting as conduits for energy and matter. In the quantum realm, these pores could provide a mechanism for things like entanglement or tunneling, allowing particles to connect instantaneously across vast distances. On the metaphysical level, the interconnectedness of spacetime could reflect divine intentionality, a universe designed with purpose, linking the visible and the unseen. It also sheds light on the role of mathematics in the universe. Mathematics feels eternal, like it existed before anything else, and this model makes sense of that. Plato once suggested there’s a realm of pure mathematical forms, and this idea could give that concept real footing. Porous spacetime might be the bridge that lets these timeless truths shape physical reality. Constants like the speed of light or gravitational laws wouldn’t just be arbitrary-they’d flow from this deeper mathematical dimension. This view transforms math from a human tool into something far greater: the fundamental language of the universe, woven into its very fabric. By combining these ideas, we move closer to understanding existence in a way that’s both scientific and deeply profound
I find this topic very interesting, and thanks for mentioning the inhomogeneity of the modern Universe. I hope you continue to report on this topic, what problems it solves, and any important cosmological problems it doesn't. 👍
It is certainly a fascinating subject. And Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/yt
@@DrBrianKeating My favorite takeaway was that you're the first Science Educator/Scientist that I've heard say out loud anything about the inhomogeneity of the Modern Universe.
Brian, you should have David Wiltshire on your podcast to give a technical talk on his timescape model and the data analyses they’ve done with “corrected” supernovae surveys. My question is what is the homogeneity scale, how much more data and at what distances is needed to pin it down and correlation with the predicted acceleration of the universe. Is large scale structure (including large voids) a significant factor and at what scales?
VERY fascinating stuff..Intuitively, the void hypotheses has a natural and simple beauty to it.. It would seem bizarre to observe a perfectly homogeneous distribution of matter anywhere.. It SEEMS obvious that there would be measurable differentials between vast voids and areas of far more matter/energy densities AND that the interacting influences of these differentials could be very significant, even dynamic.. I hope many brilliant minds rally around this line of research as a possible tension solution.. Good class..Peace.
"It SEEMS obvious that there would be measurable differentials between vast voids and areas of far more matter/energy densities AND that the interacting influences of these differentials could be very significant, even dynamic." And this idea has been investigated for _decades_ already. That's not the _new_ thing here.
Last year, i’ve written a preprint about the natüre of time and relativity, entitled “relativity in time scale: contraction of mass and planck’s constant”. i think it explains the reality better than the timescape and you can see it on OSF preprint server.
There is no noticeable gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So SR applies there instead of GR. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
The lambda is proportional to the underdenseness of the Region. So in the early universe, when it was basically just radiation, it was much different than now, and in a very empty space, it's going to effectively inflate that empty space to be larger.
Nice, thanks for that. I understand, that these ideas are not new and at least more than 20y old, but mostly ignored in the public perception of physics and astronomy.
"Okay, it's possible, but it's not expansion in the traditional sense. Instead, it's the creation of space (void) within existing spacetime. Voids are formed due to the specific arrangement of matter, which creates empty regions in the same amount of spacetime. On the other hand, when it comes to the expansion of the universe related to dark energy, this is a different phenomenon. In this case, spacetime itself between two or more clusters is newly created, which we refer to as the expansion of spacetime. It's not about space becoming empty due to the concentration of matter; rather, clusters (or any two points, A and B) remain at the same place, but the spacetime between them increases. I am specifically addressing this aspect-how does the Timescape model explain expansion if it is observed in the first place? Additionally, why haven't astronomers or physicists accounted for time dilation effects when observing distant objects in the universe? Even though I am not from this field, I initially believed that the effects of time dilation and spacetime density variations along the line of sight (since redshifted light can stretch or compress depending on the density of the spacetime it travels through) must have already been considered in observations a long time ago, even as early as 2016.
To understand some puzzle you need to have balanced and complete approach. In this case instead of considering the "Void" only I will suggest to include in the consideration the unexplained stability of the Globular Clusters. My question is - why the modern cosmology is too vocal on the gravitational stability of the spiral galaxies and is totally Muted on the Globular Clusters?
We grow at different rates over our lives. After reaching our maximum height, it reverses and we spend the rest of our lives getting shorter for a variety of reasons, including the loss of bone density as we get into the later stages of life and effect that gravity has on us and impact compression from all that running, jumping walking, decreasing the material between our vertebra, and slumping. The expansion rate of the universe was just different back then because of the differences in composition and density and energy/mass differences.
@@DrBrianKeating If one believes in perpetual balance, an oscillating universe is the only true viable concept, provided we have a dual inverse continuum setting of measures that oscillates with it. It is the only way to preserve a constant, which would then inevitably be the value of 1. This orthogonality will have to apply to all things and all scales and will thus have to be fundamentally in physics as well. Regardless, the key point is that even if the oscillation is a logic necessity and expansion is part of that, accelerated expansion is certainly not. Which leads to the necessity of the claim that the observed redshift, cannot be linked to a doppler-like effect (growth of in between space) how ever tempting it was as an isolated explanation. We have established the most redshifted galaxies are the furthest, but we haven't actually measured the galaxies moving away, and JWST is given us an extremely hard time matching most redshifted galaxies to indeed be youngest, with no distinction in maturity nor scale distortion as per hypothised expanding space in between. So we need to redo our thinking and should start with 'explaining redshift=distance only' default by examining the one thing that is placed between us and the light of incoming Z shifted galaxies, which is the fabric of our galaxy itself. We are reminded we see distortion in the galactic rotation curves and we KNOW we are seeing an optical illusion seeing Sag A* head on in stead of edge on. Not to mention the axis of evil inside the CNB. So in all; It seems optical illusions inside our galaxy is the name of the game. Me thinks it is defendable to leave pre-JWST cosmology for what it is, and first fix our lack of knowledge how light is bend and altered inside our interior galaxy. Me thinks there are experiments we can set up with EHT in combination with known QP effects. Only if we get more clearance on all galactic optical riddles will we see what part is left (if any) of the riddles from extra galactic light coming in. Focus on what is nearby I would say..? Can we pls educate student on galaxology?
This seems to be the most plausible answer. There's things that are currently invisible to us or beyond our comprehension entirely. I hope they figure out in my lifetime.
That would be where we need to learn if Google qauntom computing is tapping into bad poo or good sweat of our brow lol. Idk why we are unable accept many different entropic decay right back into the smallest scales but we have issues with space doing this many times into objects and forces. Can space only create gas rinse repeat decay outside of our corner of the universe? Macro has its own influencing values on micro scales here than may not elsewhere
Dark energy and dark matter are merely making statements that there's something we can't see causing these very real effects. It's not prescribing a substance
Err, the very point of dark energy and dark matter is that there are types of matter and forces which are still unknown to us, so why do you call them silly?!?
@@dadsonworldwide3238 What does "entropic decay right back into the smallest scales" mean? "Can space only create gas rinse repeat decay" And what does that mean?!? Most of your comment is rather incomprehensible.
Hubble tension,the graviton cosmic fabric, void tension. It’s all the same. We just gotta figure out what it is. I feel like it’s an intrinsic natural force. Kind of like electromagnetism, but it’s obviously the same force that ties photons together across billions of light-years.❤
Huge voids are indeed scientifically interesting. We should not consider them only as a space of empty Matter. There is a theory, mathematically coherent, that describes these voids as the places holding clústers of negative mass matters. Pretty interesting thoughs, and a paradigm change in comparison to today cosmology, which only see these voids as empty matter spaces... You can look at the Janus Cosmological Model, the team just published a paper at European Physical Journal C.
@GamesBond.007 we are talking about gravitational mass. In this model, you have 2 field equations, one for each curvature (positive and negative). An observer, within the positive curvature of space, Will see positive mass for a particule on the positive curvature. If this particule would be on the negative curvature, and if the same observer could observe It, this particule would have a negative mass. This perceived negative mass only interact gravitationnaly, with a repulsive effect. And would be mainly located in cosmologic voids. It has similar effects as the Timescape model but gives a better explanations of the negative curvature and allows negative gravitational mass. Proper time of the particule will always go forward, but depending of where the observer is, the observed time of the particule will be positive or negative. So is for energy. It is an extension of GR. All is explained in the paper I talked before.
@@GamesBond.007 not the same as antimatter. Negative mass means that the spatial curvature is negative where this mass is. Bear in mind that we are talking about gravitational mass. and these negative curvatures implies repulsive gravitation between + and -. if you look for this paper "A bimetric cosmological model based on Andreï Sakharov’s twin universe approach" in European Physical Journal C, you will find more details.
@@oliverM24 Spatial curvature is a non-sense, and general relativity has been debunked by DR Edward Dowdye from NASA, who showed that light does not bend outside the sun's corona. Which means that light is not bend by spatial curvature, but by the gases which make up the atmosphere of massive objects. This bending is called refraction, and it also causes the light to change its wavelength because the speed of light changes in diferrent mediums.
@@oliverM24 Spatial curvature is a metaphysical non-sense, and general relativity is a pseudo-science which has been debunked by DR Edward Dowdye from NASA, who showed that light does not bend outside the sun's corona. Which means that light is not bend by spatial curvature, but by the gases which make up the atmosphere of massive objects. This bending is called refraction, and it also causes the light to change its wavelength because the speed of light changes in different mediums
Timescapes might change our understanding of the universe as we know it. Let me poset a question. If the reason we assumed the universe was expanding was due to the redshift of galaxies but that redshift was caused by time dialation in the cosmological voids surrounding us, what does that mean for the expansion of the universe we thought was causing it?
@@TheSonic1685 The universe is expanding. Gravitational redshifts aren't enough to explain recessing speeds. The only question is what happens with these speeds over cosmological time
It's my pleasure. Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/yt
How do variations in mass and the consequent effect on the rate of time affect these models? Presumably in void areas time runs faster than areas of clusters of galaxies. Surely the time variation changes how dark energy is modelled too?
I was actually looking at the original paper, it shows some graphs but they don't really make sense. I'd expect the 3 graphs of Hubble constant vs distance: timescapes model, dark energy model, measured value. Supposedly the timescapes model is closer to measured. But if it's there, I could not find it.
@DrBrianKeating More over, Petit is publically controvertial (which in my view is positive) and is implicated in the early development (1960's) of the Russian MHD research.
There is a very simple solutiion to the Hubble Tension "problem" but modern cosmologists prefer dogma, blind belief, and unverified assumptions and interpretations to taking actual measurements at face value. In August 2023 the cerncourier (site) stated, "The expansion itself has, however, never been directly measured, i.e. no measurement exists that shows the increasing redshift with time of a single object." So why don't cosmologists like real measurements?
I've seen this before - the assumption of homogeneity can really mess things up. Since I've seen it before I'm surprised it hasn't already supplanted more desperate theories like dark energy, mond, etc.
The idea that a "void" could solve the crisis in cosmology, specifically the tension between the Hubble constant values derived from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and local measurements, is an intriguing hypothesis. The concept involves the presence of a large, local underdense region a cosmic void that could subtly alter the apparent rate of cosmic expansion as observed from Earth. This could theoretically reconcile the differing Hubble constant values by introducing an observational bias in local measurements. However, there are significant challenges to this proposal: 1. Size and Structure: For a void to produce the required effect on Hubble constant measurements, it would need to be improbably large, spanning hundreds of megaparsecs. Observations of the large-scale structure of the universe suggest that such a void, consistent with other cosmological data, is unlikely to exist. 2. Homogeneity Assumptions: The standard cosmological model assumes large-scale homogeneity and isotropy (the cosmological principle). A void of the necessary scale would challenge this assumption, potentially requiring a major revision of our understanding of cosmic structure. 3. Independent Evidence: While local observations of the Hubble constant could be influenced by a void, this hypothesis does not naturally explain other cosmological data, such as baryon acoustic oscillations or the CMB itself, which are consistent with the standard model. 4. Alternative Solutions: Other solutions to the Hubble tension, such as modified gravity, early dark energy, or exotic particle interactions, may offer more plausible explanations that fit within the broader context of cosmological observations. In conclusion, while the void hypothesis provides a fascinating possibility, it remains speculative and faces substantial observational and theoretical hurdles. The cosmological crisis regarding the Hubble constant is likely to require a multifaceted approach, potentially involving both new physics and more refined data. This underscores the richness and complexity of modern cosmology.
@isatousarr7044 I think your very well written "outline" of these issues are ABSOLUTELY fair arguments to make.. Nitpicking just a little, however, you MAY not be assigning enough probability to the likelihood that vast voids can indeed exist.. They probably SHOULD, in my humble opinion.. This seems to be a somewhat different idea than the GENERAL homogeneous nature of the cosmos, yes?
The entire idea of a universe expanding into oblivion is still an assumption without causal evidence in an attempt to force fit the data instead of considering the effects of all the known physics. Since no one is talking about the changing rates of causation, it’s safe to say no one is considering this effect of the amount of gravity there is between galaxies. There’s actually less distance between galaxies than what it appears to us to be so the distances aren’t as far as what they appear to be and redshift is from a greater amount of gravity between here and there anyway.
" instead of considering the effects of all the known physics" And what effects of known physics are neglected, in your opinion? "the changing rates of causation" And what is that supposed to mean? "it’s safe to say no one is considering this effect of the amount of gravity there is between galaxies" Utter nonsense. That _has_ been considered for many decades. "There’s actually less distance between galaxies than what it appears to us" Why? How do you know? "redshift is from a greater amount of gravity between here and there anyway" No, cosmological redshift is not gravitational redshift. There is very good evidence against that idea.
@ Your questions are showing that you are not considering the effects of general relativity. The rates of causation distance and time are affected by different amounts of gravity and redshift is caused when light leaves a gravitational well.
@@JungleJargon I notice that you did not answer _any_ of my questions. :D "Your questions are showing that you are not considering the effects of general relativity." :D :D :D :D :D The whole Big Bang theory is _based_ on General Relativity. Saying that it doesn't consider the effects of GR shows that you don't have the faintest clue at all what you are talking about. "The rates of causation" That's not a term which is used _anywhere_ in General Relativity. Thanks for showing again that you don't know what you are talking about. "distance and time are affected by different amounts of gravity" And "redshift is caused when light leaves a gravitational well" No shit, Sherlock? :D That does not change the fact at all that _cosmological_ red shift is _not_ the same as this gravitational red shift. As cosmologists know quite well, and take into account. You never heard of the (integrated) Sachs Wolfe effect, right? You _really_ have not the _faintest_ clue what you are talking about.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
"Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ?" Because spacetime is curved everywhere, and the universe expands, and dark energy exists everywhere. SR can not describe any of these effects. "There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies." Wrong. Where did you get that idea from? "So its mostly flat space" First, GR is about spacetime, not only about space. Second, spacetime is curved also in the voids, not only inside galaxies. "and SR applies there" Wrong. Even in the voids, one has to use the FLRW metric, not the Minkowski metric. Spacetime expands in the voids, SR cannot describe that - see above. "Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0." It's precisely the other way round: because dark energy exists, E is not equal to zero, and therefore vacuum mass is not zero.
Psychoanalysts would make poor cosmologists. Sigmund Freud was obsessed with length contraction, and Carl Jung thought the holographic principle was just the universe projecting.
Nice video. However, Timescape cosmology was proposed by Professor David Wiltshire way back in 2007. What is recent is the data analysis that supports the Timescape model over lambda CDM.
What are the odds the fabric of space time is perfectly homogeneous? zero. So the only question is if there is any innate bumpiness to space time, or if all bump and dips are the result of present matter. Much like pilot wave hypothesis, there is an observation of things in space time, and we have to realize we've assumed that the enveloping environment plays no role. This new hypothesis doesn't touch on the CAUSE of the non-homogeneous space time, but just uses the existing heterogeneity to calculate relativistic effects on light. It will be interesting to see if the additional question of whether or not this void is innately repellent to matter gets addressed (i.e. is this a bump making it more likely for matter to slide away from it, rather than a valley where matter would be more likely to settle into it). P.S. Bumps and valleys is an oversimplification, as it implies static topography. It could be dynamic, rippling, etc...
There is no Hubble tension really, because both methods to determine the age of our universe (redshift and CMB method) are linked. If we are wrong about the redshift interpretation (as recent JWST hints) , that undermines our confidence in the CMB interpretation as a "standalone" measure of the universe's age, because the CMB’s age was derived in part based on those same assumptions about redshift and expansion. We merely assume redshift of galaxies is caused by a doppler effect. After JWST images of further galaxies we must doubt that and if no doppler effect, then our expansion models are void and thus the age of our universe and thus the calibration of CMB date to begin with. Is there a way Brian can confirm any dynamics in the intensity of the 360 CMB image, or better yet, can we somehow confirm the redshift of a certain Z shift galaxy has changed over time. Maybe not directly, but we might be able to combine the light of 2 (almost equal Z value) galaxies and see how they interfere. A period of one year difference between 2 identical interference measurements, should result in a changed interference pattern, consistent with ur suggested expansion models. I doubt we find interference change as per our expansion models...
Hubble faked his redshift theory because he cherry-picked examples agreeing with his "theory" and ignored a Huge catalog of redshift objects that disprove it! Also the dust and gas between the objects and us dim such objects in a random/ chaotic manner making redshift, standard candle& supernova distance measurements irrelevant. ALSO note that the theoretical Big Bang would have thrown out debris in an ever-expanding eggshell wavefront. This means everything we see would be just a tiny section of the wavefront ... And the big bang would have to have been hundreds of billions of years ago!
"If we are wrong about the redshift interpretation (as recent JWST hints)" JWST hints nothing at all like that, what on Earth are you talking about? "There is no Hubble tension really, because both methods to determine the age of our universe" The Hubble tension is not about the age of the universe, but about the value of the Hubble constant! "We merely assume redshift of galaxies is caused by a doppler effect." No, we don't. "After JWST images of further galaxies we must doubt that" No, none of the JWST images of further galaxies gave any reasons to doubt cosmological redshift. "thus the age of our universe and thus the calibration of CMB date to begin with" The CMB data was not "calibrated" by using the age of the universe. "A period of one year difference between 2 identical interference measurements, should result in a changed interference pattern" No, it wouldn't. Man, you really have no clue at all what you are talking about. Virtually every sentence is wrong.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 You lack of basic logic is noticable and noticed. First off, CMB was not a prediction of the lambda CDM model. it was a post diction. Cosmologists interpreted the observed redshift as an effect resulting from an expanding universe (a logical try but falsified nonetheless by JWST). From they calculated an age backwards and fed the results backward into CMB interpretation, so it is not a separate indicator of cosmic age. They have a single point of failure. It's there for not correct to suggest we have two separate models for gauging the age of our cosmos and thus it is logically incorrect to claim a deviation would pose a cosmological riddle. As for JWST ; the predictions upfront were very clear. If we would observe Z redshifted very close to the suggested time after big bang, they MUST appear very wide (to account for the hypotheses expansion of spacetime in between) and they must appear as big red blobs since there were not supposed to have been such early galaxies at such early times. Both predictions require really high school level to understand. Yet both have been totally falsified,. Most redshifts galaxies appear as mature as ours AND there is no distortion as to their expected arc sizes. I am sorry. If observations do not concur with your theory , then the theory is WRONG. It doesn't mean we must tweak our theories once more to make them stick. We must falsify them. Feynman was very clear about it. I am sorry you appear not to be able to think straight, and I trust you are a very well trained academic in the field, otherwise you would be able to do so. Personally I don't care at all whether we had a big bang or not or even multiple. I just care for l logic thought. Try it my friend...
Ow boy...another academic tuning in. Your lack of basic reasoning is noticed. First off, CMB was not a prediction of the lambda CDM model. it was a postdiction. Cosmologists interpreted the observed redshift as an effect resulting from an expanding universe (a logical try but falsified nonetheless by JWST). From there they calculated an age backwards and fed the results backward into the CMB fluctuation interpretation, so CMB is not a separate indicator of cosmic age. They have a single point of failure. It's thus not correct to claim a later deviation would post a cosmological riddle. We can just as well re calibrate to adjust both as we did at the start. We are cheating anyway. As for JWST ; the predictions upfront were very clear. If we were to observe extreme Z redshifted galaxies right after the big bangbig bang, they MUST appear very wide (to account for the human hypotheses of expansion of spacetime in between) and they must appear as big red blobs since there were not supposed to have been such early galaxies at such early times. Both core predictions have been totally falsified; The most redshifts galaxies appear as mature as ours AND there is no distortion as to their expected arc sizes, destroying the assumption of expanding space. I am sorry. If observations do not concur with your theory , then the theory is WRONG. It doesn't mean we must tweak our theories once more to make them stick. We must falsify them. Feynman was very clear about it. Personally I don't care at all whether we had a big bang or not or even multiple. I just care for l logic thought. Your dogmatism to stick to academic theories, despite observations is admirable, but not fitting for a scientific career. Or maybe it actually is nowadays...learn...
@RWin-fp5jn Nice that you recognize that I'm an academic. And hilarious that you nevertheless think you understand this stuff better than I. :D "First off, CMB was not a prediction of the lambda CDM model." It was a prediction of the Big Bang Theory. The Lambda CDM model is a special case of the Big Bang theory. "it was a postdiction." Completely wrong, the CMB was predicted before it was observed. "Cosmologists interpreted the observed redshift as an effect resulting from an expanding universe (a logical try but falsified nonetheless by JWST)" That was not falsified by the JWST, why on Earth do you think so? :D "From there they calculated an age backwards and fed the results backward into the CMB fluctuation interpretation" Completely wrong, that is not what was actually done. You have no clue what you are talking about. "so CMB is not a separate indicator of cosmic age" No one claimed it is. You have no clue what you are talking about. "We can just as well re calibrate to adjust both as we did at the start." There was no such "calibration" at the start. You have no clue what you are talking about. "We are cheating anyway." No cosmologist is cheating. You have no clue what you are talking about. "As for JWST ; the predictions upfront were very clear. If we were to observe extreme Z redshifted galaxies right after the big bangbig bang, they MUST appear very wide (to account for the human hypotheses of expansion of spacetime in between)" Oh boy, that's complete utter nonsense. No one _ever_ predicted that these galaxies must appear very wide, and that is not at all what the expansion of spacetime actually predicts. You have no clue what you are talking about. "and they must appear as big red blobs" That was never predicted. You have no clue what you are talking about. "The most redshifts galaxies appear as mature as ours" Completely, utterly, totally wrong. Most galaxies at high redshift that the JWST has observed are small and not mature at all. There are only a few outliers. You have no clue what you are talking about. "AND there is no distortion as to their expected arc sizes" That was never expected. You have no clue what you are talking about. "I am sorry." You should be sorry for your utter cluelessness. "If observations do not concur with your theory , then the theory is WRONG." Indeed. Our theory of how galaxies formed is obviously wrong a bit. "It doesn't mean we must tweak our theories once more to make them stick." Wrong again. Lots of theories can be saved by tweaking them a bit. That's standard modus operandi in science. You have no clue what you are talking about. "I just care for l logic thought." You don't care what the observations actually say. You don't care what actually was predicted. You don't care how the observations actually are explained. You have no clue what you are talking about.
@ Dark matter is a math problem. The vernacular Dark Matter is used as a place holder. A more accurate description of the math problem is Massless Gravity because it describes directly the observations. But no sane person would accept this as a descriptor of the math anomaly. Dark Matter sells, so that is the popular term. However no matter, dark or light has ever been observed or proven. The math problem describes Massless Gravity. So I come back to my original post. Perhaps this new hypothesis on dark energy suggesting that space is lumpy will be used to address the issue of Dark Matter because it may also be the result of lumpy space time.
@@Ballistichydrant "Dark matter is a math problem." No, it isn't. "The vernacular Dark Matter is used as a place holder." Yes, as a _physical_ place holder. Not a _mathematical_ place holder. "A more accurate description of the math problem is Massless Gravity because it describes directly the observations. " Show your math. (And I bet that you don't even know what the observations actually are.) "But no sane person would accept this as a descriptor of the math anomaly." There is no "math anomaly". "However no matter, dark or light has ever been observed or proven." Pardon? Do you really want to claim that no matter has ever been observed?!?!?! Really?!? "The math problem describes Massless Gravity." There is no "math problem". "So I come back to my original post." How about coming back to actually giving some explanations, arguments and evidence? "Perhaps this new hypothesis on dark energy suggesting that space is lumpy" That's not what this new hypothesis is suggesting. Man, you really manage to misunderstand _everything_ you hear. :D
@@Ballistichydrant :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I notice that you conveniently ignored each and every one of my questions and arguments... You really love to make a public fool of yourself, don't you?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Frequency of a photon moving along the line of flight (Unbound) defined as an exponential value encountering a gravitational field.
@arcticantic1768 Sorry for the intrusion, but your comment grabbed my attention, friend.. I'm more than a little ignorant of these concepts.. Please expand on HOW timescapes may be in conflict with entropy.. Peace.
Over large enough areas, the universe would still be homogeneous. My understanding is that since we exist on the edge of a large void, our measurements have been biased by local phenomena. Entropy is still necessary.
The mass energy equivalation proved vacuum energy cannot exist over a century ago. All you have to do is insert vacuum mass zero in the E=mc^2 equation !
Take this video back to the editing booth. Really odd dead spots and strange hitching with the audio from time to time. (Music background cuts out to silence several times as well.)
Einsteins theory of clocks running faster or slower depending on their distance from a gravitational field had inadvertently been observed with the Voyager spacecraft. They have been believed to have been slowing down in that radio signals from them have seemed to indicate arrive sooner than expected. However their internal clocks are running faster as they are being less affected by the sun’s gravitational field! Einstein way ahead of his time and colleagues!🎉
@@DrBrianKeating thanks for your reply, was just a thought question along the lines with dark matter, tesseract, fusion and antimatter + voids, probably not a great example, 👍✌
There is no dark energy. There is only one reason to postulate it, to explain the exponential expansion rate of the universe. The expansion was discovered in 1929. In 1998 it was discovered that the expansion is accelerating, this is when the concept of dark energy became mainstream. Electricity is drawn towards potential and the universe as a whole behaves the same way. Electricity comes into our homes because the neutral circuit provides the potential. It's drawn towards grounding rods for the same reason. If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster. If a spaceship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would achieve about 95% light speed in 1 year. Physicists in the last century did not postulate dark energy because they understood that the expansion is a fundamental property of the universe. The fact that the expansion is accelerating does not invalidate their reasoning, it's what the known laws of physics would predict provided gravitational forces are not strong enough to counteract the process. All studies to find dark energy have been fruitless because it doesn't exist. To say there is dark energy is to say there are 5 fundamental forces, there are 4. All the great physicists from the last century did not postulate dark energy for these reasons.
@DrBrianKeating What theory? All the great physicists from the last century Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli, Feynman etc. did not postulate dark energy, it's not a matter of opinion, it doesn't exist.
@DrBrianKeating What theory? All the great physicists in the last century, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli, Feynman etc. didn't postulate dark energy for the reasons I stated. It's not a matter of opinion, it doesn't exist.
The content is interesting, as is most of Dr. Keating's material. However, this video appears AI generated (not the script, but the video). The head is shifting, and the neckline is sometimes breaking. I guess its a test if we notice ? Or am I wrong ... My feedback is that the voice is perfect, the content is too, the video is not.
hour = (((M_☉)(Sun average orbit velocity)^2) /Milky Way luminosity) The Sun's orbital velocity in the Milky Way Galaxy calibrates an hour in special and general relativity to exist by contrast.
There is no noticeable gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So SR applies there instead of GR. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Because the range of gravity is theoretically infinite, it does reduce Since gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance. The topology of space time is therefore curved in much of these voids, the only point at which space time could be considered flat, is where the measurable curvature is equal to or shorter than the Planck length. In most practical applications GR is necessary rather than SR. The way voids would affect things is that the curvature drop off from surrounding mass around these voids would be large, therefore time would run faster in the voids compared to time from the observer on our planet in a big fat gravity well caused by the lanikea supercluster which the Milky Way is part of. Therefore the light reaching us from across these voids not only be redshifted as it traveled toward us from distant expanding space but also blue shifted, because of gravitational time dilation as it traveled across huge voids of empty space.
@Fluxdeluxe1 No there isnt any measurable gravitational field in those voids, nor any space curvature what so ever. Because there is no such thing as a curved space. Not just in voids between galaxies, but anywhere. In our solar system space is perfectly flat, because there is no light beding outside the sun's corona as DR Edward Dowdye has shown. All the bending is seen at the limb of the sun's corona, and none is observed outside it ! And even near earth they never use GR space curvature to calculate gravity. They claim it is too weak and treat space as flat ! And abberate that gravitational time dillation is causing gravity. Which is just illogical because g time dillation would cause an object to decrease its speed in a gravitational field, so it would decelerate and not accelerate.
Is Dark Energy Dead? *Win A Meteorite!* briankeating.com/yt
Well we are talking about early dark energy. And I’m sure it’s a matter of time before the supposition of super-early-dark energy model. It all sounds like a need to direct attention to the foundations of the structure when the upper floors aren’t square. But I know you are already a pioneer in talking to people in these areas.
Hi, not necessarily, maybe the voids have lots of white holes....
Not only is there dark energy there are two different forms of dark energy those that exist in one dimensional existence and two dimensional existence... Energy is mass in motion. One dimensional existence it's part of two dimensional existence, two dimensional existence is part of three dimensional existence which is where the mass exists... The highest spatial dimension would logically be the associated dimensions and whatever it's equal distribution should be... If the third dimension is the highest spatial dimension then we would expect the relative state or shape of our universe to be projected into a spherical manner and if it is part of a four-dimensional structure or higher than we would expect the chain of logic to proceed and we should see the relative state or shape of our universe as compressed or flat into 180° system instead of a 360° system... These are the two mathematically logical conclusions.
Ultimately what kind of accurately map anything from our singular point in space and time because we know that black holes admit non-bearing matter and we have a black hole at the center of our galaxy therefore all of our observations are off and in order to have true accuracy we need to map to truly understand the flow of time... I've done a pretty good job of getting the baseline set up here in this time.
I'm getting convinced that acceleration of the expansion is a variable and that on the end of the road, dark energy is an artifact, a cumulative error of large-scale approximations used to simplify calculations. And I just watched something, timescapes model video. It has issues, but also potential.
I like the 5 minute explanation...you get points for boiling it down
Thanks! It's all about clarity.
I explain it like this: you got a lot of lego pieces on the floor alongside baloons. Inflating baloons expands its volume faster than putting lego pieces together. Expanding baloons move lego pieces away making them more distant to one another, forcing them to stick together in small lumps and only pieces in those regions can combine. When baloon expansion continues, lego structures that are separated by a single baloon move slower from one another than lego structures that are separated by hundreds of expanding baloons between them.
Food for thought-many thoughts. I’ve never liked the concepts of dark energy and dark matter-they seem like mathematical patches to solve equation problems rather than reflecting actual reality. My idea is simpler and could address many of modern cosmology's challenges, including the Hubble expansion and its irregularities, where not all spacetime expands at the same rate. I propose the idea of porous spacetime: a framework where spacetime isn’t uniform but filled with microscopic "pores" or quantum wells, like pixels on a screen. These wells not only interconnect with each other but also connect our dimension to others, allowing energy, matter, and information to flow across boundaries. This interaction could explain anomalies such as faster-than-light expansion in cosmic voids, the fine-tuning of universal constants, and the source of quantum entanglement. This concept could also address longstanding puzzles like the three-body problem, where hidden dimensional influences mediated by these quantum wells might stabilize complex gravitational interactions. It offers insights into the uneven distribution of galaxies, the origin of large-scale structures, and phenomena within black holes, providing a unified perspective on both cosmological and quantum phenomena. Few physicists have directly explored concepts like this, but related ideas in areas such as emergent gravity, quantum foam, and extra dimensions suggest there is fertile ground for further investigation. By integrating interdimensional pathways into the framework, this idea transcends conventional models and eliminates the need for more complex constructs like string theory. It has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe by offering a simpler, interconnected, and dynamic explanation for its mechanics.
Idk about the microscopic pores but the extra dimensional explanation kinda ties all theories together.
That is an interesting idea, thank you for sharing.
@@daytradersanonymous9955 For this idea to work, you’d need a porous spacetime fabric-imagine it like a cosmic colander. This framework allows energy, matter, and information to flow across dimensions or regions of the universe, creating connections that go beyond traditional physics. What’s fascinating is how this concept doesn’t just fit into science; it also touches on metaphysics and theology. The universe, with its three distinct natures-physical, quantum, and metaphysical-could finally be understood as a unified whole, offering what might be the real theory of everything.
In the physical realm, this idea explains phenomena like the uneven expansion of the universe or the way matter seems to cluster in cosmic voids, with the spacetime "pores" acting as conduits for energy and matter. In the quantum realm, these pores could provide a mechanism for things like entanglement or tunneling, allowing particles to connect instantaneously across vast distances. On the metaphysical level, the interconnectedness of spacetime could reflect divine intentionality, a universe designed with purpose, linking the visible and the unseen.
It also sheds light on the role of mathematics in the universe. Mathematics feels eternal, like it existed before anything else, and this model makes sense of that. Plato once suggested there’s a realm of pure mathematical forms, and this idea could give that concept real footing. Porous spacetime might be the bridge that lets these timeless truths shape physical reality. Constants like the speed of light or gravitational laws wouldn’t just be arbitrary-they’d flow from this deeper mathematical dimension. This view transforms math from a human tool into something far greater: the fundamental language of the universe, woven into its very fabric. By combining these ideas, we move closer to understanding existence in a way that’s both scientific and deeply profound
@@daytradersanonymous9955 How does the "extra dimensional explanation" tie all theories together?
Ay but why does the video just cut
Inexperienced editor? Editor who is versed in video but not audio?
I didn't like the editting of the entire video. It was very amatuer.
I find this topic very interesting, and thanks for mentioning the inhomogeneity of the modern Universe. I hope you continue to report on this topic, what problems it solves, and any important cosmological problems it doesn't. 👍
It is certainly a fascinating subject. And Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/yt
@@DrBrianKeating My favorite takeaway was that you're the first Science Educator/Scientist that I've heard say out loud anything about the inhomogeneity of the Modern Universe.
Professor David Wiltshire first proposed Timescape cosmology way back in 2007. Astronomers ignored his seminal work until very recently.
Brian, you should have David Wiltshire on your podcast to give a technical talk on his timescape model and the data analyses they’ve done with “corrected” supernovae surveys. My question is what is the homogeneity scale, how much more data and at what distances is needed to pin it down and correlation with the predicted acceleration of the universe. Is large scale structure (including large voids) a significant factor and at what scales?
Good point
VERY fascinating stuff..Intuitively, the void hypotheses has a natural and simple beauty to it.. It would seem bizarre to observe a perfectly homogeneous distribution of matter anywhere.. It SEEMS obvious that there would be measurable differentials between vast voids and areas of far more matter/energy densities AND that the interacting influences of these differentials could be very significant, even dynamic.. I hope many brilliant minds rally around this line of research as a possible tension solution.. Good class..Peace.
It is certainly a beautiful concept.
"It SEEMS obvious that there would be measurable differentials between vast voids and areas of far more matter/energy densities AND that the interacting influences of these differentials could be very significant, even dynamic."
And this idea has been investigated for _decades_ already. That's not the _new_ thing here.
@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Thanks for the response.. Given that I miss much, that sounds fair. In simple terms, what did I miss THIS time, friend?
Yay. He used his real voice instead of his regular whisper voice. More of this!
Last year, i’ve written a preprint about the natüre of time and relativity, entitled “relativity in time scale: contraction of mass and planck’s constant”. i think it explains the reality better than the timescape and you can see it on OSF preprint server.
Thank you for sharing!
There is no noticeable gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So SR applies there instead of GR. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
The lambda is proportional to the underdenseness of the Region. So in the early universe, when it was basically just radiation, it was much different than now, and in a very empty space, it's going to effectively inflate that empty space to be larger.
Nice, thanks for that. I understand, that these ideas are not new and at least more than 20y old, but mostly ignored in the public perception of physics and astronomy.
Glad it was helpful!
"Okay, it's possible, but it's not expansion in the traditional sense. Instead, it's the creation of space (void) within existing spacetime. Voids are formed due to the specific arrangement of matter, which creates empty regions in the same amount of spacetime.
On the other hand, when it comes to the expansion of the universe related to dark energy, this is a different phenomenon. In this case, spacetime itself between two or more clusters is newly created, which we refer to as the expansion of spacetime. It's not about space becoming empty due to the concentration of matter; rather, clusters (or any two points, A and B) remain at the same place, but the spacetime between them increases.
I am specifically addressing this aspect-how does the Timescape model explain expansion if it is observed in the first place?
Additionally, why haven't astronomers or physicists accounted for time dilation effects when observing distant objects in the universe? Even though I am not from this field, I initially believed that the effects of time dilation and spacetime density variations along the line of sight (since redshifted light can stretch or compress depending on the density of the spacetime it travels through) must have already been considered in observations a long time ago, even as early as 2016.
@@omsingharjit we better than scientist 100%
To understand some puzzle you need to have balanced and complete approach. In this case instead of considering the "Void" only I will suggest to include in the consideration the unexplained stability of the Globular Clusters. My question is - why the modern cosmology is too vocal on the gravitational stability of the spiral galaxies and is totally Muted on the Globular Clusters?
Why not make video on the article with a more complete analysis of it and your assessment of its claims?
We grow at different rates over our lives. After reaching our maximum height, it reverses and we spend the rest of our lives getting shorter for a variety of reasons, including the loss of bone density as we get into the later stages of life and effect that gravity has on us and impact compression from all that running, jumping walking, decreasing the material between our vertebra, and slumping.
The expansion rate of the universe was just different back then because of the differences in composition and density and energy/mass differences.
It is certainly a fascinating parallel.
@@DrBrianKeating If one believes in perpetual balance, an oscillating universe is the only true viable concept, provided we have a dual inverse continuum setting of measures that oscillates with it. It is the only way to preserve a constant, which would then inevitably be the value of 1. This orthogonality will have to apply to all things and all scales and will thus have to be fundamentally in physics as well. Regardless, the key point is that even if the oscillation is a logic necessity and expansion is part of that, accelerated expansion is certainly not. Which leads to the necessity of the claim that the observed redshift, cannot be linked to a doppler-like effect (growth of in between space) how ever tempting it was as an isolated explanation. We have established the most redshifted galaxies are the furthest, but we haven't actually measured the galaxies moving away, and JWST is given us an extremely hard time matching most redshifted galaxies to indeed be youngest, with no distinction in maturity nor scale distortion as per hypothised expanding space in between. So we need to redo our thinking and should start with 'explaining redshift=distance only' default by examining the one thing that is placed between us and the light of incoming Z shifted galaxies, which is the fabric of our galaxy itself. We are reminded we see distortion in the galactic rotation curves and we KNOW we are seeing an optical illusion seeing Sag A* head on in stead of edge on. Not to mention the axis of evil inside the CNB. So in all; It seems optical illusions inside our galaxy is the name of the game. Me thinks it is defendable to leave pre-JWST cosmology for what it is, and first fix our lack of knowledge how light is bend and altered inside our interior galaxy. Me thinks there are experiments we can set up with EHT in combination with known QP effects. Only if we get more clearance on all galactic optical riddles will we see what part is left (if any) of the riddles from extra galactic light coming in. Focus on what is nearby I would say..? Can we pls educate student on galaxology?
the sillyness of dark energy and dark matter are masking realities and forces still unknown to us
This seems to be the most plausible answer. There's things that are currently invisible to us or beyond our comprehension entirely. I hope they figure out in my lifetime.
That would be where we need to learn if Google qauntom computing is tapping into bad poo or good sweat of our brow lol.
Idk why we are unable accept many different entropic decay right back into the smallest scales but we have issues with space doing this many times into objects and forces.
Can space only create gas rinse repeat decay outside of our corner of the universe?
Macro has its own influencing values on micro scales here than may not elsewhere
Dark energy and dark matter are merely making statements that there's something we can't see causing these very real effects. It's not prescribing a substance
Err, the very point of dark energy and dark matter is that there are types of matter and forces which are still unknown to us, so why do you call them silly?!?
@@dadsonworldwide3238 What does "entropic decay right back into the smallest scales" mean?
"Can space only create gas rinse repeat decay"
And what does that mean?!?
Most of your comment is rather incomprehensible.
Hubble tension,the graviton cosmic fabric, void tension. It’s all the same. We just gotta figure out what it is. I feel like it’s an intrinsic natural force. Kind of like electromagnetism, but it’s obviously the same force that ties photons together across billions of light-years.❤
Dr. Keating thank you so much for your like 👍
Huge voids are indeed scientifically interesting.
We should not consider them only as a space of empty Matter.
There is a theory, mathematically coherent, that describes these voids as the places holding clústers of negative mass matters.
Pretty interesting thoughs, and a paradigm change in comparison to today cosmology, which only see these voids as empty matter spaces...
You can look at the Janus Cosmological Model, the team just published a paper at European Physical Journal C.
@@oliverM24 whats a negative mass matter, is it the same as anti-matter or something else ?
@GamesBond.007 we are talking about gravitational mass.
In this model, you have 2 field equations, one for each curvature (positive and negative).
An observer, within the positive curvature of space, Will see positive mass for a particule on the positive curvature. If this particule would be on the negative curvature, and if the same observer could observe It, this particule would have a negative mass.
This perceived negative mass only interact gravitationnaly, with a repulsive effect. And would be mainly located in cosmologic voids.
It has similar effects as the Timescape model but gives a better explanations of the negative curvature and allows negative gravitational mass.
Proper time of the particule will always go forward, but depending of where the observer is, the observed time of the particule will be positive or negative.
So is for energy.
It is an extension of GR.
All is explained in the paper I talked before.
@@GamesBond.007 not the same as antimatter.
Negative mass means that the spatial curvature is negative where this mass is. Bear in mind that we are talking about gravitational mass. and these negative curvatures implies repulsive gravitation between + and -.
if you look for this paper "A bimetric cosmological model based on Andreï Sakharov’s twin universe approach" in European Physical Journal C, you will find more details.
@@oliverM24 Spatial curvature is a non-sense, and general relativity has been debunked by DR Edward Dowdye from NASA, who showed that light does not bend outside the sun's corona. Which means that light is not bend by spatial curvature, but by the gases which make up the atmosphere of massive objects. This bending is called refraction, and it also causes the light to change its wavelength because the speed of light changes in diferrent mediums.
@@oliverM24 Spatial curvature is a metaphysical non-sense, and general relativity is a pseudo-science which has been debunked by DR Edward Dowdye from NASA, who showed that light does not bend outside the sun's corona. Which means that light is not bend by spatial curvature, but by the gases which make up the atmosphere of massive objects. This bending is called refraction, and it also causes the light to change its wavelength because the speed of light changes in different mediums
A recent thought out theory puts all of this into context.
Timescapes might change our understanding of the universe as we know it. Let me poset a question. If the reason we assumed the universe was expanding was due to the redshift of galaxies but that redshift was caused by time dialation in the cosmological voids surrounding us, what does that mean for the expansion of the universe we thought was causing it?
@@TheSonic1685 The universe is expanding. Gravitational redshifts aren't enough to explain recessing speeds. The only question is what happens with these speeds over cosmological time
Thanks for being a good teacher, and friend
It's my pleasure. Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/yt
How do variations in mass and the consequent effect on the rate of time affect these models? Presumably in void areas time runs faster than areas of clusters of galaxies. Surely the time variation changes how dark energy is modelled too?
I was actually looking at the original paper, it shows some graphs but they don't really make sense. I'd expect the 3 graphs of Hubble constant vs distance: timescapes model, dark energy model, measured value. Supposedly the timescapes model is closer to measured. But if it's there, I could not find it.
The Timescape model may actually expand on the void model to encompass the entire universe without dark energy.
Right
The best explanation for this comes from Jean-Pierre Petit's bimetric Janus model. It is worth checking.
I'll have to check that out!
@DrBrianKeating More over, Petit is publically controvertial (which in my view is positive) and is implicated in the early development (1960's) of the Russian MHD research.
There is a very simple solutiion to the Hubble Tension "problem" but modern cosmologists prefer dogma, blind belief, and unverified assumptions and interpretations to taking actual measurements at face value.
In August 2023 the cerncourier (site) stated, "The expansion itself has, however, never been directly measured, i.e. no measurement exists that shows the increasing redshift with time of a single object." So why don't cosmologists like real measurements?
I suspected this all along. Universe might not be expanding at all, it just looks that way.
The timescape model does not say that the universe is not expanding at all.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514It says the apparent acceleration is an illusion.
Yes
It would have been interesting for viewers to mention that David Wiltshire's team is based at the same university as the famous Roy Kerr.
I've seen this before - the assumption of homogeneity can really mess things up. Since I've seen it before I'm surprised it hasn't already supplanted more desperate theories like dark energy, mond, etc.
The idea that a "void" could solve the crisis in cosmology, specifically the tension between the Hubble constant values derived from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and local measurements, is an intriguing hypothesis. The concept involves the presence of a large, local underdense region a cosmic void that could subtly alter the apparent rate of cosmic expansion as observed from Earth. This could theoretically reconcile the differing Hubble constant values by introducing an observational bias in local measurements.
However, there are significant challenges to this proposal:
1. Size and Structure: For a void to produce the required effect on Hubble constant measurements, it would need to be improbably large, spanning hundreds of megaparsecs. Observations of the large-scale structure of the universe suggest that such a void, consistent with other cosmological data, is unlikely to exist.
2. Homogeneity Assumptions: The standard cosmological model assumes large-scale homogeneity and isotropy (the cosmological principle). A void of the necessary scale would challenge this assumption, potentially requiring a major revision of our understanding of cosmic structure.
3. Independent Evidence: While local observations of the Hubble constant could be influenced by a void, this hypothesis does not naturally explain other cosmological data, such as baryon acoustic oscillations or the CMB itself, which are consistent with the standard model.
4. Alternative Solutions: Other solutions to the Hubble tension, such as modified gravity, early dark energy, or exotic particle interactions, may offer more plausible explanations that fit within the broader context of cosmological observations.
In conclusion, while the void hypothesis provides a fascinating possibility, it remains speculative and faces substantial observational and theoretical hurdles. The cosmological crisis regarding the Hubble constant is likely to require a multifaceted approach, potentially involving both new physics and more refined data. This underscores the richness and complexity of modern cosmology.
@@isatousarr7044 chat gpt comment
@isatousarr7044 I think your very well written "outline" of these issues are ABSOLUTELY fair arguments to make.. Nitpicking just a little, however, you MAY not be assigning enough probability to the likelihood that vast voids can indeed exist.. They probably SHOULD, in my humble opinion.. This seems to be a somewhat different idea than the GENERAL homogeneous nature of the cosmos, yes?
@isatousarr7044 I liked your comment, friend..
That's a very good point, thank you for pointing that out.
The entire idea of a universe expanding into oblivion is still an assumption without causal evidence in an attempt to force fit the data instead of considering the effects of all the known physics. Since no one is talking about the changing rates of causation, it’s safe to say no one is considering this effect of the amount of gravity there is between galaxies. There’s actually less distance between galaxies than what it appears to us to be so the distances aren’t as far as what they appear to be and redshift is from a greater amount of gravity between here and there anyway.
" instead of considering the effects of all the known physics"
And what effects of known physics are neglected, in your opinion?
"the changing rates of causation"
And what is that supposed to mean?
"it’s safe to say no one is considering this effect of the amount of gravity there is between galaxies"
Utter nonsense. That _has_ been considered for many decades.
"There’s actually less distance between galaxies than what it appears to us"
Why? How do you know?
"redshift is from a greater amount of gravity between here and there anyway"
No, cosmological redshift is not gravitational redshift. There is very good evidence against that idea.
@ Your questions are showing that you are not considering the effects of general relativity. The rates of causation distance and time are affected by different amounts of gravity and redshift is caused when light leaves a gravitational well.
@@JungleJargon I notice that you did not answer _any_ of my questions. :D
"Your questions are showing that you are not considering the effects of general relativity."
:D :D :D :D :D The whole Big Bang theory is _based_ on General Relativity. Saying that it doesn't consider the effects of GR shows that you don't have the faintest clue at all what you are talking about.
"The rates of causation"
That's not a term which is used _anywhere_ in General Relativity. Thanks for showing again that you don't know what you are talking about.
"distance and time are affected by different amounts of gravity"
And
"redshift is caused when light leaves a gravitational well"
No shit, Sherlock? :D That does not change the fact at all that _cosmological_ red shift is _not_ the same as this gravitational red shift. As cosmologists know quite well, and take into account. You never heard of the (integrated) Sachs Wolfe effect, right?
You _really_ have not the _faintest_ clue what you are talking about.
Hi Dr. Keating, what are your "anti aging secrets"? I ask because you're aging very slowly, relative to the general population.. bravo 👍
Thanks just 🧬 genetics I guess 😀
@DrBrianKeating Excellent genetics 🙏
@@DrBrianKeating i think you are traveling too fast so that relativistic effect kicks in
Here’s a hint. Energy is coming from the void or counterspace or ZPE.
Did this model also remove the need for dark energy?
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
"Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ?"
Because spacetime is curved everywhere, and the universe expands, and dark energy exists everywhere. SR can not describe any of these effects.
"There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies."
Wrong. Where did you get that idea from?
"So its mostly flat space"
First, GR is about spacetime, not only about space. Second, spacetime is curved also in the voids, not only inside galaxies.
"and SR applies there"
Wrong. Even in the voids, one has to use the FLRW metric, not the Minkowski metric. Spacetime expands in the voids, SR cannot describe that - see above.
"Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0."
It's precisely the other way round: because dark energy exists, E is not equal to zero, and therefore vacuum mass is not zero.
Psychoanalysts would make poor cosmologists. Sigmund Freud was obsessed with length contraction, and Carl Jung thought the holographic principle was just the universe projecting.
lol 😂
Nice video. However, Timescape cosmology was proposed by Professor David Wiltshire way back in 2007.
What is recent is the data analysis that supports the Timescape model over lambda CDM.
What are the odds the fabric of space time is perfectly homogeneous? zero.
So the only question is if there is any innate bumpiness to space time, or if all bump and dips are the result of present matter.
Much like pilot wave hypothesis, there is an observation of things in space time, and we have to realize we've assumed that the enveloping environment plays no role.
This new hypothesis doesn't touch on the CAUSE of the non-homogeneous space time, but just uses the existing heterogeneity to calculate relativistic effects on light. It will be interesting to see if the additional question of whether or not this void is innately repellent to matter gets addressed (i.e. is this a bump making it more likely for matter to slide away from it, rather than a valley where matter would be more likely to settle into it).
P.S. Bumps and valleys is an oversimplification, as it implies static topography. It could be dynamic, rippling, etc...
I can't believe I live in a void now. I feel really empty😅😅😅😅
There is no Hubble tension really, because both methods to determine the age of our universe (redshift and CMB method) are linked. If we are wrong about the redshift interpretation (as recent JWST hints) , that undermines our confidence in the CMB interpretation as a "standalone" measure of the universe's age, because the CMB’s age was derived in part based on those same assumptions about redshift and expansion. We merely assume redshift of galaxies is caused by a doppler effect. After JWST images of further galaxies we must doubt that and if no doppler effect, then our expansion models are void and thus the age of our universe and thus the calibration of CMB date to begin with. Is there a way Brian can confirm any dynamics in the intensity of the 360 CMB image, or better yet, can we somehow confirm the redshift of a certain Z shift galaxy has changed over time. Maybe not directly, but we might be able to combine the light of 2 (almost equal Z value) galaxies and see how they interfere. A period of one year difference between 2 identical interference measurements, should result in a changed interference pattern, consistent with ur suggested expansion models. I doubt we find interference change as per our expansion models...
Hubble faked his redshift theory because he cherry-picked examples agreeing with his "theory" and ignored a Huge catalog of redshift objects that disprove it! Also the dust and gas between the objects and us dim such objects in a random/ chaotic manner making redshift, standard candle& supernova distance measurements irrelevant. ALSO note that the theoretical Big Bang would have thrown out debris in an ever-expanding eggshell wavefront. This means everything we see would be just a tiny section of the wavefront ... And the big bang would have to have been hundreds of billions of years ago!
"If we are wrong about the redshift interpretation (as recent JWST hints)"
JWST hints nothing at all like that, what on Earth are you talking about?
"There is no Hubble tension really, because both methods to determine the age of our universe"
The Hubble tension is not about the age of the universe, but about the value of the Hubble constant!
"We merely assume redshift of galaxies is caused by a doppler effect."
No, we don't.
"After JWST images of further galaxies we must doubt that"
No, none of the JWST images of further galaxies gave any reasons to doubt cosmological redshift.
"thus the age of our universe and thus the calibration of CMB date to begin with"
The CMB data was not "calibrated" by using the age of the universe.
"A period of one year difference between 2 identical interference measurements, should result in a changed interference pattern"
No, it wouldn't.
Man, you really have no clue at all what you are talking about. Virtually every sentence is wrong.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 You lack of basic logic is noticable and noticed. First off, CMB was not a prediction of the lambda CDM model. it was a post diction. Cosmologists interpreted the observed redshift as an effect resulting from an expanding universe (a logical try but falsified nonetheless by JWST). From they calculated an age backwards and fed the results backward into CMB interpretation, so it is not a separate indicator of cosmic age. They have a single point of failure. It's there for not correct to suggest we have two separate models for gauging the age of our cosmos and thus it is logically incorrect to claim a deviation would pose a cosmological riddle. As for JWST ; the predictions upfront were very clear. If we would observe Z redshifted very close to the suggested time after big bang, they MUST appear very wide (to account for the hypotheses expansion of spacetime in between) and they must appear as big red blobs since there were not supposed to have been such early galaxies at such early times. Both predictions require really high school level to understand. Yet both have been totally falsified,. Most redshifts galaxies appear as mature as ours AND there is no distortion as to their expected arc sizes. I am sorry. If observations do not concur with your theory , then the theory is WRONG. It doesn't mean we must tweak our theories once more to make them stick. We must falsify them. Feynman was very clear about it. I am sorry you appear not to be able to think straight, and I trust you are a very well trained academic in the field, otherwise you would be able to do so. Personally I don't care at all whether we had a big bang or not or even multiple. I just care for l logic thought. Try it my friend...
Ow boy...another academic tuning in. Your lack of basic reasoning is noticed. First off, CMB was not a prediction of the lambda CDM model. it was a postdiction. Cosmologists interpreted the observed redshift as an effect resulting from an expanding universe (a logical try but falsified nonetheless by JWST). From there they calculated an age backwards and fed the results backward into the CMB fluctuation interpretation, so CMB is not a separate indicator of cosmic age. They have a single point of failure. It's thus not correct to claim a later deviation would post a cosmological riddle. We can just as well re calibrate to adjust both as we did at the start. We are cheating anyway. As for JWST ; the predictions upfront were very clear. If we were to observe extreme Z redshifted galaxies right after the big bangbig bang, they MUST appear very wide (to account for the human hypotheses of expansion of spacetime in between) and they must appear as big red blobs since there were not supposed to have been such early galaxies at such early times. Both core predictions have been totally falsified; The most redshifts galaxies appear as mature as ours AND there is no distortion as to their expected arc sizes, destroying the assumption of expanding space. I am sorry. If observations do not concur with your theory , then the theory is WRONG. It doesn't mean we must tweak our theories once more to make them stick. We must falsify them. Feynman was very clear about it. Personally I don't care at all whether we had a big bang or not or even multiple. I just care for l logic thought. Your dogmatism to stick to academic theories, despite observations is admirable, but not fitting for a scientific career. Or maybe it actually is nowadays...learn...
@RWin-fp5jn Nice that you recognize that I'm an academic. And hilarious that you nevertheless think you understand this stuff better than I. :D
"First off, CMB was not a prediction of the lambda CDM model."
It was a prediction of the Big Bang Theory. The Lambda CDM model is a special case of the Big Bang theory.
"it was a postdiction."
Completely wrong, the CMB was predicted before it was observed.
"Cosmologists interpreted the observed redshift as an effect resulting from an expanding universe (a logical try but falsified nonetheless by JWST)"
That was not falsified by the JWST, why on Earth do you think so? :D
"From there they calculated an age backwards and fed the results backward into the CMB fluctuation interpretation"
Completely wrong, that is not what was actually done. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"so CMB is not a separate indicator of cosmic age"
No one claimed it is. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"We can just as well re calibrate to adjust both as we did at the start."
There was no such "calibration" at the start. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"We are cheating anyway."
No cosmologist is cheating. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"As for JWST ; the predictions upfront were very clear. If we were to observe extreme Z redshifted galaxies right after the big bangbig bang, they MUST appear very wide (to account for the human hypotheses of expansion of spacetime in between)"
Oh boy, that's complete utter nonsense. No one _ever_ predicted that these galaxies must appear very wide, and that is not at all what the expansion of spacetime actually predicts. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"and they must appear as big red blobs"
That was never predicted. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"The most redshifts galaxies appear as mature as ours"
Completely, utterly, totally wrong. Most galaxies at high redshift that the JWST has observed are small and not mature at all. There are only a few outliers. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"AND there is no distortion as to their expected arc sizes"
That was never expected. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"I am sorry."
You should be sorry for your utter cluelessness.
"If observations do not concur with your theory , then the theory is WRONG."
Indeed. Our theory of how galaxies formed is obviously wrong a bit.
"It doesn't mean we must tweak our theories once more to make them stick."
Wrong again. Lots of theories can be saved by tweaking them a bit. That's standard modus operandi in science. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"I just care for l logic thought."
You don't care what the observations actually say. You don't care what actually was predicted. You don't care how the observations actually are explained. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Now we just need to find a similar proposal for massless gravity, otherwise known as dark matter
??? Dark matter is not massless gravity, what are you talking about?!?
@ Dark matter is a math problem. The vernacular Dark Matter is used as a place holder. A more accurate description of the math problem is Massless Gravity because it describes directly the observations. But no sane person would accept this as a descriptor of the math anomaly. Dark Matter sells, so that is the popular term. However no matter, dark or light has ever been observed or proven. The math problem describes Massless Gravity. So I come back to my original post. Perhaps this new hypothesis on dark energy suggesting that space is lumpy will be used to address the issue of Dark Matter because it may also be the result of lumpy space time.
@@Ballistichydrant "Dark matter is a math problem."
No, it isn't.
"The vernacular Dark Matter is used as a place holder."
Yes, as a _physical_ place holder. Not a _mathematical_ place holder.
"A more accurate description of the math problem is Massless Gravity because it describes directly the observations. "
Show your math. (And I bet that you don't even know what the observations actually are.)
"But no sane person would accept this as a descriptor of the math anomaly."
There is no "math anomaly".
"However no matter, dark or light has ever been observed or proven."
Pardon? Do you really want to claim that no matter has ever been observed?!?!?! Really?!?
"The math problem describes Massless Gravity."
There is no "math problem".
"So I come back to my original post."
How about coming back to actually giving some explanations, arguments and evidence?
"Perhaps this new hypothesis on dark energy suggesting that space is lumpy"
That's not what this new hypothesis is suggesting. Man, you really manage to misunderstand _everything_ you hear. :D
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 You’re confused. It’s okay. I appreciate the effort
@@Ballistichydrant :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I notice that you conveniently ignored each and every one of my questions and arguments...
You really love to make a public fool of yourself, don't you?
Wonderful content.
Get some advice on editing, though!
Like what?
So it basically means we probably not need dark energy anymore? No..
Just not accelerated expansion anymore
Remains to be determined
Just a idea Bound and unbound state. Photons reaching the Gamma velocity in a discrete gravity field.
What is the "gamma velocity"? What is a "discrete gravity field"?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Frequency of a photon moving along the line of flight (Unbound) defined as an exponential value encountering a gravitational field.
This is a spell just after a 1/4 in... WE countered it easily... WE have teams in all areas. I broke the spell. Should be back to normal tomorrow.
Ok it wasn't that easy lol
these voids debunk entropy
How?
@DrBrianKeating Timescapes, in the background of this new approach to lambda. Voids are created, Universe is less homogenious with time.
@arcticantic1768 Sorry for the intrusion, but your comment grabbed my attention, friend.. I'm more than a little ignorant of these concepts.. Please expand on HOW timescapes may be in conflict with entropy.. Peace.
Over large enough areas, the universe would still be homogeneous. My understanding is that since we exist on the edge of a large void, our measurements have been biased by local phenomena. Entropy is still necessary.
@shantiescovedo4361 Yes.. That makes sense to me. Thanks for the comment. For an idiominute, I thought something important went over my head again.
The mass energy equivalation proved vacuum energy cannot exist over a century ago. All you have to do is insert vacuum mass zero in the E=mc^2 equation !
It's precisely the other way round: because dark energy exists, E is not equal to zero, and therefore vacuum mass is not zero.
No Nobel prize here... Draw arrow
Take this video back to the editing booth. Really odd dead spots and strange hitching with the audio from time to time. (Music background cuts out to silence several times as well.)
Einsteins theory of clocks running faster or slower depending on their distance from a gravitational field had inadvertently been observed with the Voyager spacecraft. They have been believed to have been slowing down in that radio signals from them have seemed to indicate arrive sooner than expected. However their internal clocks are running faster as they are being less affected by the sun’s gravitational field! Einstein way ahead of his time and colleagues!🎉
As usual! Thanks
When astrophysicists finally discover geography and currents. And don't forget eddy currents you clever weasels!
The best ever
Local cavitation vs cosmic cavitation?
Maybe!
I wonder if field vacuum can describe this.
How do you mean ?
hubble constant is like electron shell layers?
That is a very interesting idea but I don’t think so
@@DrBrianKeating thanks for your reply, was just a thought question along the lines with dark matter, tesseract, fusion and antimatter + voids, probably not a great example, 👍✌
Decompression. Could be
There is no dark energy. There is only one reason to postulate it, to explain the exponential expansion rate of the universe. The expansion was discovered in 1929. In 1998 it was discovered that the expansion is accelerating, this is when the concept of dark energy became mainstream.
Electricity is drawn towards potential and the universe as a whole behaves the same way. Electricity comes into our homes because the neutral circuit provides the potential. It's drawn towards grounding rods for the same reason.
If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster. If a spaceship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would achieve about 95% light speed in 1 year.
Physicists in the last century did not postulate dark energy because they understood that the expansion is a fundamental property of the universe. The fact that the expansion is accelerating does not invalidate their reasoning, it's what the known laws of physics would predict provided gravitational forces are not strong enough to counteract the process.
All studies to find dark energy have been fruitless because it doesn't exist. To say there is dark energy is to say there are 5 fundamental forces, there are 4.
All the great physicists from the last century did not postulate dark energy for these reasons.
It’s a fascinating theory but I think it’s more complicated than that.
@DrBrianKeating What theory? All the great physicists from the last century Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli, Feynman etc. did not postulate dark energy, it's not a matter of opinion, it doesn't exist.
@DrBrianKeating What theory? All the great physicists in the last century, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli, Feynman etc. didn't postulate dark energy for the reasons I stated. It's not a matter of opinion, it doesn't exist.
@DrBrianKeating What theory? Nothing changed in 1998. It's not a matter of opinion, there is no dark energy.
Aeon-creep
i know what you need SOS = heads
The content is interesting, as is most of Dr. Keating's material. However, this video appears AI generated (not the script, but the video). The head is shifting, and the neckline is sometimes breaking. I guess its a test if we notice ? Or am I wrong ... My feedback is that the voice is perfect, the content is too, the video is not.
Not sure what you mean. Obviously I use a green screen. It’s really me not ai
hour = (((M_☉)(Sun average orbit velocity)^2) /Milky Way luminosity)
The Sun's orbital velocity in the Milky Way Galaxy calibrates an hour in special and general relativity to exist by contrast.
Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to have missed possibly the most elegant of solutions the timescale model which is in itself rooted in GR.
😮
Wendy Freedman? Looks like Tyson to me. Your voice says one thing, your graphics another. Not good.
Thanks for the feedback, I’ll work on that.
First! WOOOOOOO
🏆
Hahahahaha
did you put a fake chin to your chin? what is that?
There is no noticeable gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So SR applies there instead of GR. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Why is general relativity used for vacuum energy instead of special relativity ? There is no gravity in the huge void between galaxies. So its mostly flat space and SR applies there. Given the equation E=mc^2, we get dark energy = 0 because vacuum mass = 0.
Because the range of gravity is theoretically infinite, it does reduce Since gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance. The topology of space time is therefore curved in much of these voids, the only point at which space time could be considered flat, is where the measurable curvature is equal to or shorter than the Planck length. In most practical applications GR is necessary rather than SR. The way voids would affect things is that the curvature drop off from surrounding mass around these voids would be large, therefore time would run faster in the voids compared to time from the observer on our planet in a big fat gravity well caused by the lanikea supercluster which the Milky Way is part of. Therefore the light reaching us from across these voids not only be redshifted as it traveled toward us from distant expanding space but also blue shifted, because of gravitational time dilation as it traveled across huge voids of empty space.
@Fluxdeluxe1 No there isnt any measurable gravitational field in those voids, nor any space curvature what so ever. Because there is no such thing as a curved space. Not just in voids between galaxies, but anywhere. In our solar system space is perfectly flat, because there is no light beding outside the sun's corona as DR Edward Dowdye has shown. All the bending is seen at the limb of the sun's corona, and none is observed outside it ! And even near earth they never use GR space curvature to calculate gravity. They claim it is too weak and treat space as flat ! And abberate that gravitational time dillation is causing gravity.
Which is just illogical because g time dillation would cause an object to decrease its speed in a gravitational field, so it would decelerate and not accelerate.