I love how clearly and efficiently you explain the inforanation, such that an interested lay person can understand, but without dumbing it down too much. My new favorite astronomy channel!
Thank you so much. I learned a lot. Here are some things for you to consider: X. DEFINITIONS MATTER: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: SPACE: That three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form: SPACE: Unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment. CIG has redefined Matter and Space
Hi Dr. Lieu, great video! I've been very interested in the idea that the cosmological constant could be variable. Is there any discussion on whether it could vary not only through time or scale factor, but directionally? I ask because the 2021 and 2022 studies from Nathan Secrest et al show an unexpected anisotropic dipole level at sigmas 4.9 and 5.1. Love the background btw!
Hi Jordan, great question. I made a video on the axis of evil a while back, not sure if you've seen that one yet, but looking for anisotropy particular in the CMB is a big thing. It's not expected, and its important for any evidence to rule out other systematics, but if there is any, its small. If you search anisotropic cosmological models, you'll find so many examples of such theories e.g. Bianchi cosmologies. Thank you!
I just imagined you saving the Universe with your mention of the 5th Element. One of my favorite movies, and you can Star in it with an alternate quintessence storyline as an astrophysicist astronaut protagonist. You can incorporate your new music theme at the beginning of your movie.🍿🤣 What color hair? Light Blue, Bluish-Silver for Sly……🥹 or ? Pleasant dreams.💭🥰
I love learning so much exciting stuff from you. I wonder if the dark energy problem will ever be solved as satisfyingly as the ultraviolet catastrophe was solved a century ago. I imagine it would be some surprising brilliant discovery like it was then.
My friend is the operator of the camera... i was trying to get him to send me the video of it pumping crazily but he didnt get it to me in time 🥲 but that was the moment that made me perk up to this amazing instrument 🥰
11:11 The problem is not in the worst or less worst predictions, but in the methodical sacrifice. 0.In the presence of Λ(0) in Einstein's equations Newtonian mechanics is no longer a special case of GR. 1.The relativistic equations of the gravitational field can be reached intuitively, based on the Poisson equation: Δφ=4πGρ. 2.Now it is required that in the case of a weak field in GR, the Poisson equation is obtained, and this took place {by the way, a generally recognized achievement and “...a great success of GR” (Pauli, RT)}. 3.But only when there are still unknown constants in the desired equations: a=-1/2 (which can be determined using the equivalence principle) and, attention: Λ(0)=0. 4.Initially, in 1915, Einstein wrote the equations exactly in the form: R(ik) - (1/2)Rg(ik)=(8πG/c4)T(ik), i, k=0,1,2,3. , however, for philosophical reasons, in 1917 he added the unknown constant Λ(0) to his equations as a "cosmological constant".* 5.Modern speculations** with an unknown constant based on the equation: T(ik)^v=-(c^4/8πG)Λ(0)g(ik), where T(ik)^v is interpreted as the energy-momentum tensor for vacuum. 6.Further worse: it becomes necessary every time to take into account the limitations imposed by the observational data on the value Λ(0). ---------------- *) - After Friedmann's solution (1922) Einstein discarded it. **) - "A good joke should not be repeated." (Einstein).
Without the idea of the external source: the proto universe ( Ambartsumyan spoke of the proto-substance), the Universe is doomed, because it does not have its own energy source. P.S. See the Appendix ( if interesting). Appendix Protouniverse/Universe: 0.Comparing with Einstein's equations of 1915, we find a=-c^3/16πG. Strictly speaking, in order to determine the constant a, it was necessary to make a transition to the Poisson equation. Thus, a rigorous derivation of Einstein's equations can be given. 1.The transition to the non-relativistic limit allows us to determine a constant factor for the integral of the gravitational field according to: R[(0)^0]=(4πG/c^2)p; Δφ=-pc^3/4a=4πGр. And a=(1/16π)m(pl)w(pl). 2.Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor (for a weakly curved metric the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)~=pc^2). 3.This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. 4.Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2 [~=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4= =1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (~500 quanta/cm^3)], where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. 5.Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space. According to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a*|=πcH [=r(pl)w(relic)^2], and w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. Thus H=1,72*10^-20 sec^-1. {By the way, at t(universe)= πт(pl), w(“relic”) was =w(pl), g=cw(pl)=g(pl); at 1/”H”= t(universe)=380000 years, w(“relic”)/2π was =3.5*10^14 Hz} 6.And а*=-2πcа/M(universe), what is F=M(universe)а*=-2πса=-с^4/8G=-(⅛)F(pl). In the case of the Universe: M(universe)H=m(pl)w(pl)/8π=c^3/8πG=-2a (~ the "dark" const~inv), where M(universe)=E/c^2 is the full mass of the Universe, and the total energy E is spent on creating a phase-quantized space-time: m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H { w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. 7.That is: Δφ=-pc^3/4a= рс^3/2M(universe)H^2. And Δφ=4π[с^3/Gm(pl)w(pl)]H^2= 4πH^2; which is evidence of a phenomenon: spontaneous Lorentz transformations. 8.Thus; Δφ(0)/Δφ=w(pl)^2/H^2~10^126, where Δφ(0)=4πw(pl)^2; the “best” prediction. P.S. Intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|=πGm(pl)l/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i)=h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction. a.The basic formula QG of the quantum expression of the Newtonian gravitational potential is: ф(G)=-Ф(i)w, where w is the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational (~ vibrational) field.} b.“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922). [The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.] c. Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]: k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl)=r(G)/2m(0); i=m(pl)/r(pl)=(1/c)m(pl)w(pl), w=[r(G)/r]w(pl). d.That is ф(G)=-[Gm(pl)/2c]w=-(½)[w/w(pl)]c^2=-(½)(√Għ/c)w=-Ф(i)w. e.w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L, L=8πn’r(pl) is the length of the phase trajectory, n'=4*10^61. H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1). f.By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old. g.The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic). r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr. P.P.S.The inscription on the ancient Roman clock: “More than you think”.
I thought that if Dark Energy was not constant, it was going to be accelerating. If this is true, it is going to be the crunch and not the rip. Amazing. Thanks for the video!
The Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The cause of this is believed to be dark energy with a constant negative pressure. DESI results think that this is not actually constant... its getting weaker. Thanks for watching 🥰
@@SpaceMog So, does it mean that the dark energy gets diluted, hence not a direct property of the space itself? That would be a profound clue indeed. Thank you for your work.
With further study of this baryonic acoustic oscillation should discourage proponents of lambda CDM using a "big bang", "black holes" and "dark energy" in association with the beginning or intrinsic nature of the universe because a "big ring" or "big echo" fits too well with the science of this universal "quientessence".
I’ll have to study this interesting video, especially, since you mentioned the Big Crunch at the end. I’ll have to come back and add questions later, since I’ve got nothing at the moment.😅 Besides, you’ve had a long day already finishing this video.💖
You finished that soo quickly! There's a lot to process for sure 😅 With being in the lab every day, I wasnt sure I would even get today's video out, but glad you appreciate all this work :-) hope you have a great day - bed for me now :-)
I know I can be exhausting asking sooo many questions. I decided you deserve a break from me at least for tonight.😇 And, you know, your worm experiments have me fascinated too today with sooo many questions already!🤪 Sorry… you’re just tooo magicnetically attractive.🥲😻
1.Could quintessence be the quantum foam? 2.They know what distant galaxies looked like a long time ago, so why not run a simulation and calculate a map of exactly what the universe looks like today?
How are nearer luminous red galaxies "dead", but older emission line galaxies at farther redshifts are alive and active with new star formation? Shouldn't galaxies that are nearer be younger and more active than galaxies that are farther away?
It's always struck me as strange on the face of it, that we can be confident that 95% of the universe is some unknown 'stuff' that no theory preditcted and that we cannot directly observe or detect and can only wildly guess at what it might be. But we're confident it exists lol....
If there is an uncertain fog, hey queries here is the SPACE MOG!. Her I found real researched facts, thank you for enlighten us with your knowledge. Dr Lieu if you don't mind then please make videos on other topics such as Inside earth, light is liar, dimensions and so on as the way of your explanation is too good I like your videos. In the case of queries about how to do? please ask, I would answer your queries. - Yours SPACECAT🥰
As a retired STEM scientist (Applied Mathematics and Statistics) among other things, having the popularizers of science so strongly sell as real/true for so long to constantly be wrong is making scientists to start to be treated no different than priests arguing about how may angels can fit on the head of a pin. I wonder if _Idiocracy_ happens with a bang (all at once) or a whimper, e.g., _The Reproducibility Crisis_ also on ytube.
@@SpaceMog Just be careful. I'm retired so I have nothing to attack, but you're still working. If you did watch Sabine's Hossenfelder's interview about scientific fraud (the ability to reproduce modern studies has dramatically decreased almost to ZERO) is kinda ok, because "everyone does it," I wonder if you were as horrified as I watching them say and agree, meh, no biggie. I was like WUT!? The Scientific Method is the only thing we humans have as a defense against "anything goes..." but we don't need to use it all the time... 🤕 I now can no longer even link ytube videos in my comments otherwise I would have... they get immediately censored these days. Stay safe.
As a Space Cat in training, I, too, second your comment. I love exploring what Dr Maggie Lieu is passionate and knowledgeable about. There is so much to explore. With that said/typed, I do get reminded of the fact that I may have not been as attentive to the physics/maths professors during my time in school. 😊
@@SpaceMog Oh? Please! I do not mind the challenge and that there is always enough for us ummm non-brainiacs to explore and to enjoy exploring. Certainly I speak for many when sharing a huge thank you for sharing your ideas and passions. Wishing to you and to all Space Cats a wonderful Spring (a wonderful Autumn for you Southern hemisphere Space Cats) and more. 🌺
Could your DESI data confirm that the stellar entities that are releasing the most ENERGY are also the entities that have the greatest RED SHIFT? Normalized one to the other to an even spatial background field (i.e. isolated and corrected to remove RED SHIFT expansions from other foreground and background "OTHER RED SHIFTS", such that one is only seeing the Red Shift of that specific stellar entity alone. And that the isolated RED SHIFT correlates to the greatest energy release (released from the entity into Space, not contained and not released) (actually not into Space but a creation of Matter to Space) is proportional to the greatest expansion. And this correlates to an expansion (creation of Space from Matter) ENERGY to SPACE based on ENERGY. And does this align in any way with the CUPI as calculated in the book "I Have Become Space" ? In other words, please use your data to confirm CIG Theory. It's right there. CIG Theory is the fundamental explanation for the data you are seeing. Please investigate. In CIG Theory, E=MC2 interprets "E" as new Volumes (SPACE ITSELF). Thank you kindly. Excellent - thank you so so much. Maybe, and a theoretical maybe at that, with of curse CIG Theory in mind, and to further vindicate Halton Arp, and with the Cosmological Non-constant in mind, and to offer that Albert E. has gotten a final word over Neil's B., the following could be considered: According to CIG Theory, the most Dark Energy will be created at a time when the most Energy (light motion of matter) is being released, actually the creation of Space from Matter (not Space from Space as is the current discussions among Cosmologists). So, a slowing over time of Dark Energy will be evident when that light in the Universe has already become Space and as such there is little light leftover to become more Space. This will be gradual. I am trying to explain in the context of CIG Theory why you are seeing the slowing promulgation, the weakening of Dark Energy over time, since there is less light Matter to turn into Dark Energy (Space). In the EMS the Dark Energy wavelength will be very very long, shorter for Dark Matter, still shorter for Visible Light, and shortest for Black Holes, the full curvature of Spacetime. Please look at CIG Theory in the context of DESI team findings of a weaker Dark Energy, of Dr. Mariangela Lisanti's Dark Matter waves, of Halton Arp's Red Shift Anomalies, of the Measurement Problem, and of the Vacuum Catastrophe. So, the greatest expansion (Hubble Non-Constant) will take place when there exists the most light in the Universe and when there is no light left, the expansion of Space will stop. The Hubble Tension can be explained away as in the early Universe there existed a propensity for less light to escape and become the long long longest wavelength Dark Energy. Then at a later time, the light was much more pronounced, and the fast moving matter unfolded to become the Dark Energy. That Energy is weakening as the light fades.
This video was completely on point and with the observations of recent paper where black holes are emitting non baryonic matter it is safe to assume that we could be being fooled by an illusion of accelerating expansion past the speed of light which makes a lot more sense then a universe accelerating in expansion past the speed of light... maybe they will give you the nobel prize and you will be my wife💯💚💜😉
@@SpaceMog I'm not allowed to win Nobel prizes... I would have at least three by now otherwise lol... You can have the glory... as long as im with you i wouldn't mind it...💯
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. The concept of dark energy became mainstream after it was discovered that the expansion is accelerating in 1998. If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster. If a ship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would achieve about 95% light speed in 1 year. 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. 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 is 5 fundamental forces, there is 4
Our lights would not come on if the neutral circuit didn't provide the potential to draw the electricity. We don't postulate some force driving the electrons and we should not postulate some force driving the expansion. Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman and every other physicist before 1998 didn't believe in it for the reasons I stated
Cosmology has been a fantasty for the last 100 years and fewer clues existed before. The Nobel Prize in Physics in 1971 was awarded to Dennis Gabor for his invention and development of holographic methods. Over 50 years, we've known that what we are looking at it space, is not locally real. When you are studying, what is essentially dead light that left stars billions of years ago, what was there, is no longer there, all you are really studying is light. Not the Universe itself.
Dr Mog's presentation clearly illustrates the awful predicament of modern cosmologists, astrophysicists et al: clueless dofuss's grappling to untangle the mysteries of dark this and that - concepts which they themselves have created! Let them all retire I say: abandon their grants and chairs and slink back into the shadows of ancient mystics!
I love how clearly and efficiently you explain the inforanation, such that an interested lay person can understand, but without dumbing it down too much. My new favorite astronomy channel!
Thank you so much. I learned a lot. Here are some things for you to consider:
X. DEFINITIONS
MATTER: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion.
While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows:
SPACE: That three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter.
In it's simpler form:
SPACE: Unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion.
That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment.
CIG has redefined Matter and Space
Fascinating as ever and a great deal to think about!
Thank you 😇
Great channel! I just discovered it, and subscribed
Hi good to have you here 🥰
Thanks Dr Maggie Lieu for the great video on DESI and explaining the tension in the Lamda CDM model. 😊
Thank you for your support as always 🥰
Thanks!
Aww thank you! 😊
I truly live in an embarrassment of knowledge and facts. Thank you for making some of it approachable.
You probably know a lot more than most of the world 🥰
Hi Dr Maggie, you seem to really understand your audience and get the learning curve just right.
Hi Dr. Lieu, great video! I've been very interested in the idea that the cosmological constant could be variable. Is there any discussion on whether it could vary not only through time or scale factor, but directionally? I ask because the 2021 and 2022 studies from Nathan Secrest et al show an unexpected anisotropic dipole level at sigmas 4.9 and 5.1. Love the background btw!
Hi Jordan, great question. I made a video on the axis of evil a while back, not sure if you've seen that one yet, but looking for anisotropy particular in the CMB is a big thing. It's not expected, and its important for any evidence to rule out other systematics, but if there is any, its small. If you search anisotropic cosmological models, you'll find so many examples of such theories e.g. Bianchi cosmologies. Thank you!
Thank you for explaining the math. You really hit the detail amount spot on. And what a cool result.
I just imagined you saving the Universe with your mention of the 5th Element. One of my favorite movies, and you can Star in it with an alternate quintessence storyline as an astrophysicist astronaut protagonist. You can incorporate your new music theme at the beginning of your movie.🍿🤣 What color hair? Light Blue, Bluish-Silver for Sly……🥹 or ? Pleasant dreams.💭🥰
Im working on it 😊 i also used to have every colour hair - silver was my favourite 🙃
@@SpaceMog I hope you have a multi pass..
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this educational and entertaining video. Keep it up! 😻
I love learning so much exciting stuff from you. I wonder if the dark energy problem will ever be solved as satisfyingly as the ultraviolet catastrophe was solved a century ago. I imagine it would be some surprising brilliant discovery like it was then.
It will be a big breakthrough when it is solved :)
Hearing about the bot tech of DESI 🤯 thanks for this timely and informative video Dr Maggie 👍
My friend is the operator of the camera... i was trying to get him to send me the video of it pumping crazily but he didnt get it to me in time 🥲 but that was the moment that made me perk up to this amazing instrument 🥰
@@SpaceMog not easy but you managed to get the point across just fine 👏❤️
Girl, you’re my new hero. Keep it up. Love your videos!
Cheers!!
Let's go! The robot fiber optic holder is so cool.
Illustrations of the BAO are always shown as expanding rings. Is the actual BAO expanding in 3 dimensions (hollow spheres)?
Correct!
11:11 The problem is not in the worst or less worst predictions, but in the methodical sacrifice.
0.In the presence of Λ(0) in Einstein's equations Newtonian mechanics is no longer a special case of GR.
1.The relativistic equations of the gravitational field can be reached intuitively, based on the Poisson equation: Δφ=4πGρ.
2.Now it is required that in the case of a weak field in GR, the Poisson equation is obtained, and this took place {by the way, a generally recognized achievement and “...a great success of GR” (Pauli, RT)}. 3.But only when there are still unknown constants in the desired equations: a=-1/2 (which can be determined using the equivalence principle) and, attention: Λ(0)=0.
4.Initially, in 1915, Einstein wrote the equations exactly in the form: R(ik) - (1/2)Rg(ik)=(8πG/c4)T(ik), i, k=0,1,2,3. , however, for philosophical reasons, in 1917 he added the unknown constant Λ(0) to his equations as a "cosmological constant".*
5.Modern speculations** with an unknown constant based on the equation: T(ik)^v=-(c^4/8πG)Λ(0)g(ik), where T(ik)^v is interpreted as the energy-momentum tensor for vacuum.
6.Further worse: it becomes necessary every time to take into account the limitations imposed by the observational data on the value Λ(0).
----------------
*) - After Friedmann's solution (1922) Einstein discarded it.
**) - "A good joke should not be repeated." (Einstein).
Without the idea of the external source: the proto universe ( Ambartsumyan spoke of the proto-substance), the Universe is doomed, because it does not have its own energy source.
P.S. See the Appendix ( if interesting).
Appendix
Protouniverse/Universe:
0.Comparing with Einstein's equations of 1915, we find a=-c^3/16πG. Strictly speaking, in order to determine the constant a, it was necessary to make a transition to the Poisson equation. Thus, a rigorous derivation of Einstein's equations can be given.
1.The transition to the non-relativistic limit allows us to determine a constant factor for the integral of the gravitational field according to: R[(0)^0]=(4πG/c^2)p; Δφ=-pc^3/4a=4πGр.
And a=(1/16π)m(pl)w(pl).
2.Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor (for a weakly curved metric the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)~=pc^2).
3.This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric.
4.Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2 [~=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4=
=1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (~500 quanta/cm^3)],
where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH.
5.Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space.
According to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a*|=πcH [=r(pl)w(relic)^2], and
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. Thus H=1,72*10^-20 sec^-1.
{By the way, at t(universe)= πт(pl), w(“relic”) was =w(pl), g=cw(pl)=g(pl);
at 1/”H”= t(universe)=380000 years, w(“relic”)/2π was =3.5*10^14 Hz}
6.And а*=-2πcа/M(universe), what is F=M(universe)а*=-2πса=-с^4/8G=-(⅛)F(pl).
In the case of the Universe: M(universe)H=m(pl)w(pl)/8π=c^3/8πG=-2a (~ the "dark" const~inv), where M(universe)=E/c^2 is the full mass of the Universe, and the total energy E is spent on creating a phase-quantized space-time:
m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H
{
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H.
7.That is: Δφ=-pc^3/4a=
рс^3/2M(universe)H^2.
And
Δφ=4π[с^3/Gm(pl)w(pl)]H^2=
4πH^2; which is evidence of a phenomenon: spontaneous Lorentz transformations.
8.Thus;
Δφ(0)/Δφ=w(pl)^2/H^2~10^126, where Δφ(0)=4πw(pl)^2; the “best” prediction.
P.S. Intra-metagalactic gravitational potential:
|ф0|=πGm(pl)l/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i)=h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction.
a.The basic formula QG of the quantum expression of the Newtonian gravitational potential is: ф(G)=-Ф(i)w, where w is the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational (~ vibrational) field.}
b.“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922).
[The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.]
c. Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]:
k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl)=r(G)/2m(0);
i=m(pl)/r(pl)=(1/c)m(pl)w(pl), w=[r(G)/r]w(pl).
d.That is ф(G)=-[Gm(pl)/2c]w=-(½)[w/w(pl)]c^2=-(½)(√Għ/c)w=-Ф(i)w.
e.w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L, L=8πn’r(pl) is the length of the phase trajectory, n'=4*10^61.
H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1).
f.By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old.
g.The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic).
r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr.
P.P.S.The inscription on the ancient Roman clock: “More than you think”.
I thought that if Dark Energy was not constant, it was going to be accelerating. If this is true, it is going to be the crunch and not the rip. Amazing. Thanks for the video!
The Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The cause of this is believed to be dark energy with a constant negative pressure. DESI results think that this is not actually constant... its getting weaker. Thanks for watching 🥰
@@SpaceMog So, does it mean that the dark energy gets diluted, hence not a direct property of the space itself? That would be a profound clue indeed. Thank you for your work.
Thank you! Great info.
With further study of this baryonic acoustic oscillation should discourage proponents of lambda CDM using a "big bang", "black holes" and "dark energy" in association with the beginning or intrinsic nature of the universe because a "big ring" or "big echo" fits too well with the science of this universal "quientessence".
4 more years of data to go - and even better when done from space with Euclid :-)
If I understand it correctly, DESI data is saying dark energy (lambda) dilutes with time ? might it be related to entropy ?
Correct, but i dont see how that relates to entropy...
I didn't know 4bn ly was nearby. What kinda vehicle you got?
I’ll have to study this interesting video, especially, since you mentioned the Big Crunch at the end. I’ll have to come back and add questions later, since I’ve got nothing at the moment.😅 Besides, you’ve had a long day already finishing this video.💖
You finished that soo quickly! There's a lot to process for sure 😅 With being in the lab every day, I wasnt sure I would even get today's video out, but glad you appreciate all this work :-) hope you have a great day - bed for me now :-)
I know I can be exhausting asking sooo many questions. I decided you deserve a break from me at least for tonight.😇 And, you know, your worm experiments have me fascinated too today with sooo many questions already!🤪 Sorry… you’re just tooo magicnetically attractive.🥲😻
1.Could quintessence be the quantum foam? 2.They know what distant galaxies looked like a long time ago, so why not run a simulation and calculate a map of exactly what the universe looks like today?
What's behind the CMB?
How are nearer luminous red galaxies "dead", but older emission line galaxies at farther redshifts are alive and active with new star formation? Shouldn't galaxies that are nearer be younger and more active than galaxies that are farther away?
Please have your people contact Dr. Tyson, we need you on Startalk!
*Looks around* - still just me 🤷♀️ :-)
Lol. Funny, smart and beautiful. Why isn't there a ring on your finger?
It's always struck me as strange on the face of it, that we can be confident that 95% of the universe is some unknown 'stuff' that no theory preditcted and that we cannot directly observe or detect and can only wildly guess at what it might be. But we're confident it exists lol....
That little song is good.
Could the cosmic tension just be another aspect of the Higgs field
If there is an uncertain fog, hey queries here is the SPACE MOG!. Her I found real researched facts, thank you for enlighten us with your knowledge. Dr Lieu if you don't mind then please make videos on other topics such as Inside earth, light is liar, dimensions and so on as the way of your explanation is too good I like your videos. In the case of queries about how to do? please ask, I would answer your queries.
- Yours SPACECAT🥰
As a retired STEM scientist (Applied Mathematics and Statistics) among other things, having the popularizers of science so strongly sell as real/true for so long to constantly be wrong is making scientists to start to be treated no different than priests arguing about how may angels can fit on the head of a pin. I wonder if _Idiocracy_ happens with a bang (all at once) or a whimper, e.g., _The Reproducibility Crisis_ also on ytube.
*sigh* its frustrating
@@SpaceMog Just be careful. I'm retired so I have nothing to attack, but you're still working. If you did watch Sabine's Hossenfelder's interview about scientific fraud (the ability to reproduce modern studies has dramatically decreased almost to ZERO) is kinda ok, because "everyone does it," I wonder if you were as horrified as I watching them say and agree, meh, no biggie.
I was like WUT!? The Scientific Method is the only thing we humans have as a defense against "anything goes..." but we don't need to use it all the time... 🤕
I now can no longer even link ytube videos in my comments otherwise I would have... they get immediately censored these days.
Stay safe.
I miss Final Space!
🚀
I love your channel play but science makes my head hurt. Keep up the great work and I will try harder to understand the complexities.cheers❤
As a Space Cat in training, I, too, second your comment. I love exploring what Dr Maggie Lieu is passionate and knowledgeable about. There is so much to explore. With that said/typed, I do get reminded of the fact that I may have not been as attentive to the physics/maths professors during my time in school. 😊
Sorry! Its hard to get the balance right without making a super long video, this is already on the longer side for me 😅 but ill try harder!
@@SpaceMog Oh? Please! I do not mind the challenge and that there is always enough for us ummm non-brainiacs to explore and to enjoy exploring. Certainly I speak for many when sharing a huge thank you for sharing your ideas and passions. Wishing to you and to all Space Cats a wonderful Spring (a wonderful Autumn for you Southern hemisphere Space Cats) and more. 🌺
Cosmological lambs, ok I get it now, I thought that upside down v looked suspicious
Greeks hey! 😅
Tried to understand but my mind is too cluttered with jumbled memories to make sense of what you've explained to well.
Breathe deep the gathering...
In this episode of our universe I’m just gonna say MIAUU and try to process what I don’t understand 🙂🙃🙂🧸😼😽but thanks anyway Ms/Mrs/Dr Lieu
😬 watch on repeat 🙃🫠
Could your DESI data confirm that the stellar entities that are releasing the most ENERGY are also the entities that have the greatest RED SHIFT? Normalized one to the other to an even spatial background field (i.e. isolated and corrected to remove RED SHIFT expansions from other foreground and background "OTHER RED SHIFTS", such that one is only seeing the Red Shift of that specific stellar entity alone. And that the isolated RED SHIFT correlates to the greatest energy release (released from the entity into Space, not contained and not released) (actually not into Space but a creation of Matter to Space) is proportional to the greatest expansion.
And this correlates to an expansion (creation of Space from Matter) ENERGY to SPACE based on ENERGY. And does this align in any way with the CUPI as calculated in the book "I Have Become Space" ? In other words, please use your data to confirm CIG Theory. It's right there. CIG Theory is the fundamental explanation for the data you are seeing. Please investigate. In CIG Theory, E=MC2 interprets "E" as new Volumes (SPACE ITSELF). Thank you kindly. Excellent - thank you so so much.
Maybe, and a theoretical maybe at that, with of curse CIG Theory in mind, and to further vindicate Halton Arp, and with the Cosmological Non-constant in mind, and to offer that Albert E. has gotten a final word over Neil's B., the following could be considered: According to CIG Theory, the most Dark Energy will be created at a time when the most Energy (light motion of matter) is being released, actually the creation of Space from Matter (not Space from Space as is the current discussions among Cosmologists).
So, a slowing over time of Dark Energy will be evident when that light in the Universe has already become Space and as such there is little light leftover to become more Space. This will be gradual. I am trying to explain in the context of CIG Theory why you are seeing the slowing promulgation, the weakening of Dark Energy over time, since there is less light Matter to turn into Dark Energy (Space). In the EMS the Dark Energy wavelength will be very very long, shorter for Dark Matter, still shorter for Visible Light, and shortest for Black Holes, the full curvature of Spacetime. Please look at CIG Theory in the context of DESI team findings of a weaker Dark Energy, of Dr. Mariangela Lisanti's Dark Matter waves, of Halton Arp's Red Shift Anomalies, of the Measurement Problem, and of the Vacuum Catastrophe.
So, the greatest expansion (Hubble Non-Constant) will take place when there exists the most light in the Universe and when there is no light left, the expansion of Space will stop. The Hubble Tension can be explained away as in the early Universe there existed a propensity for less light to escape and become the long long longest wavelength Dark Energy. Then at a later time, the light was much more pronounced, and the fast moving matter unfolded to become the Dark Energy. That Energy is weakening as the light fades.
Quick make more stuff up
This video was completely on point and with the observations of recent paper where black holes are emitting non baryonic matter it is safe to assume that we could be being fooled by an illusion of accelerating expansion past the speed of light which makes a lot more sense then a universe accelerating in expansion past the speed of light... maybe they will give you the nobel prize and you will be my wife💯💚💜😉
Thank you 😊 you would have to win a Nobel prize too if we are to have an equal relationship 😜
@@SpaceMog I'm not allowed to win Nobel prizes... I would have at least three by now otherwise lol... You can have the glory... as long as im with you i wouldn't mind it...💯
The mystery of dark energy will be solved someday. Until then, it's like magic.
🤞🏻
Does this mean that our Big Bang was someone else's ending Big Crunch?
❤
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. The concept of dark energy became mainstream after it was discovered that the expansion is accelerating in 1998.
If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster. If a ship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would achieve about 95% light speed in 1 year.
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.
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 is 5 fundamental forces, there is 4
Gravity by itself would slow the expansion of the universe. It was a shock when in the late 90's expansion was found to be accelerating.
@@craigtevis1241 If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster.
@shawns0762 If something accelerates there must be some force in action. Dark energy is the placeholder for that force.
Im not a huge fan of dark energy either 😅
Our lights would not come on if the neutral circuit didn't provide the potential to draw the electricity. We don't postulate some force driving the electrons and we should not postulate some force driving the expansion. Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman and every other physicist before 1998 didn't believe in it for the reasons I stated
Love and Science Hashtag STAN StringTheoryinANutshell {\} ;x
Good one! Thanks!
Cosmology has been a fantasty for the last 100 years and fewer clues existed before. The Nobel Prize in Physics in 1971 was awarded to Dennis Gabor for his invention and development of holographic methods. Over 50 years, we've known that what we are looking at it space, is not locally real. When you are studying, what is essentially dead light that left stars billions of years ago, what was there, is no longer there, all you are really studying is light. Not the Universe itself.
😮
Dr Mog's presentation clearly illustrates the awful predicament of modern cosmologists, astrophysicists et al: clueless
dofuss's grappling to untangle the mysteries of dark this and that - concepts which they themselves have created!
Let them all retire I say: abandon their grants and chairs and slink back into the shadows of ancient mystics!
They very much do have dark energy wrong And won't listen to reason. It's literally the Æther under a new label
💋
60% dark energy, 30% dark matter, 10% visible matter. That's my estimate.
Cosmology isn't broken. Our understanding of cosmology is broken.
😻