I had always wondered about the Hubble tension and also time flowing differently around the cosmos due to gravitational differences. Never put the two and two together like the timescape model seems to do quite elegantly. Looking forward to hearing more about this research. Thanks again for your input
Time does not "flow". The Timescapes effect is a relativistic effect, it does not actually suggest that time flows differently in various regions of space. Instead, it addresses the effects of inhomogeneities in the universe on *_our measurements_* and interpretations of cosmic expansion.
Thanks for the video, I've seen a number on the Timescape model and this was one of the best. One thing I like about Timescape is that it's more elegant than Lambda-CDM; I've never liked the fact that dark energy is basically a fudge factor they had to introduce to make the numbers work out. Something that cannot actually be detected itself but has an effect on the universe has always felt too close to the supernatural for me to be comfortable with the idea. At the same time, we definitely have to wait for more numbers to come out. Still, it's always good to see challenges to the Standard Model whether they work out or not.
Timescape is the only theory that makes logical sense. If you believe that gravity slows expansion (which it should whether it is slower time passage or actually 'pull' on space), then expansion was slower in the early very dense universe (once the effect of the actual 'bang' wears off due to gravity slowing it) than it is now in an expanded universe -- and it will just continue to increase as density reduces. Basically, you had a tremendous expansion at the 'bang' that slowed due to energy dilution and gravity's pull to keep it together .. which was followed by a restart to expansion when the matter clumped due to that same gravity and left voids. The voids expand faster and faster as they grow, while the clumped galaxies barely expand at all. The problem with lambda CDM is that they presumed homogeneousness, which is wrong. I just wonder why so many scientists were happy with a fudge-factor for all this time.
@@KellanMarr2 I think I know why a lot of astrophysics are against the timescapes model: because all of their previous work were based on assumptions of the lambda CDM model, which means their results could be inaccurate or even wrong. It might mean that all their research has to be redone or reevaluated. Imagine most of your work being based on an assumption that is proven wrong. The conclusions of them become questionable and any research you do based on results of your own previous work will also be questionable. Your whole career falls apart and you have to reevaluate everything you've done. It is terrifying! Astrophysicist are fighting to retain their reputation, credibility and career! Screw science, what about their lives and livelihood!
Inhomogeneous cosmology, timescapes and back reaction are complicated topics. Intriguing ideas, but the devil for these models is in the numbers, do they match the measured values. Great coverage by the beautiful Dr Maggie 👍👏
Hi Dr Maggie, really interesting, thank you from Auckland, NZ!!! Just to say, that this is the frontier of Astronomy science, that's what is so great and inspiring.
@SpaceMog To quote Carl Sagan from the old TV series Cosmos: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our contemplations of the Cosmos stir us - there is a tinging in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries."
@@SpaceMog well, I gather that liquids become more viscous approaching lightspeed. If it affects the blood, that could definitely make a passenger poorly...
It was an illusion to begin with. Dark energy, dark matter, inflation etc. Super massive BH in the early universe. Formed galaxies, heavy elements, dust. They take a picture of hyper distant galaxy and they assume they see it as it was. Even deriving mass and what not. You can't see it with Hubble at all, and then you see the whole galaxy even obtaining it's mass. lol Meanwhile they still find new major features of nearby objects. It's like in pro-gaming. They are good with mechanics but bad in logic and strategy.
That's just how science works. If that were to happen, some people would view it as time wasted on something that does not exist. But in reality said astrophysicist just contributed to solving the mystery. Also dark energy IS in fact an illusion as it is a placeholder name for whatever effect that causes the universe to expand faster or at least makes it appear as if it was expanding faster. Same with dark matter: it is just a placeholder name for whatever gravity related effect that can not be explained by regular matter.
Thank you, Space Mog, for this very intriguing video, covering some of my favourite aspects of astronomy/cosmology. I like the new Timescape model of the universe, it certainly sounds very promising, and supports a variable rate of the expansion of the universe. I have never looked at the universe as being isotropic, or homogenous, it just never seemed that way to me!
Somehow i never believed that there was such thing as dark energy.. i feel like it was just "invented" to explain something that we didnt understand yet.. and the more we learn about the universe and the history and composition of it.. the less we need "dark energy" to fill the empty gap of our knowledge... thanks for another great video Dr Lieu!
No PHD here, but I've always thought that someone would eventually figure out that the Universe isn't doing something absolutely insane. Maybe this time, maybe next... but eventually. ❤
I have a question! As we look out further and further into space, the expansion rate seems to speed up right? [ If that's incorrect, please do correct me ] OK, also as we look further and further away into space, we are looking further back in time due to time dilation. So doesn't that mean we are, in fact, seeing the expansion of space as it used to be and not as it is now? If so, then wouldn't that also suggest that the expansion rate now is, in fact, less than it was, meaning it's slowing down? It would make sense after all. First, there's the big bang which shoots everything in every direction, and then it all slows down over time, maybe due to gravity.
Dr. Lieu, I am a big fan of yours, and shall be until the Sun expands:) Dianna, Physics Girl is a pioneer here on YT. She has been in a Long Covid illness for over two years now -- as a man, I am so thrilled to have these women like yourself broadcast knowledge to the world. I was hoping you could give Dianna a shout-out, as she struggles to return to her work. Great vid, as per usual....
something so simple only now considered does not reflect the professionality physcists often boast of. in fact I always wondered if time dilation was taken into account when talking about the accelerated expansion of the universe. I also wondered how it's even possible to know the present acceleration / deceleration state of distant regions when all we know / see is what those regions (or rather their redshifts) looked like in the distant past
I personally favour the electric plasma universe theory. The lambda dark matter theory has too many holes in it. I'm fairly confident that despite the billions of dollars spent on looking for something that isn't there, eventually the thinking will switch to a plasma and electricity based understanding of the universe.
If the universe was infinitely dense in the beginning, how did time allow the universe to expand? Time must have run much slower due to density. Are we measuring the age of the universe based on what an outside observer would perceive or is the age of the universe measured as an inside observer?
If we see light bending in a laboratory on Earth after two black holes collide, shouldn't there be something really big in space that we can't see? The universe is really big. Is it possible for an effect that can reach our world to occur with a trace amount of matter in something so big?
My hypothesis is somewhat different and yet a bit similar. The effect of the cosmological redshift comes from gravity wells in motion(in the medium which the photon passes through) in respect to the observer, not from voids as it is in the timescape theory. Basically, in the gravity well of say a galaxy cluster the set of all possible geodesic lines(locally) moves along with the galaxy cluster in the frame of the observer(globally). The clock for the photon(from a source behind) in a gravity well in motion is ticking slower in our frame. And since almost every single object is in motion in respect of any observer anywhere. The greater the distance the more gravity wells in motion the photon passes through, the more redshifted it gets - the effect is accumulative. Like a kinetic imprint of the spacetime medium or something
@SpaceMog Really?! Thank you. I know i can't articulate my idea well , even in my native language. I tried 😅 The foundation of my idea is that time dilation due to motion of an object with mass extends into the whole warped spacetime bubble of the object. Not just to the surface of it but into the vacuum way beyond. And i imagine the whole universe is filled with such bubbles and boundary surfaces. Everything in motion. I don't know how similar it is. May be i should read the whole paper. Not that i will understand much. Best wishes Edit: As far as i can understand it, they try to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe with voids instead of dark energy. They still assume expanding universe and big bang. I do not. This is just another rescue attempt for the BBT that will fail
My theory is a more advanced "Time scape model" which despite having tried to poste it several times is prevented by UA-cam. As I am not allowed to post the whole thing so I will just post the most radical insight it has given me that is unique and that is 'why' gravity works a concept for which their is no other currant explanation. All matter tries to increase its Entropy i.e. become more stable and unchangeable.(The accepted Proof of the Arrow of time). I say where time flows slower atoms vibrate slower, technically therefore at a lower temperature. Entropy is why gravity happens, as Atoms are attracted to where they can vibrate slower in what we perceive as gravitational attraction. Over simplistically called Wall Time v Void time as this states that there are two different times. In fact it is one continuum indirectly proportional to the mass environment, the more mass the slower time pases or the slower the time passes the more it draws in matter- Entropy in action. To spell it out "Gravity does not slow time--, time dilation is the cause of gravity.(Matter is attracted to a less energetic condition).
When we view deep fields to observe the most distant objects, we are deliberately viewing light which passes through voids and doesn't pass through dense matter. If there were dense areas intervening, we wouldn't receive light from the more distant objects. Gravitational lensing is a partial exception, but we are still primarily viewing light which passed around matter rather than through it. Voids are even more dominant in transmission of that light than they are in the universe generally.
But it won't change anything because the change in the gravitational potential won't do anything. Only the difference between the gravitational potential in the frame of the source and and the frame of the observer matters
@m1l1tarym1nd-v3h That is the assumption on which the Lambda CDM model relies, which the timescape model rejects. To find out whether it is true, you have to actually calculate the time dilation effect on light passing through the voids and mass-dense regions to see if the result is different. Timescape researchers claim it is, in the papers being discussed here, and that the effect is net observed redshift.
@@crawkn Yes. By updating the equivalence principle which is not even proven to be right. There is no way in hell this mechanism produce the effect of the cosmological redshift or even contributes to it.
@m1l1tarym1nd-v3h The timescape model doesn't "update the equivalence principle," nor challenge any assumption of relativity. It challenges the assumptions of the FLRW model, employing the math of relativity to calculate the _actual_ effect of time dilation in regions of greater and lesser mass density. You can't conclude that it doesn't contribute to observed redshift without doing the math, or at least checking the math which has already been done.
Ok but if as observations suggest, the MW is in the middle of this BTM void or whatever its called and time is both passing faster due to the void itself but then slows down for us due to all the mass of the MW. Is this calling the big bang into question and if so is Roger Penrose right after all- that the Unvrse cycles through itself like nested funnels...??🤔
Whenever we look into space, we are looking back in time. If we look at galaxies 14 billion light years away, that is a snapshot of how it was and the speed it was traveling 14 billion years ago. The closer in space is also the closer to present time on Earth. These are all just snapshots of the past and how fast they are currently traveling is unknown. We only know that the farther away and further back in time we look, they travel faster than the ones closer to real-time. That indicates that the universe is actually slowing down... NOT speeding up
In my little brain, dark energy and dark matter are not absolute concepts, they are a means to describe behaviour until we figure out the phenomenon. Also even though this is quite simplistic and since we now describe physical nature via "fields" (electromagnetic, higgs, quark, etc. etc.) it seems plausible that gravity has to be a field of sorts (WIMP's or whatever) . I know that is not a new concept... Bless you dear
The simplest explanation being the best, and thus the two phenomena of dark matter and dark energy must have a common cause, if the explanation of the acceleration of the distance of galaxies is explained by this theory but not does not explain the phenomenon of galaxy confinement, so it is unlikely to be consistent. In this unique phenomenological framework, at least.
Thank you Dr Maggie Lieu for the great and easy to understand explanation about Timescape. I think there is some truth that time is affected by the density or void of space thereby affecting distance measurements. Although, I don’t think Timescape explains all the Hubble tension. I think that the concordance model is still missing another ingredient. 😊. The baked cake in the oven is a bit off. I don’t we have the right recipe yet. 😂
timescapes is very mentally satisfying compared to dark energy. i have high hopes that this gains traction while the smart folks work it out over the next few...decades 😅
Dr Maggie, this is fine tuning eh? Not revolutionary? If it stands up. It's cool how a bunch of scientists throw out their data and say "we think this", then more more scientists are like "yeah nah, it could also mean this dude". And they do this, looked at by many other ways until no-one has a better idea.
"We don't know what most of the universe is, and we weren't expecting the observations we're seeing based on our understanding of the maths. But we are nevertheless confident that the maths is indeed correct, and there's just some unknown stuff that we haven't been able to identify yet" I've always felt like this is a bizarre state of affairs. It's basically the Principal Skinner meme: "Is our understanding of the universe fundamentally flawed somehow? No, there's just some invisible stuff out there!"
"..to make the observation make sense." I've always been extremely sceptical about this; religion does this as well and a lot of people despise them for that. The whole 'dark' whatever has never been more than a placeholder for a phenomenon we have no idea about. But at least that scenario saves us from rewriting a substantial part of our current astronomy. For now.
I have been saying that there is something wrong with our understanding about these vast distances for decades. And timescape could be it. I usually say about the 'speeding up' as "someone forgot to carry the 2", which just means something is wrong with either our observations or our assumptions and therefore any calculation will be flawed. New methods for using timescape have to be formulated to help us understand this vast universe. And there may still be more we are not allowing for. I look at it as 20 years wasted on speculation about imaginary 'dark energy'. When all along it was just "someone forgot to carry the 2".
It WAS accelerating in the past, but that was back then. Nearby Galaxies are not speeding away from us at the SOL. Light passing through the voids has little Baryonic Matter/Gravity to slow it's speed, but locally there is all this gas and matter, so light slows down - just like it does through glass. Then it picks up speed when Baryonic/Gravity matter is not around. This fast, then slow, then fast again, tends to make actual measurement rather tricky. It depends upon the multi-variable density of the "line of sight" of our primitive detectors. Math may not solve this problem, because it depends on where you point. Homogeneity, and Isotropic is lame and a dumb shortcut. That thing I see, is no longer in that line of sight. Time says so.
I think of dark energy as a shadow of what was, a burn mark, a dent in spacetime made by something long gone. Perhaps from a previous big bang, one of many.
A Sith once said, “Dark Energy is a lie, there’s only pie.” Or put another way, String “Theory” isn’t even a testable hypothesis so it’s not even Science… give the taxpayers back their money! You always make me think, but mostly about why I have to avoid cookies so any precancerous cells can’t use the sugar for the fermentation pathway and I avoid cancer altogether! Tyvm.
"New Study Confirms that Cancer cells Ferment Glutamine." On ytube, scientist Thomas Seyfried. Furthermore back on your video topic, why do you accept anything considered "accepted science" (there's no such thing, only hypotheses that have yet been falsified) anymore after the JWST shows our universe is now 2x older than it could be by any current hypothesis? Hubble Tension? FML, scientific catastrophe! Why do you accept universe expansion still? Red shift? Is that even real? There are alternate hypotheses that explain the red shift that is not Hubbleian (I made up a word!) As far as I'm concerned given so many ideas being sold to us plebs change like an old man patching up his homeless clothes, everything needs to be vetted. Maybe it's just my Auditor training, but me so sry, right now I call bunk on everything I've been presented by our "Scientific Institutions," to the point I see no difference between priests arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and assumptions like standard candles. The candles may burn with the same brightness, but the universe they exist in may be as heterogenous as my friends here in NYC. You stay safe and enjoy the time we have left...
At last people are questioning wrong and warped guesswork maths, to some degree at least. Now, all they just have to look to is, empirical science and so give up on the 'standard model completely and so, instead look to the charged state of mater and reality.
voids make me more confident that dark energy exists, due to some sort of information phase change evolution in dark matter equilibrium with exogenous residual information flow from outside universe
I can't think of anything more goofy than saying, "Everyone knows that an accepted theory is fact" kind of sentence to begin your presentation with. I know of no person who KNOWS a single thing about (supposed) dark energy that can be called fact.
Great video, congratulations … the mystery of dark matter has already been solved ...This other video teaches new physics, hidden variables to study gravity, a demonstration of the non-existence of dark matter ua-cam.com/video/b5TU-YJrMVE/v-deo.html
I had always wondered about the Hubble tension and also time flowing differently around the cosmos due to gravitational differences. Never put the two and two together like the timescape model seems to do quite elegantly. Looking forward to hearing more about this research. Thanks again for your input
Wow! Thanks for watching!
Time does not "flow". The Timescapes effect is a relativistic effect, it does not actually suggest that time flows differently in various regions of space. Instead, it addresses the effects of inhomogeneities in the universe on *_our measurements_* and interpretations of cosmic expansion.
@@Achrononmaster add two observers one next to a black hole event horizon and one stationary in a void, and tell them that. 👍
Brilliant explanation!
Thanks for the video, I've seen a number on the Timescape model and this was one of the best. One thing I like about Timescape is that it's more elegant than Lambda-CDM; I've never liked the fact that dark energy is basically a fudge factor they had to introduce to make the numbers work out. Something that cannot actually be detected itself but has an effect on the universe has always felt too close to the supernatural for me to be comfortable with the idea. At the same time, we definitely have to wait for more numbers to come out. Still, it's always good to see challenges to the Standard Model whether they work out or not.
Timescape is the only theory that makes logical sense. If you believe that gravity slows expansion (which it should whether it is slower time passage or actually 'pull' on space), then expansion was slower in the early very dense universe (once the effect of the actual 'bang' wears off due to gravity slowing it) than it is now in an expanded universe -- and it will just continue to increase as density reduces. Basically, you had a tremendous expansion at the 'bang' that slowed due to energy dilution and gravity's pull to keep it together .. which was followed by a restart to expansion when the matter clumped due to that same gravity and left voids. The voids expand faster and faster as they grow, while the clumped galaxies barely expand at all. The problem with lambda CDM is that they presumed homogeneousness, which is wrong. I just wonder why so many scientists were happy with a fudge-factor for all this time.
ye
@@KellanMarr2 I think I know why a lot of astrophysics are against the timescapes model: because all of their previous work were based on assumptions of the lambda CDM model, which means their results could be inaccurate or even wrong. It might mean that all their research has to be redone or reevaluated. Imagine most of your work being based on an assumption that is proven wrong. The conclusions of them become questionable and any research you do based on results of your own previous work will also be questionable. Your whole career falls apart and you have to reevaluate everything you've done. It is terrifying! Astrophysicist are fighting to retain their reputation, credibility and career! Screw science, what about their lives and livelihood!
Thanks so much :-)
😂 some of us dont - I look for dark matter in my day to day research.... do i believe it exists? Absolutely not 🙈
Inhomogeneous cosmology, timescapes and back reaction are complicated topics. Intriguing ideas, but the devil for these models is in the numbers, do they match the measured values. Great coverage by the beautiful Dr Maggie 👍👏
Well said!
Hi Dr Maggie, really interesting, thank you from Auckland, NZ!!! Just to say, that this is the frontier of Astronomy science, that's what is so great and inspiring.
Thanks for the kind words 🥰
@SpaceMog To quote Carl Sagan from the old TV series Cosmos:
"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our contemplations of the Cosmos stir us - there is a tinging in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries."
Dr Lieu another excellent presentation. Thank you for making complicated concepts so much easier to digest.
Glad you think so!
Wow, thanks for explaining all this.
My mind just blew :) Loving the channel too, can't wait for more..
I arrived late for this video due to relativistic effects. 😊
Haha! That and being sick... somethings definitely making the rounds 🥰
@@SpaceMog well, I gather that liquids become more viscous approaching lightspeed. If it affects the blood, that could definitely make a passenger poorly...
Great stuff!!!
@annexcelestial thank you! 😊
it's been really interesting to get all these different perspectives on the various models, thanks Mog 😃
ThNks!! This was nice to hear. Let’s study more of this. Especially tge new clocks ⏰
Current Models: Can't we all just get along?!🤷♂ To my layman's understanding of the Universe as we know it this sounds good, thanks Dr. Maggie!😊👍👍
Imagine you're a astrophysicist working on finding out what dark energy is for more than a decade now and in the end it was just an illusion. lol.
It was an illusion to begin with. Dark energy, dark matter, inflation etc. Super massive BH in the early universe. Formed galaxies, heavy elements, dust. They take a picture of hyper distant galaxy and they assume they see it as it was. Even deriving mass and what not. You can't see it with Hubble at all, and then you see the whole galaxy even obtaining it's mass. lol Meanwhile they still find new major features of nearby objects.
It's like in pro-gaming. They are good with mechanics but bad in logic and strategy.
That's just how science works.
If that were to happen, some people would view it as time wasted on something that does not exist.
But in reality said astrophysicist just contributed to solving the mystery.
Also dark energy IS in fact an illusion as it is a placeholder name for whatever effect that causes the universe to expand faster or at least makes it appear as if it was expanding faster.
Same with dark matter: it is just a placeholder name for whatever gravity related effect that can not be explained by regular matter.
👋 🤡.
Even this slower boy from Alabama understood this. And I like cats. Well done.
Thank you, Space Mog, for this very intriguing video, covering some of my favourite aspects of astronomy/cosmology. I like the new Timescape model of the universe, it certainly sounds very promising, and supports a variable rate of the expansion of the universe. I have never looked at the universe as being isotropic, or homogenous, it just never seemed that way to me!
Glad you enjoyed it! I agree, but it just makes the math easier so 🤷🏻♀️
I’ve always loved the name a standard candle.
☺️
Somehow i never believed that there was such thing as dark energy.. i feel like it was just "invented" to explain something that we didnt understand yet.. and the more we learn about the universe and the history and composition of it.. the less we need "dark energy" to fill the empty gap of our knowledge... thanks for another great video Dr Lieu!
Yeh me neither 🙈
Let's find out what breaks Lambda-CDM. Sometimes the most elegant solution is the simplest!
Agreed 🥰
Excellent explanation. Thanks for posting this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
thank you dr maggie for this summary of an interesting theory 🤔 i VERY MUCH appreciate your gift to explain to the average person on the street 👍☺
My pleasure!
No PHD here, but I've always thought that someone would eventually figure out that the Universe isn't doing something absolutely insane. Maybe this time, maybe next... but eventually. ❤
Yeh m too
I have a question!
As we look out further and further into space, the expansion rate seems to speed up right?
[ If that's incorrect, please do correct me ]
OK, also as we look further and further away into space, we are looking further back in time due to time dilation.
So doesn't that mean we are, in fact, seeing the expansion of space as it used to be and not as it is now?
If so, then wouldn't that also suggest that the expansion rate now is, in fact, less than it was, meaning it's slowing down?
It would make sense after all. First, there's the big bang which shoots everything in every direction, and then it all slows down over time, maybe due to gravity.
oh my !! did you catch a cold Dr MAGGIE ? if so i wish you to recover fast ! good video as always.
Dr. Lieu, I am a big fan of yours, and shall be until the Sun expands:) Dianna, Physics Girl is a pioneer here on YT. She has been in a Long Covid illness for over two years now -- as a man, I am so thrilled to have these women like yourself broadcast knowledge to the world. I was hoping you could give Dianna a shout-out, as she struggles to return to her work.
Great vid, as per usual....
Thanks for watching, I hope she recovers well soon
something so simple only now considered does not reflect the professionality physcists often boast of. in fact I always wondered if time dilation was taken into account when talking about the accelerated expansion of the universe. I also wondered how it's even possible to know the present acceleration / deceleration state of distant regions when all we know / see is what those regions (or rather their redshifts) looked like in the distant past
something that rattles around in my brain is, if we are looking back in time, then wasn't that stuff over there, over here at one point?
Supposedly, hence why the universe temperature is the same everywhere 🙃
I personally favour the electric plasma universe theory. The lambda dark matter theory has too many holes in it. I'm fairly confident that despite the billions of dollars spent on looking for something that isn't there, eventually the thinking will switch to a plasma and electricity based understanding of the universe.
Maybe... we just gotta wait and see
Sifaren. You favor that hypothesis because you're an idiot. Hope this helps. 🤡
If the universe was infinitely dense in the beginning, how did time allow the universe to expand? Time must have run much slower due to density. Are we measuring the age of the universe based on what an outside observer would perceive or is the age of the universe measured as an inside observer?
If we see light bending in a laboratory on Earth after two black holes collide, shouldn't there be something really big in space that we can't see? The universe is really big. Is it possible for an effect that can reach our world to occur with a trace amount of matter in something so big?
That assumes our theory of gravity is correct, it may just be that its wrong...
Fascinating stuff! It looks like we’re not going to figure this out for a while yet
Thanks for watching 🥰
My hypothesis is somewhat different and yet a bit similar. The effect of the cosmological redshift comes from gravity wells in motion(in the medium which the photon passes through) in respect to the observer, not from voids as it is in the timescape theory. Basically, in the gravity well of say a galaxy cluster the set of all possible geodesic lines(locally) moves along with the galaxy cluster in the frame of the observer(globally). The clock for the photon(from a source behind) in a gravity well in motion is ticking slower in our frame. And since almost every single object is in motion in respect of any observer anywhere. The greater the distance the more gravity wells in motion the photon passes through, the more redshifted it gets - the effect is accumulative. Like a kinetic imprint of the spacetime medium or something
interesting idea, it does sound very similar
@SpaceMog Really?! Thank you. I know i can't articulate my idea well , even in my native language. I tried 😅 The foundation of my idea is that time dilation due to motion of an object with mass extends into the whole warped spacetime bubble of the object. Not just to the surface of it but into the vacuum way beyond. And i imagine the whole universe is filled with such bubbles and boundary surfaces. Everything in motion. I don't know how similar it is. May be i should read the whole paper. Not that i will understand much. Best wishes
Edit: As far as i can understand it, they try to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe with voids instead of dark energy. They still assume expanding universe and big bang. I do not. This is just another rescue attempt for the BBT that will fail
My theory is a more advanced "Time scape model" which despite having tried to poste it several times is prevented by UA-cam.
As I am not allowed to post the whole thing so I will just post the most radical insight it has given me that is unique and that is 'why' gravity works a concept for which their is no other currant explanation.
All matter tries to increase its Entropy i.e. become more stable and unchangeable.(The accepted Proof of the Arrow of time).
I say where time flows slower atoms vibrate slower, technically therefore at a lower temperature.
Entropy is why gravity happens, as Atoms are attracted to where they can vibrate slower in what we perceive as gravitational attraction. Over simplistically called Wall Time v Void time as this states that there are two different times. In fact it is one continuum indirectly proportional to the mass environment, the more mass the slower time pases or the slower the time passes the more it draws in matter- Entropy in action.
To spell it out "Gravity does not slow time--, time dilation is the cause of gravity.(Matter is attracted to a less energetic condition).
I like all of the diagrams and images and stuff, theyre all so pretty!
This was very well done, thank you. So if correct, the timescape model explains away dark energy. But does it have anything to say about dark matter?
When we view deep fields to observe the most distant objects, we are deliberately viewing light which passes through voids and doesn't pass through dense matter. If there were dense areas intervening, we wouldn't receive light from the more distant objects. Gravitational lensing is a partial exception, but we are still primarily viewing light which passed around matter rather than through it. Voids are even more dominant in transmission of that light than they are in the universe generally.
But it won't change anything because the change in the gravitational potential won't do anything. Only the difference between the gravitational potential in the frame of the source and and the frame of the observer matters
@m1l1tarym1nd-v3h That is the assumption on which the Lambda CDM model relies, which the timescape model rejects. To find out whether it is true, you have to actually calculate the time dilation effect on light passing through the voids and mass-dense regions to see if the result is different. Timescape researchers claim it is, in the papers being discussed here, and that the effect is net observed redshift.
@@crawkn Yes. By updating the equivalence principle which is not even proven to be right. There is no way in hell this mechanism produce the effect of the cosmological redshift or even contributes to it.
@m1l1tarym1nd-v3h The timescape model doesn't "update the equivalence principle," nor challenge any assumption of relativity. It challenges the assumptions of the FLRW model, employing the math of relativity to calculate the _actual_ effect of time dilation in regions of greater and lesser mass density. You can't conclude that it doesn't contribute to observed redshift without doing the math, or at least checking the math which has already been done.
@@crawkn You're right. I can't disprove it.
Ok but if as observations suggest, the MW is in the middle of this BTM void or whatever its called and time is both passing faster due to the void itself but then slows down for us due to all the mass of the MW. Is this calling the big bang into question and if so is Roger Penrose right after all- that the Unvrse cycles through itself like nested funnels...??🤔
Whenever we look into space, we are looking back in time. If we look at galaxies 14 billion light years away, that is a snapshot of how it was and the speed it was traveling 14 billion years ago. The closer in space is also the closer to present time on Earth. These are all just snapshots of the past and how fast they are currently traveling is unknown. We only know that the farther away and further back in time we look, they travel faster than the ones closer to real-time. That indicates that the universe is actually slowing down... NOT speeding up
In my little brain, dark energy and dark matter are not absolute concepts, they are a means to describe behaviour until we figure out the phenomenon. Also even though this is quite simplistic and since we now describe physical nature via "fields" (electromagnetic, higgs, quark, etc. etc.) it seems plausible that gravity has to be a field of sorts (WIMP's or whatever) . I know that is not a new concept... Bless you dear
That's how the quantum theorists see it. Thanks for the comment!
The simplest explanation being the best, and thus the two phenomena of dark matter and dark energy must have a common cause, if the explanation of the acceleration of the distance of galaxies is explained by this theory but not does not explain the phenomenon of galaxy confinement, so it is unlikely to be consistent. In this unique phenomenological framework, at least.
Thank you Dr Maggie Lieu for the great and easy to understand explanation about Timescape. I think there is some truth that time is affected by the density or void of space thereby affecting distance measurements. Although, I don’t think Timescape explains all the Hubble tension. I think that the concordance model is still missing another ingredient. 😊. The baked cake in the oven is a bit off. I don’t we have the right recipe yet. 😂
You're very welcome! And i agree 😊
timescapes is very mentally satisfying compared to dark energy. i have high hopes that this gains traction while the smart folks work it out over the next few...decades 😅
Thanks for watching
@@SpaceMog thanks for making videos 🙏
The financial black hole bothers a lot of people now. Can we escape it ?
ask yer dad for more pocket money. tell him i sent you.
Are we past the event horizon?
Dr Maggie, this is fine tuning eh? Not revolutionary? If it stands up. It's cool how a bunch of scientists throw out their data and say "we think this", then more more scientists are like "yeah nah, it could also mean this dude". And they do this, looked at by many other ways until no-one has a better idea.
"We don't know what most of the universe is, and we weren't expecting the observations we're seeing based on our understanding of the maths. But we are nevertheless confident that the maths is indeed correct, and there's just some unknown stuff that we haven't been able to identify yet"
I've always felt like this is a bizarre state of affairs. It's basically the Principal Skinner meme:
"Is our understanding of the universe fundamentally flawed somehow?
No, there's just some invisible stuff out there!"
😂
"..to make the observation make sense."
I've always been extremely sceptical about this; religion does this as well and a lot of people despise them for that.
The whole 'dark' whatever has never been more than a placeholder for a phenomenon we have no idea about.
But at least that scenario saves us from rewriting a substantial part of our current astronomy. For now.
Me too 😅
If the Universe was playing by the rules the expansion would be a fixed rate, where the new radius would be the old radius divided by sqrt 0.5
Nicely expained, maybe standard cosmology, inculding the Noble prize 2011 was wrong?
I have been saying that there is something wrong with our understanding about these vast distances for decades. And timescape could be it. I usually say about the 'speeding up' as "someone forgot to carry the 2", which just means something is wrong with either our observations or our assumptions and therefore any calculation will be flawed. New methods for using timescape have to be formulated to help us understand this vast universe. And there may still be more we are not allowing for.
I look at it as 20 years wasted on speculation about imaginary 'dark energy'. When all along it was just "someone forgot to carry the 2".
It WAS accelerating in the past, but that was back then. Nearby Galaxies are not speeding away from us at the SOL. Light passing through the voids has little Baryonic Matter/Gravity to slow it's speed, but locally there is all this gas and matter, so light slows down - just like it does through glass. Then it picks up speed when Baryonic/Gravity matter is not around. This fast, then slow, then fast again, tends to make actual measurement rather tricky. It depends upon the multi-variable density of the "line of sight" of our primitive detectors. Math may not solve this problem, because it depends on where you point. Homogeneity, and Isotropic is lame and a dumb shortcut. That thing I see, is no longer in that line of sight. Time says so.
Thanks for a very interesting video. Never heard of Timescape till now, so thanks very much. 😸. And best wishes for 2025.
I think of dark energy as a shadow of what was, a burn mark, a dent in spacetime made by something long gone. Perhaps from a previous big bang, one of many.
Yeah, what she said.
🤭
Great stuff
Commenting to feed the algorithm 🙃
A Sith once said, “Dark Energy is a lie, there’s only pie.”
Or put another way, String “Theory” isn’t even a testable hypothesis so it’s not even Science… give the taxpayers back their money!
You always make me think, but mostly about why I have to avoid cookies so any precancerous cells can’t use the sugar for the fermentation pathway and I avoid cancer altogether! Tyvm.
"New Study Confirms that Cancer cells Ferment Glutamine." On ytube, scientist Thomas Seyfried.
Furthermore back on your video topic, why do you accept anything considered "accepted science" (there's no such thing, only hypotheses that have yet been falsified) anymore after the JWST shows our universe is now 2x older than it could be by any current hypothesis? Hubble Tension? FML, scientific catastrophe!
Why do you accept universe expansion still? Red shift? Is that even real? There are alternate hypotheses that explain the red shift that is not Hubbleian (I made up a word!)
As far as I'm concerned given so many ideas being sold to us plebs change like an old man patching up his homeless clothes, everything needs to be vetted.
Maybe it's just my Auditor training, but me so sry, right now I call bunk on everything I've been presented by our "Scientific Institutions," to the point I see no difference between priests arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and assumptions like standard candles. The candles may burn with the same brightness, but the universe they exist in may be as heterogenous as my friends here in NYC.
You stay safe and enjoy the time we have left...
At last people are questioning wrong and warped guesswork maths, to some degree at least. Now, all they just have to look to is, empirical science and so give up on the 'standard model completely and so, instead look to the charged state of mater and reality.
✊🏾✌🏾
😊
voids make me more confident that dark energy exists, due to some sort of information phase change evolution in dark matter equilibrium with exogenous residual information flow from outside universe
I agree with you
Thank you
We ignore galactic scale magnetic fields at our peril. Dark energy is what you get when you divide by 0.
"Times are changing..."
-My grandpa.
Turns out, the old chap was right.
✌️
🥰
"All correct methods yield the same answer." - my undergraduate physics professor
Why does physics sounds and feels like Metaphysics?
Yes , it is...
Virtual photons may be dark energy.
🤣
Dark energy is time.
I can't think of anything more goofy than saying, "Everyone knows that an accepted theory is fact" kind of sentence to begin your presentation with.
I know of no person who KNOWS a single thing about (supposed) dark energy that can be called fact.
Great video, congratulations … the mystery of dark matter has already been solved ...This other video teaches new physics, hidden variables to study gravity, a demonstration of the non-existence of dark matter ua-cam.com/video/b5TU-YJrMVE/v-deo.html
Dark energy is 60% of the universe. allegedly.
3 dumbest things i ever heard
Infaltion
Dark matter and dark energy
God
Cute af.
🙃 thanks
🥰🥰🥰