Dark Energy might not exist after all
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- Correction to what I say at 5:26 mins: The supernovae that Permutter & Riess used were not all from the same direction of the sky, but the low-redshift ones were in one direction, while the high-redshift ones were in the other direction. So, same problem (skewed sample), same conclusion (they couldn't tell) but slightly different reason. Sorry about that blunder, I misread a figure.
__
Last week I told you what dark energy is and why astrophysicists believe it exists. This week I want to tell you about a recent paper that claims dark energy does not exist!
Dark energy determines the ultimate fate of our universe. If dark energy is real, the universe will expand faster and faster until all eternity. If there’s no dark energy, the expansion will slow down instead and it might even reverse, in which case the universe will collapse back to a point.
I don’t know about you, but I would like to know what’s going to happen with our universe.
The paper I am talking about is this one
www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs...
arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597
The original Nobel-Prize winning paper is here
iopscience.iop.org/article/10...
Support me on Patreon: / sabine - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 3](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1XXYbV048k/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much for this video and thank you for keeping us up to date with these latest discoveries! :)
Consider the following:
a. Science tells us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics.
b. So, 'if' dark energy truly exists, it must have always existed. 'If' dark energy always existed, then why would it cause the universe to expand now in the expanse of eternity?
c. But also, the net effect of solar winds, particles and energy flowing outward from galaxies, continuously, over a prolonged period of time, and other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other as well as possibly contribute to the cosmic web forming between galaxies.
d. Galaxies furthest from our perspective, might have a cumulative effect of all the interacting galaxies in between, and hence, galaxies furthest from us would move away faster the further away they were depending upon also how many galaxies would be interacting upon those other galaxies in between us and them that we would be perceiving, and then also not only between our galaxy and those other galaxies, but galaxies that maybe we can't even perceive on the other side of those far away galaxies acting upon those far away galaxies affecting the net effect that we perceive.
e. And then also, ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies form? The current narrative is that matter via gravity attracts other matter. This would also cause galaxies to collapse in upon themselves as there would be more matter and gravitation pull towards the center of galaxies. This would cause our spiral shaped galaxy to shrink in size as our solar system gets pulled closer to our galactic center. From our perspective it would also make it appear the universe would be expanding, but in this case, not because the universe was expanding but that our galaxy is shrinking in size giving us a relative perspective of an expanding universe. But now also, add item 'd' above and this item 'e' and the perceived expansion of apparent space could be explained without 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' even being needed to explain the observations. And utilizing known physics too, no new physics is needed.
f. But for those who claim that 'space' itself is expanding, then I ask you, what exactly is 'space' and how exactly does 'space' itself expand? Where does the energy and/or matter ultimately come from to cause 'space' to expand if it were not already in existence? And if the energy and/or matter was always existent, then why cause the universe to expand now in the expanse of eternity? And utilizing Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? The way I stated above utilizing known physics, or that 'space' itself is expanding by some other means?
@@charlesbrightman4237 Good observations. It is because of your "f" that I scoff at the supposed advanced space drives being proposed. While warp-drive and hyperspace-drives are great fodder for science fiction (and I am a Sci-fi fan), how can we warp space if we do not even know what space is?
@@charlesbrightman4237 , "Science tells us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics." -- Stop right there. That assumption is way too simple and questionable to apply in the modern, advanced theories of the universe.
Jeff Childs spacetime is both a physical and a non physical (imaginary) entity concurrently. I theorize our reality experienced through natural languages is a space time fabric which is relativistic as well as dynamic and ever changing. Thus, societal mechanics ( an application of Quantum Mechanics to this societal space time fabric) might enable us to predict the outcomes of societal relationships beyond the conventional surveys and statistical methods. If you are interested you may find that paper here: onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=A93EB2435BBCDE67&resid=A93EB2435BBCDE67!380&app=PowerPoint
@@balasubr2252 If space-time is partially imaginary, then the universe did not exist prior to someone existing with sufficient imagination. And, based upon your comment, there must have been at least two people (a society).
Professor in cartoon around 2014: “Along with ‘Antimatter’ and ‘Dark Matter’, we’ve recently discovered the existence of ‘Doesn’t Matter’, which appears to have no effect on the universe whatsoever.”
Was that from Gary Larson “The Far Side”?
It sounds his style. 😀
@@harrybarrow6222 Apparently, I cannot copy pictures into an answer. The picture says (encircled c) richtennant, it was shown as “laugh of the day” somewhere.
Rich Tennant was the artist behind the “5th Wave” cartoons. These tended to be more computer-oriented, as I recall, rather than looking at physics or cosmology.
I personally like "Nothing else matter"
What about Dank matter and Dank energy ....i think it has been postulated with the Derp factor
In my Physics department, the most popular subject during coffee breaks is Sabine's latest video.
That’s so cool
@@raziasrazias7761 My kind of girl. Get off it.
I would commit suicide if I worked with you. probably on the first day. that shit's depressing af.
@J D you're my hero w/ that comment. no sarcasm, straight up that's awesome.
Good! Please keep talking about her videos and ideas!!
"Sir? Excuse me, sir? We are going to need that medal back."
And most importantly, the million bucks
This is a good idea - presenting physics updates in this format.
Keep these coming please. You are one of VERY few people I trust to bring accurate, critical analysis of current physics
Thanks for your trust.
@@SabineHossenfelder you've earned it
Yes I agree very much that we can rely on Sabine to relate relevant peer reviewed works and to do so without bias or sensationalism.
Checkout Anton petrov for daily astronomy updates
@@Gaurav.kumar06 Nothing against Anton Petrov, he is a likeable guy and makes interesting content, but his focus is more on "isn't this amazing!" than on "Does this actually hold true under intense scrutiny".
Nice! I love that Sabine has no sacred cows and doesn’t worship at the alter of “settled science”.
A good scientist has no "sacred cows". Science is a self-correcting methodology.
@@tim1883 alot of so called "scientists " worship at the alter of "settled science".
@@andrewrivera4029 Which, by induction, indicates that there are many so-called scientists who aren't good.
@@andrewrivera4029 Name one that you think does please. I would like to comment on your choice. Maybe we agree.
So is Nassim Haramein (who's on the esoteric side) like that too? :)
Thank you for bringing to the front the theories considered almost “heretic”. It is always refreshing to listen to you videos. We desperately need physicists trying to think orthogonally, as you do 😉
Any physicist using the word heretic, or treating things as heretical, isn't very good at living up to the ideals of the scientific method.
You posted this just so you could use the word "orthogonally" ;-)
Interesting study. Personally, dark energy and dark matter just feel "wrong" to me (even if I am wrong). What I dislike is how most sources talk about it as if it's already been confirmed to exist rather than making it clear that they're basically terms that were coined to give a name to a hole in our understanding of the universe (someone correct me if I'm incorrect about this).
Yes the evidence for it is quite shaky
Pretty sure everything’s just embodied energy. Everything before the Big Bang was energy on the same current. The virtual sub particles popping in and out of existence were simply that energy embodied into a tiny spark apart from the rest of what would be the void. These particles collide sometimes creating excess particles. Eventually the first solar galaxy formed from this and created a black hole. The Hawking radiation from this og singularity gives us our cmb. This is also why the oldest galaxies are in the center and bigger than the newer smaller galaxies on the outside. Who the heck knows, it’s fun to think about tho
@@maalikserebryakov i think this is a common misunderstanding. There is no "evidence for dark energy" or "evidence for dark matter". There are only observations that we cannot explain with our current understanding of energy and matter. We simply call all these unknown causes to observed phenomena (e.g, galaxies that rotate faster than expected) dark matter/energy because we actually do not know what it is..... at least not yet.
Long story short, we cannot prove dark energy/matter exist, we can only "prove" that our current udnerstanding is insufficient to explain certain things.
Yea pretty much. They're just placeholder names for things that shouldn't be happening according to our current models. Which "suggests", not "proves", that there is something more out there. But it could also mean that our models are just wrong.
And yea they should be more clear about this whenever the subject comes up. Just because a theory is considered most likely to be true doesn't mean it's actually true yet. Not until there's actual direct evidence.
@@yourfinalhiringagency3890 I used to use the word congealed. you use embodied.
Know though I have a better analogy to describe my interpretation; I call it the breaking wave i.e. the point at which energy fluctuations (To the Buddhists ohm, the sound of the universe.) manifest as physical fluctuations ( Matter ).
You might see my wider M=E/C2 in previos comments. As you say it is fun 🤔
"The truth has nothing to fear from inquiry." -- Matt Dillahunty
Too bad science doesn't deal with "truths" - only mathematics does. Science creates models that _describe_ reality. A description can either match observations or not, in which case the description is wrong. Any model that matches all known observations can still be _incomplete_ as some aspect of physical reality cannot be tested (like statements about the past of the universe). So basically _no_ scientific model is "the truth" and can therefore be replaced by better ones at any time. The only "truth" is subjective reality (even strong solipsism cannot be falsified), everything else is just _descriptive_ models.
@Real M The fact that "we must start all over again" shows that science as a method works pretty well, though. In light of new data, models need to be adjusted and discarded respectively.
Also don't get too carried away with headlines and articles in pop-sci publications. Science communicators and the press in particular do a piss poor job at presenting new discoveries and findings.
I try to read the actual papers whenever I can (i.e. when I have access to them and can somewhat follow them) to find out what was *actually* discovered/discussed versus what the press wrote. More often than not there's some shocking discrepancy in significance and tone between the scientific publication and the press releases about them...
We as laypeople should simply ignore the sensationalist press making a fuss about even the tiniest piece of highly speculative research.
I always like comparing academia with industry: there's a new game-changing breakthrough technology announced every week, yet very few of these ever make it all the way to (mass) production. It's similar with science.
@Real M Are you by any chance a proponent of the "Electric Universe" hypothesis? I'm asking because supporters of half-baked fringe ideas often accuse mainstream science of being "dogmatic" and "banning deviant ideas", which simply isn't the case.
Yes, it *is* hard to change the scientific status quo, but that's due to the fact that most scientific theories are backed by mountains of evidence and solid theory.
Any radically new idea must therefore also be radically better - in terms of observational evidence, predictive power, and explanatory power.
This is getting increasingly harder as for example Special- and General Relativity have been tested numerous times and passed each and every of these tests so far. Even the Standard Model of particle physics has proven itself quite well over the past half century. Any cosmology or theory that challenges established models (again, I would like to remind you that String Theory and Inflation are _not_ in fact established models, but very much work-in-progress) must take that into account and cannot deliver inferior models or produce contradicting predictions. *This* is the hurdle that new theories have to overcome. Well that and the fact that funding is hard to come by unless you can show already that you're on to something big...
Dark Energy: Who is Matt Dillahunty?
Ultimate Bargains...Hmm....How do you know what is a truth? This alone makes inquiries challenging. Try debating a Truth, The Truth.....where are you going to start to prove the statement?
Love your videos Sabine! I would love to see an update of this video on the current state of cosmological expansion and dark energy, addressing the rebuttal to thia finding by D. Rubin and J. Heitlauf ( arXiv:1912.02191), and generally discussing whether anisotropic motion - such as local bulk flow or dark flow - may be alternative or additional explanations necessary to fit the current observations generally ascribed to dark energy.
"Many heads (ideas) shall fall so that truth will prevail." This is how science progresses according to me.
right.
I like that simple truth.
if only the heads weren't always so attached to ideas, le sigh...
@@rillloudmother that's why science advances at the pace of old people dying or retiring.
@@monad_tcp it obviously isn't at the pace of young people coming of age.
I like this channel more and more every month. I have had 3 other science/physics TH-cam channels for years whose content I wait for as if I was 5 years old waiting for Christmas (presents)..this channel is about to become the fourth such channel, absolutely top notch content.
I especially appreciate that Sabine is not afraid to ruffle some feathers in the physics community if the need arisis.
Cedric Veinstein what other science/Physics TH-cam channels are you referring to please?
@@fowziashah8256 I am talking about 1. Fermilab (Dr. Don Lincoln) 2. Science Asylum (Nick Lucid) and 3. Arvin Ash
These 3 people really try to break down and convey complex matters to us "less physics savvy" and they have the ability/patience/interest to do so. Sure..there are many other good science channels (like PBS) but they generally don't make the same effort to make the complex topics as understandable for (semi)novice viewers
In Actual Science, the need should ALWAYS Arise, every minute of every day. Otherwise, it's just Dogma.
Hey, you have almost the same name as me 😂
@@feynstein1004Lol, the same (good) taste in science channels too it seems...
I used to find your videos a bit annoying given the constant "strike down" of certain postulations. Now, I'm more humbled to open my mindset to the possible inaccuracies of current hypothesis. And am grateful for your efforts. The truth, as it were... is most probable to be a mixture of what we know and what we don't. Thank you for making these.
Well of course the truth is a mixture of what we know and what we don’t. What else could it possibly be?
Ever since I learned about "Dark Energy" in college, I've always questioned whether it was even scientific to make such an assumption, and have been bothered that it seems to be taken as dogma since its supposed discovery. It just seems so much more appropriate to call it a discrepancy to me and leave it at that. That being said, I'm seeing just now that you did a video addressing just that very point, so I know what I'm going to watch next.
Very much enjoying your content.
At first they never should comoare planets behavior with stars, planets are solids(but not Jupiter) while stars are plasma they behave different sinse they are different.
Thanks so much Sabine. Saw this mentioned recently and was eager to hear more details. This is what I truly love about science; it's the process of correcting or adjusting existing ideas where all the really interesting stuff seems to happen.
I've always been sceptical of being so certain of a result obtained from one set of delicate observations.
The Nobel prize winning team which discovered accelerating expansion has since studied 1,300 type Ia supernova, and reportedly found evidence of acceleration. There are other forms of evidence which are consistent with acceleration outside of supernovae measurements.
It starts to get extremely tangled, though. Lots of other measurements and baseline assumptions that are used to interpret data- eg, the curvature of the universe- rest on the idea of an accelerating expansion. A lot of work has been based on this idea for many years.
"When an established foundation requires the support of elaborate epicycles to agree with emperical observations, it's time to begin searching for simpler foundations".
- Galileo
You made that quote up. Russia is a shithole.
@@grandpaobvious, what the hell does Russia have to do with this? :)
It was a paradigm shift when he quoted.
What's the source of that quote?
To be humane, we must ever be ready to pronounce that wise, ingenious and modest statement 'I do not know'.
- Galileo.
WoW, this video just poped in my feed and I can't believe I was unaware of this channel. Sabine, you are amazing!
I really look up to you Sabine. Much love and keep up the awesome content. 💙
Thank you, Dr. Hossenfelder, for this elegant and concise summary!
I really love your work Sabine! I'm sure that it inspires people!
I wonder if it is possible to make a video explaining what exactly they detected with this possible "fifth force"
maybe spooky things as well.
I'm so glad to hear you bring up questions that so few people do and have been bugging me for years 😋
I'm so glad I came across your channel, Dr.Hossenfelder. You're a delight.
I admire your scepticism - a true scientist! Thanks for putting together such concise and followable content... With so many variables, assumptions and unknowns, how can we be confident of any model?! Statistical analyses only estimate confidence based on random deviations; our whole approach could be skewed. 👍🏻🧐😳🇮🇪☘️
Science evolves...see Newton v. Einstein, Ptolemy v. Copernicus.
Her skepticism is a model for true skeptics to follow - unlike deniers who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence given them.
If we are at "our whole approach could be skewed", then we are back at solipsism and can only rock ourself to sleep in a fetal position.
"There is 3 types of lies.
Lies.
Damn Lies.
And Statistics."
Samuel Clemmons
@@tannerfaust433 Science may 'evolve' but Truth is a Constant. So if the Science is "Evolving" it is self-evident it is wrong.
Wow, this is the most interesting development for some time. And dark matter has also been called into question. I feel happier when we don't need witchcraft to explain things.
Indeed. Assigning effects to undetectable agents smacks too much of religion to me!
When we are on the edge of our knowledge it is not witchcraft to have some placeholders for future theories. But of cource these placeholders must be tested thoroughly.
@@hjk3927 Oh, yes. It's a working hypothesis - things behaving as if this were the case without it having to actually be the case. I just want to get the damned things out of the way so that we can get back to reality.
@@kirkhamandy Take your statement, replace "dark energy" with "god" and re-parse it. Like "god", it's a placeholder for the unknown - the difference being that the unknown is a starting point rather than an absolute limit.
@@kirkhamandy Religion declares its ignorance as an absolute limit, not you. We both agree that science will, eventually, find what lies beyond but for now, the similarity makes me unueasy.
I really really appriciated this video, thank you very much for delivering "no nonsens" information. and thank you for not drowning the delivery in "fancy youtube effects" wonderfully simple.
I`m a physics student in Brazil, and i`m very glad i found your channel, thank you very much for your work in here, it is the best channel i found about physics. You are amazing, i`m learning a lot here.
So, that was some monthes ago. Any news about that? At least there was nothing in the news about "There is no dark energy". But does that mean anything?
Yea it means that they got the cause of the redshift wrong, and that it's due to the motion of our galaxy which somehow they didn't account for correctly. Seems weird because it seems very obvious to account for, but could be due to their small sample size.
@@clarkh3314 is that really what it means? I mean, if so, this would change pretty much about expectstions towards dark energy. But I haven't heard anthing regarding this!
www.wired.com/story/does-dark-energy-really-exist-cosmologists-battle-it-out/
As I understand it, the paper is probably wrong. But there is still some discussion going on.
@@Epaminaidos Thanks for the reply. Gonna read it!
@Erik Vermaat Interesting. But from what I understand here, the probability of NOT having an expanding universe is higher in their calculations?
Well, I guess that will lead to decades of discussion and battels...
Interesting times. No dark energy, a fifth force... it seems physicists have a lot of work to do yet :)
Don't forget a universe which just got a whole lot older (possibly).
@@onehitpick9758 You are right!
@@onehitpick9758 Sir Roger Penrose might disagree - he says that time is highly asymmetric at the "beginning" of the Universe and therefore the expansion of the Universe is actually feeding the Big Bang (which starts outside of spacetime since it's faster than time-frequency uncertainty of Planck's Constant).
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Penrose is a brilliant mathematical physicist, but to say that's 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 is putting it mildly. Bottom line: He's got zero data to back up that claim
@@marcellisrobinson Sounds like you're "shopping" for scientists. Have you ever studied Fields Medal mathematical physicist Alain Connes? A Fields Medal is much harder to get than a Nobel Prize. Logic drumpfs data. Kurt Godel proved that either math is either unsolvable or inherently inconsistent. Alain Connes has proven that Western commutative algebraic geometry is inherently inconsistent. That's why we currently have the worst biological annihilation of life on Earth in Earth's history - Western science was good at producing "precise" data for technology but Western science was highly inaccurate. So I reject the shopping as Mall Science model of knowledge. Math professor Luigi Borzacchini exposed the music origins of Western math, something that was covered-up and he realized was "really shocking" and "astonishing" and Borzacchini also stated then that Western math is based on a structural "deep pre-established disharmony" that is the "evolutive" guiding principle of science. Another example of this is called the "music logarithmic spiral" used by scientists for the UN-based and Institute for Advanced Study tied "World Institute." I exposed this as the Actual Matrix Plan - www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_matrix43.htm and I see from your channel that you think you know about music! But Alain Connes proves that music is actually from NONCOMMUTATIVE time-frequency - and this is the truth of reality as well. th-cam.com/video/bIziuv-WLMM/w-d-xo.html - enjoy - I posted transcription quotes from Connes in the comment section of that music math unified field science lecture.
The depth and simplicity of your explanation is right in the zone of "what-I-can-barely-understand". Brava. I always thought the "Dark Energy" idea sounded like "there be dragons" on a map. I'm not sure where all this will land, but I'm glad we are still thinking critically of existing theories.
Excellent....thank you for keeping us current.... I look forward to the follow up.
I wouldn't mind if Dark Energy went away.
I'm also fine with it.
My ego has already identified with dark energy. If it goes away my soul will be annihilated, emitting new exotic particles
@@vonwao *CERN wants to know your location*
Otto von Wachter this comment rocks
I can live without it too
Your contributions to the public's awareness of science is immeasurable.
Everybody else post canned responses to the science dogma.
Not Sabine! She can think outside the box.
Annoying but useful.
Immeasurable could be something small that can not be measured so in other words insignificant. I would rather say that her contribution is significant.
You do know that this paper itself was published by scientist right? science is not a dogma it's trying to explain things the best we can. New experiments means new conclusions, just like this.
@@elapplzsl
Science it's self is not dogma but science has allowed a massive pile of dogma into it's courtyard.
What part of "shut up and calculate" is not dogma?
@@bcddd214 Ah yes sorry that I agree to an extent. I mistakenly thought you were saying science itself is a dogma or a cult.
Though i don't think anyone is telling "shut up and calculate" deliberately(and even if they do most other scientist won't be taking them seriously)
More likely is that everyone wants to find the "next big thing" so they can get tenure or more funding. So cherry picking data is does happen. Also nobody is doing the verification and repeating of experiments, exactly like the case in this video.
you are a gem [ metaphorically ] for providing these videos
I don’t know who this young woman is, and I only understood a small fraction of what she said. It wasn’t her presentation but my inability to keep up with her. So, refreshing to hear such a brilliant woman speaking with such strength and confidence. I loved her presentation and will keep replaying until it sinks in. I found her to be, without a doubt, one of the most attractive women I have seen in a very long time. Bravo.
This sounds like a serious step along the path of progress. Thanks. As to the microwave background, is that not what we would expect to see due to the inevitable waveform degradation over increasing distance alone?
Why has it taken 20 years to double check Perlmutter et. al.?
Edit: OK re reading my own question it seems silly 😁
Newton wasn't really questioned for a few hundred years 😇
*Sir Isaac Newton* was the smartest human being to ever have walked this Earth. The fact that he had to lock himself in a room to get away from all of the idiots in science is revealing.
Actually it is _not_ a bad question.
Their _data_ wasn't released for public scrutiny until 2016. Why wasn't it? I am not sure there is a valid _scientific_ answer to that.
@@conscious_being That's not it. The paper discussed in this video use the JLA dataset released in 2014. Perlmutter was actually involved in this JLA release.
And in all fairness the 20 year gap can be explained simply by the need to gather more supernovae data. Skimming the new 2019 paper and 2014 JLA release, these collection and analysis takes many years.
@@ismangil I wish it were that innocent.
When _all_ the data supporting accelerating expansion came from _one_ direction, it is common sense to be sceptical and new data from different directions needs to be tested _before_ pronouncing the claim valid. Instead the claim is assumed to be valid and the data from other directions "corrected" to fit the claim.
It is not science. It is junk.
@@conscious_being its cool stuff to be learning about even if in the process we entertain wrong ideas temporarily . If all is red-shifted more in one direction than in the opposite direction, we might be riding a directional a cosmic wave in space-time away from an implied center.
An *excellent* piece of investigative scientific journalism.
Keep it coming Sabine; keep shining that searching light for the truth ☺
I love the way you think !!!! It's fascinating to follow your analyses of issues!!
Absolutely fascinating. Looking forward to hearing about the next outcome of this.
Thanks Sabine for you excellent presentations.
So exciting! Thanks for the update! :)
waite for more.
Thanks for the correction in your description
Will you do a video on the recent observations of at least 6 quasars blasting to life in real time soon? And a related topic; the quasar whose jet is birthing stars at a furious rate because it's jet isn't blasting out orthogonally to the spiral arms of it's Galaxy of origin but skewed almost in line with the spiral arms.
Thank you Dr. Hossenfelder for another excellent presentation. You are a great communicator.
Keep us posted Sabine.....we'd like to know too!!....I'm 70 yrs old w/o much formal education bu w/a HUGE curiosity as per of all that knowledge u have so much of !!
Interesting, what you say at around 2:58 I have previously read and nodded my head in understanding to, but hearing it spoken makes it more impactful. Weird how we process information, isn't it? If we have to figure in the human filtering and limitations of understanding, knowing reality gets so difficult that one would almost despair of "knowing" anything!
Thanks. That was really interesting. One of the most interesting science developments I've heard this year and there's been a few.
This is awesome! To me dark energy seems like today’s “ether”. Just like scientists used to think there must be some medium that light travels through in space so they created one to fit their current mold. Sort of a necessary placeholder to describe what we observe, but don’t quite totally understand. I wonder if the findings here are true!
This has been my thought for many years
I think today's ether is string theory.
I always liked the idea of the ether but I've never been a fan of the idea of dark energy. Would you say the Higgs field is analogous to an ether field.
Yes, agreed, I have thought this for awhile.
@@mikaelzurich6166 String Theory is more like physicists religion. They make up a bunch of stuff to describe everything, and it doesn't really describe anything, but all this brain power is wasted on trying to build it up.
Thank you Sabine! What is the difference between the Hubble rate of the concordance model and the expansion rate proposed by dark energy? Also, of my ignorant curiosity, what is the 'antiparticle' part of the wave function? And thank you once again for yet another concise video!
Very interesting and very well explained. Thank you. As I understand it, the idea is that relative to a particular frame of reference the universe expansion rate does not appear to be accelerating. If I understood it neither the non-moving frame of reference determined by the CMB nor the non-moving frame of reference determined by the average motion of near by galaxies are the same as the frame of reference in which the universe rate of expansion seems to be zero. Is that right?
Sabine, you are making top tier science accessible to the "masses". I am certain, that your effort to maintain this channel and your blog, have a profound effect on many of your followers. It is truly educational.
She makes top tier scientists look embarrassed 😁
@@usr7941 they are shameless. They are immune to embarrassment
I'd prefer a more... static universe. No crunch, no rip.
I agree.
universe is kinda static at your scale already
Crunch is cool.. something Buddhist about getting infinite do-overs that is romantic..
same as as the universe just briethes in as well out.
Your preference doesn't matter. Only the truth.
great video Sabine! You just earned a new subscriber :) hope to see more from you
Thank you for this short but very educational video discussing a highly debated topic.
Thanks for yet another clear and insightful presentation. I want to add that your voice and elocution is particularly effective; making even these complex concepts real enough that they can be grasped if only just barely and encourage me to stick with it. Cheers.
Wonderful! No one else the 'science news' as well as this - nowhere near. Thank you.
Sabine, I'd like to have your thoughts on the following: Apart from Perlmutter using a potential skewed sample base, could there not be an overlooked alternative explanation as to why type 1a supernovae appear extra dim at furthest galaxies? We may consider the following: Since the furthest galaxies are the fastest moving, this means that their high speed mass induced length contraction (which would be aligned with our angle of view!) as per Einstein's special relativity would be strongest. Now since most mass of a galaxy resides at its centre, this means its ST contraction at it centre is strongest, meaning any light from its wider spiral arms would be bent through the galaxy centre image before reaching us, thus appear dimmer to us. Kind of like watching a hollow (convex) mirror. This would mean that we see any type 1a supernova in their spiral arms to be dimmer, not because of extra distance but purely because they are the fastest moving galaxies. So no need for extra red shift or extra 'Dark Energy'. Your thoughts?
Come to think of it...this is actually rather similar to the explanation of Dark Matter, the difference being that in that case it involves the stars at our outer spiral arms which move orthogonal to us, producing their speed induced extra gravity component orthogonally as well, which is why all these fast moving stars 'hold' together, preventing them from hurling into deep space. So basically the hypothesis of gravity as an emergent longitudinal speed induced ST contraction effect of mass, now has two cosmic underpinnings: it explains both Dark Energy and Dark Mass and is consistent with both Einstein's special and general relativity...I think a publication might be in order?
Hey I read this one! New subscriber here, can't wait for Sabine to cover new developments in good time like this one!
I remember studying the cosmological constant and the expansion of the universe both as a layman and in college. I was never 100% convinced of the dogma I was forced to regurgitate, and now I feel quite validated.
Well it's pretty easy to go on gut feeling. However, your feeling of validation means nothing. Still a layman.
@@thersten
Your opinion also means nothing.
Still an obedient sheep
:)
@@maalikserebryakov triggered much? 🤣🤣
This is so amazing! I'm alive today witnessing history in the making. Now, if only I was just a bit smarter, all would be well. Thanks so much for bringing this information to us.
SHE is out the dark age or anlist trying to.
I'm only recently following the story and development of events around this paper and the supernova data set. Gotta say : it's a modern thriller. And I love how Sabine is like, a science Miss Marple, uncovering layer upon layer, with the occasional first-hand investigation.
Definitely worth a like. BTW I really like your outfit, Sabine!
Fascinating. The mind boggles thinking about measuring movement in a vast swirling multi-directional universe.
Assuming no Dark Energy, do we know if the universe will keep expanding or is there enough known matter + dark matter (if that even exists) to eventually completely stop the expansion and perhaps reverse it?
If there is no dark energy it's unknown whether we'll get the big crunch or heat death.
The thing in here is that they misinterpret the data: same aceleretion is seen in the suns corona after matter gas etc. leaves the suns electromagnetism so the explossion finds a less dense area(level) so is more free and the diference it wins speed is the correlation with pressure from one to another level.
Same thing happens with the supernovas that only at the end of the system that encircles them is where hubble just dont make it so here is where you have to add a bit more to the so called HUBBLES CONSTANT. that int the end is not so constant, same thing will happen to light speed that will end up not been a constant.
That explains a few things. Thanks for keeping us updated. It's nice to see such diligence. Just wondering how you would feel if "dark energy" was proven with high accuracy to not exist?
i would fell much better contrarie to others as always there is positive and negative sides and some that dont give a dame about it.
Sabine is excellent as always. This only tells me that discoveries like dark energy are not really robust. We are silly to even expect them to be given their level of ambition: to understand the evolution of the Universe.
Fabulous. The whole dark sector has always seemed a bit contrived. Of course, we must go where the evidence leads. P.S. I approve of this week's dark backdrop.
We live truly in the new dark ages. dark matter was invented and postulated to account for rotation of galaxies, then dark energy was invented to keep all that dark matter together, and to top it of, there's the infinite mass, zero-dimension big-bang black hole.
The title is misleading, if dark energy does not exist then space time is not expanding and we would not be observing what we do as we look closer to the edge of the observable universe. It take energy to continuously add separation between all the matter in the universe and defy gravity. This seems to be about if additional energy is being added to increase the expansion or maybe the expansion is close to being constant now. Even if they observe changes in the expansion over time, they are measuring it at this instance of time and making general conclusions given the changing nature of expansion is questionable. And there are basic unknows like, what percentage of the universe is our observable universe 1%, 50%, 0.1%,? How do you make general conclusions if the observed data comes from, lets say 1% of the whole universe. If the universe is so large the expansion may not be the same everywhere, it may have minor gradients throughout with local minimums and maximums, only in theory is there infinity and universal constants, it's like saying the oceans are infinite and have a single temperature from your row boat.
@@mykofreder1682 Insisting on dark energy is based on the assumption that we have proved expansion and the acceleration of expansion. We are looking at light and assuming the wavelengths of light mean what many thought it means. But once enough countervailing evidence comes along it is time to rethink basic assumptions.
A second assumptions is the need for new energy sources rather than the application of already known forces at a galactic scale (which is the Electric Universe theory).
Dark energy is like that one guy at a party that everyone is OK with leaving early.
that was me once in a party after a cople of drinks. had to walk few km. home.
Than you for your work. Please keep these videos coming
Sabine, thank you for your awesome videos!
Can you do a video on Plasma and Electromagnetism in space? I've seen interesting papers and videos on this being the real connection between matter, not gravity. Thanks.
Gravity keeps things togather it results to me from light difraction, as well matter sicks togather by entanglement sinse all atoms are entangles by pairs in matter that as well matter is jointed all one to annother by 7 groups or colors.
The speed at which every one jumped on the dark "whatever" band wagon always bothered me. Let's all believe in what we can't find to explain what we don't know.
I lost faith when they started talking about "god particles"
;-)
There comes a point where the math breaks down or we just don't have the data.
They need the accept that and quit producing these theories as fact.
Mostly I'll blame that on the media, they grab something a scientist said and twist the hell out of it.
Still, the "nothing that does nothing and can't be measured but it's there and does something" dark matter bugs the hell out of me.
One of the problems is the modern way sciences is funded - largely via project funds. The darker snd more mysterious, the more cash is given to a field.
@@TejrnarG You have hit the dark matter nail on its black hole of a head. Prize driven science begs for sensational results at best and outright fraud at worst. One recent development strikes me as an obvious blatant miscarriage of science but has not been mentioned in a single article I've read or video I've watched. And it is this....The Nobel Prize was awarded to three guys for their alleged gravity wave detection without anybody calling for an independent repetition of the experiment. I guess the fact that they had two test rigs set up at different locations was good enough for the prize committee. How can that be? It seems that the community was so desperate for a true proof of General Relativity (because there has not been a single one) that they forgot perhaps the most fundamental requirement of good science. I repeat, independent verification is critical. And I might add that modern science seems to have also forgotten that it is incumbent on the experimenter to try as hard as he can to disprove his own results. Have Kip Thorne et al, done their due diligence in this regard? Nope. They were too busy writing huge inscrutable tomes (GRAVITATION), consulting on big budget Hollywood sci-fi films (Interstellar), and making inane, meaningless comments such as, "Matter tells Space how to curve, and Space tells Matter how to move." - K. Thorne. When I read that I realized that these guys are charlatans and con men who are happy to keep the world confused so that they can profit. It really makes me quite sick.
@@glenwaldrop8166 we can detect dark matter
Danke für dieses aufschlussreiche Update zum Thema "Dunkle Energie"! Du bringst das wirklich gut rüber -obwohl es schon hilft wenn man wenigstens ein bisschen im Thema ist... ;) Nur weiter so! Wir brauchen Leute wie Dich. Das ist so wichtig!
Danke!
English please its ok if is not to good as mine is.
love any powerful statement with the "might" qualifier
Very clearly proposed and logical. Excellent video. I subscribed.
I love you girl! You keep bringing physics back to earth and make it logical and practical ...good observations and good experimentation is all that matters 🙏🏿
Most people I know, love to use dark matter, dark energy and quantum theories in general as apologetics for their pseudo beliefs. Watching your videos helps me confirm what they are mistaking.
Great comment.
Hmm, sounds interesting but I don't think I follow. Could you explain please?
TrumpShallPurgetheAnimeScourge the spiritual community has adopted quantum theories in an attempt to explain their beliefs with evidence. It’s disingenuous. These videos allow me to clear up misconceptions they have.
MrJesseBell ugh, tell me about it. My parents love to spout on about what they call ‘quantum healing’ and they disingenuously refer to conventional medicine as ‘Newtonian medicine’, saying its an old way of thinking. They literally quote some Russian scientists who’s work I’m pretty sure hasn’t even been peer reviewed and suspiciously only seems to show up on questionable ‘spiritual science’ websites.
It’s awkward that my mum is so gullible considering she’s a senior psychiatrist with a medical degree. My parents literally teach this stuff in their ministry.
@@j6873 Newtonian medicine 😂😂😂
Interesting! Great video series. But with the statement at 05:20 about ‘no dark energy’ I think there would be stronger evidence to posit that there is ‘no dark energy’ if the outcome was some measure of deceleration and not the refutation of acceleration. A universe neither accelerating or decelerating can still imply dark energy (but with a weaker argument).
1st time here and I am hooked. Thank you for your lesson. 1iMan.
This just blew my mind! A dozen popular lectures by Brian Cox has just flown out the window! :))
Standing on the bank of a river.
Calls out to the person on the other bank.
"Help, get a boat I am stuck on a tiny island"
Imperative you look in the other direction.
nice 🙂🙂
might be my new favorite youtube channel
Thank you, thank you. You explained red shift so simply I was finally able to grasp it.
Fascinating! And although it is an unscientific thing for me to say, I hope they are right, because I find the idea of dark energy essentially tearing the universe apart to be utterly horrifying. 😄
Here’s a sequence of words which makes it not as horrifying. If you extrapolate the physical universe into a mathematical structure, ie the only thing that really exists is mathematics and we as humans are something akin to a self conscious number, you turn, and your whole life turn can be looked up and calculated like the square root of 2469, and some more advanced consciousness in some other universe can say, oh, how nice, or, I don’t think I like this one at all.
@@dmitrysamoilov5989 Nope, that's pretty horrifying too.
@@dmitrysamoilov5989, So you think Max Tegmark is right (on a mathematical universe) or Nassim Haramein (who's esoteric too)? :)
@@erik-ic3tp The entire universe can be described by maths, however that doesn't mean that the universe is merely a mathemathical construct. There's nothing esoteric about that, imo.
@@Tubetinkerer, Ok. So Nassim Haramein's ideas have good merit in your opinion? :)
That's initial result seems a bit "cherry picky" to me. Or it is certainly an incomplete set of data they were using.
for all we know we may only be seeing a tiny little percolation of what is actually out there. hell, a little over a century ago we thought the milky way was the universe
@@Bix12 Our universe might just be a cell of a bigger buddy¡¡??
@@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668 Why not? No one knows.....and if they tell you they do, they're lying!
@@Bix12 you sure look kind of the guy in DRAFT SCIENCE I am his follower hes kind of cool in a way, does he smokes weed? he always smokes while he speaks in the video and the way he smokes is not like tabaco dude.
Sabine reacts to the recent findings that Perlmutter e.a. have likely used a skewed data set of type 1a supernovae 20 years ago, thus arriving at the wrong conclusion that our universe would be expanding in an accelerated manner. This would mean no Dark Energy as a solution would be needed. But there is an even graver error of thinking by Perlmutter e.a.:
Since the furthest galaxies are the fastest moving, this means that their high speed mass induced length contraction (which would be aligned with our angle of view!) as per Einstein's special relativity would be strongest. Now since most mass of a galaxy resides at its centre, this means its ST contraction at its centre is strongest, meaning any light from its wider spiral arms would be bent through its galaxy centre image before reaching us, thus appear extra dim to us. Kind of like watching a hollow (convex) mirror. This in turn means that it is completely natural to see any type 1a supernova in their spiral arms to be extra dim, not because of extra distance (as Perlmutter was quick to assume) but purely because they are the fastest moving galaxies in the first place.. This means that even if the Perlmutter dataset yet has a residual statistical 1A supernova brightness issue (which I expect will be the case), this is fully explained by their inherent galaxy speed, not by any additional distance. So either way, regardless the accuracy of the dataset used, there is no accelerated universe and thus no need for dark Energy...
R. Win - is that just a qualitative thought, or have you done calculations to back it up, and published them in a good peer-reviewed journal before bringing it to TH-cam comments so confidently??
I am not a scientist so I cannot judge their findings or observations. However, I do enjoy watching the process of looking for answers to cosmological questions at hand. Moreover, those people do say “well, I was not right”. And everybody moves on with the endless quest. Fascinating !!!! Danke, Sabine.
Great another unresolved conflict within my mind.
Embrace uncertainty
I have always thought that Dark Energy was an invention to save the Standard Model because gravity does not adequately explain how galaxies move and spin.
You're thinking of dark matter
@@flyingskyward2153 - yes: Dark Energy / Dark Matter - they work in tandem to save the Model. A bit too neat.
You are confusing dark energy with dark matter. It's a very common confusion! I explained the difference in my earlier video: th-cam.com/video/ytS7u8mCxEY/w-d-xo.html
That is right. A galaxy in transient condition drags its outer stars as an irrotational vortex in the magnetic field, AKA a "galaxy without dark matter."
A galaxy at equilibrium, or permanent condition, rotates as a rigid body vortex. AKA "galaxy with dark matter," drags the magnetic field in the outer limbs at the same angular rate as the inner stars. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex
These problems all disappear when we get rid of Einstein's ideas, primarily.
Back to Tesla and Plasma Universe and back to physics for the answers.
@@SabineHossenfelder - Thank you. 4% of the Universe (the part we live in) consists of White Dwarfs, Pulsars, Neutron Stars, Magnetars, Black Holes and the like. Usually explained by the force of Gravity. But, better explained, by the force of Electricity?
The other 96% of the Universe is: dark matter (around 24%) and dark energy (around 72%.). But is this a Fairy Story?
Dark Matter is a name chosen by Fritz Zwicky to explain the binding force between galaxies that keeps them together and stops everything from flying apart; this being a problem for the Standard Model.
Dark Energy was invented by Michael Turner. This invention was required after the introduction of dark matter in order to counter a problem that had arisen from further observations and a subsequent period of great embarrassment. Patch-up jobs?
Very interesting, TY.
I was wondering, I have not yet encountered speculation on "space tension". Too hear that space stretches and contracts, at least that it curves is not uncommon. Or am I thinking too "classically"?
Hallo
Zur Hypothes der dunklen Energie:
Wenn die Beschleunigung des Urknalls ausreichend war um die gravitationsbedingte Fluchtgeschwindigkeit zwischen zwei Galaxien zu überschreiten, so werden sich jene Galaxien von diesem Punkt an mit jener relativen Geschwindigkeit von einander entfernen. Zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt werden dann galaxien, welche die doppelte Entfernung voneinander besitzen, wie zwei andere Galaxien ebenso die doppelte entgegengerichtete Geschwindigkeit zueinander besitzen.
Entfernen sich zwei oder mehre Massezentren so weit voneinander, dass deren gravitative Wechselwirkungen, welch mit dem Quadrat des Abstandes abnehmen, immer bedeutungsloser werden, sollte dies zwar nicht direkt zu einer gegenseitigen Abstoßungskraft bzw. dunkler Energiefreisetzung führen. Indirekt jedoch schon, da jene Gravitationskraft, welche eine Expansion mit konstanter Geschwindigkeit innerhalb eines Raums mit höherer Masse/Volumen zuvor noch abgebremst hat, nun ihre Wirkung verliert.
Galaxien welche sich von unserer Galaxie entfernen, was durch eine Verschiebung der Lichtwellen-Frequenz (analog zur Verschiebung von Schall nur halt nicht mit 333 m/s sondern 300000 m/s Wellenbewegung,) erkannt werden kann, entfernen sich seit dem Urknall mit jener Geschwindigkeit von unserer Milchstraße und werden seither nicht weiter durch eine unerklärliche dunkle Energie beschleunigt.
Oder ist eine Veränderung der Lichtwellen-Frequenz ebenfalls vorhanden, wenn man das Licht der gleichen Galaxie zeitlich versetzt also z.B: einmal im Jahr 2000 und einmal im Jahr 2010 misst und die Rotverschiebung mit einander vergleicht?
Gerne darfst du dich über eine der folgen Verlinkungen mit mir in Verbindung setzen! So können wir uns vielleicht gegenseitig bei verschiedenen Ideen unterstützen, verbessern und helfen:
docs.google.com/document/d/11FWVJYQ2HjwJFYsQCZI63Tz25LWcE06ONuG-fixBKBM/edit?usp=sharing
docs.google.com/document/d/1zX_8dCGPcaiYkYJQthaX5J0q-o2liLjMOpv76iOXUHM/edit?usp=sharing
kollektiver Ausbau trotz geistiger Störung Versuche: Entropische Gravitation, Materieteilchen, Vereinheitlichung - Simulation
drive.google.com/file/d/17FWk3N3sSN6JPcVhuuMWeOt_-Yzr618D/view?usp=sharing
Mein Instagram Account für Kommunikation sowie weiteren verlinkten Ideen und Projekten: von mir - mit der Hoffnung auf gemeinsamen Ausbau bzw. kollektiver Nutzen und Wachstum...
instagram.com/andreas__schneider89/
Würde mich sehr freuen!
Mit besten Grüßen
Andreas Schneider
Hello
On the dark energy hypotheses:
If the acceleration of the Big Bang was sufficient to exceed the gravitational escape speed between two galaxies, then those galaxies will move away from each other from this point on with that relative speed. At a later point in time, galaxies that are twice the distance from one another, like two other galaxies, will also have twice the speed in opposite directions.
If two or more centers of mass move away from each other so far that their gravitational interactions, which decrease with the square of the distance, become more and more meaningless, this should not lead directly to a mutual repulsive force or a dark release of energy. Indirectly, however, because the gravitational force that previously slowed down an expansion at constant speed within a space with a higher mass / volume now loses its effect.
Galaxies that are moving away from our galaxy, which can be recognized by a shift in the light wave frequency (analogous to the shifting of sound only not with 333 m / s but 300,000 m / s wave movement), have been moving away at that speed since the Big Bang from our Milky Way and have not been accelerated any further by an inexplicable dark energy since then.
Or is there a change in the light wave frequency when you measure the light of the same galaxy with a time offset, e.g. once in 2000 and once in 2010 and compare the redshift with each other?
You are welcome to contact me via one of the following links! So maybe we can support, improve and help each other with different ideas:
docs.google.com/document/d/11FWVJYQ2HjwJFYsQCZI63Tz25LWcE06ONuG-fixBKBM/edit?usp=sharing
docs.google.com/document/d/1zX_8dCGPcaiYkYJQthaX5J0q-o2liLjMOpv76iOXUHM/edit?usp=sharing
collective expansion despite mental disturbance attempts: entropic gravity, matter particles, unification - simulation
drive.google.com/file/d/17FWk3N3sSN6JPcVhuuMWeOt_-Yzr618D/view?usp=sharing
My Instagram account for communication as well as other linked ideas and projects: from me - with the hope of mutual expansion or collective benefit and growth ...
instagram.com/andreas__schneider89/
Would be very happy!
Best Regards
Andreas Schneider
Dark energy and dark matter are modern time epicycles.
While dark energy is a bit hand wavy, there's a significant amount of evidence for dark matter and no particular attempt to claim what it is or what it might be, only what the evidence is.
Modern day vulcan
@@nagualdesign don't bother, the people that spew this crab are actually interested in science or 'truth'.
@@xBINARYGODx That seems rather shellfish.
Original paper seems like an amateur mistake, it used super nova from the same general direction in the sky then claims the expansion of space is accelerating at an accelerated rate? And wins a nobel prize?
Sorry, I got this wrong. The supernovae were not all from the same direction of the sky, but the low-redshift ones were in one direction, while the high-redshift ones were in the other direction. So, same conclusion (skewed sample) but slightly different reason.
@@SabineHossenfelder It's still quite odd they got a Nobel prize for it.
@@SabineHossenfelder fascinating
@@SabineHossenfelder Didnt I told you this thing before more than twice? that as you look up you see each time a longer wave length in the skye and as you look down you see a shorter wave length.
Sabine, thank you so much for posting these videos and inform the wider public not just what the community is thinking but also why. It is encouraging and to some extend frightening to see that even top figures in the physical community can be driven to make huge blunders, intentional or not.
This video is a remarkable example. It is astounding to hear that the founding fathers of ‘accelerated expansion / dark energy’ likely used a skewed dataset to invent or exaggerate an effect 20 years ago. But it is even more astounding to hear that they base the postulate of an ‘accelerated expanding universe’ merely on the extra faint type 1a supernova candles inside furthest galaxies…Wow really? How could this paper have gotten passed peer review in the first place? Have these guys never heard of the implications of Einstein’s length contraction of objects in special relativity? Since the days of Einstein we know that high speed massive objects contract space time in the direction of their speed, an effect we call ‘length contraction’. Since these furthest and fastest galaxies have most mass (and thus most spacetime contraction) at their center, they would thus bend any light from the outer galaxy arms. This NATURALLY makes their spiral arms appear less bright, solely based on their high speed. It is analogous to looking into a hollow mirror which has a fainter image at its edges. So OFCOURSE any type 1A supernova in the spiral arms of these super-fast galaxies would appear extra dim. This has NOTHING to do with any suggested ‘unexplained further distance’, therefor there is no acceleration in the expansion of universe and thus no dark energy is needed in the first place. Forget the skewed sample...it’s not even relevant! Cosmology based 20 years on absolutely NOTHING…
Wow again. Here we are a century after Einstein and our Nobel Prize Laureate can’t even interpret Einstein’s proven theories anymore? What kind of world is this? What’s next? Do we in a few years award a Nobel Prize for a new theory claiming Earth is flat after all? Gott-o-Gott…Mann-o-Mann
"to some extend frightening to see that even top figures in the physical community can be driven to make huge blunders, intentional or not"- the same SHOULD be said of "climate science"- too many people think it's revealed religion rather than a work in progress
Thank you Sabine. I have a bias towards the "Steady State" model. So I find this topic super interesting.
Steady state falsehood has been debunked. I suggest you educate yourself
Thank you for this. I found it fantastically amazing that an estimate for the ‘expansion of the Universe’ could possibly be based on data looking in one direction! WOW Great to find out rationality is coming under consideration. Perhaps one day the strange idea that the Universe must start from NOTHING will also go away. Thanks again for your info.
We don't know how the universe started. But then people who think that you can make assertions without evidence substitute their own fiction, like a god, a simulation, etc. It is an open question with people working on it but extremely difficult without quantum gravity and universe sized particle accelerators.
I think our universe was created when a five dimensional unicorn ate too much rainbow and let out a massive fart.
It should be called the Shoulder Shrug Energy...
You are my source for all things physics. You are impartial, accurate and very easy on the eyes... brains and beauty. Thank you for all you do for us out here but please remember that the word data is plural and not singular... one of my pet peeves. Thank you again.
Could you provide a link to the graphic you are speaking to and starts at ~5:50?