- The Universe Is Not Accelerating, They Got the Math Wrong

Let's listen. Let's try not to get copyright strike. Here we go. We'll we'll increase the speed. >> Stake when they introduce dark energy. This is what a team of mathematicians say after looking at the equations because they find that actually dark energies are necessary. If they're right, that would be the ultimate embarrassment for physicists. >> Chat, I got to be real.

That's not going to be the ultimate embarrassment. I mean, that's pretty big. Pretty big embarrassment. Not going to lie, it's a pretty big black eye to have made up a fake thing called dark energy because your physics doesn't work. And then to say that everybody else is a pseudocientist for like 50 years, that's pretty up. Yeah, it is.

But I'll be honest with you, it's going to get worse. In fact, it's going to get much much much worse. That's just the beginning. This thing ends when the academic physicists emit free energies. actually real. 0 point energy is real and we can actually tap into it. Think [clears throat] about the think about the black eye when that happens.

They're going to have to call the police chat. It's going to be a murder. >> Let's have a look. About 25 years ago, astrophysicists noticed that the universe does not just expand. The expansion is getting faster, too. This doesn't sound like a big difference. Okay.

So, we thought the universe expands. Now, the expansion also changed. >> Yes, sir. You great to dishonor your family. Is that an Indian mixed with Japanese? Yeah. Well, that's I'm multi-talented chat. >> Just in time that can't be so difficult to include into the equations.

And indeed, it's not difficult to include mathematically. The problem is entirely on the physical side. To get the expansion to accelerate, you need a peculiar sort of energy with negative pressure. There's no such energy that we know of. So, physicists just postulated that it ex >> Chad. There's no uh there's no energy with negative pressure.

Chat doesn't exist. My god, chat, why do people listen to her? Why do they listen? Chat, [snorts] there's no energy with negative pressure. Are you sure about that? Think you might be wrong on that one. Yes, there is.

The zero point energy. Why would I say that this 0 point energy is negative pressure? Because the way you should think about zero point energy is you should imagine an ocean and you should imagine the physical world is everything above the surface of the ocean above surface level. The negative energy is all the energy in the ocean itself below surface level. And if we could tap into that ocean of energy, that would give us the negative energy that we need. That's real energy that we pulling out.

But when we pull it out, the energy has to come and restabilize. And that creates that negative pressure force that we need. That force that we would call anti-gravity. That's how conceptually we should think about zero point energy. Why? Because that conceptual view gives us all the stuff zero point energy can do.

Propulsion energy generation that's how it works exists and called it dark energy. The authors of the new paper now say that this extra ingredient was never needed. The expansion of the universe speeds up simply because Einstein's equations do that anyway. This would be amazing because dark energy has become a big expounding headache and the headaches. I'm going to go ahead and we haven't even gotten more than a minute into this. I'm calling a 10 out of 10 on the meter.

Einstein's equations do this anyway. Not on their own. They don't. If they did it on their own, then nobody would have had to come up with dark energy. The whole reason we had to come up with dark energy as was just described is because we can't explain how the universe could ever expand faster than the speed of light which is necessary. It's required in fact for our view of the world.

We think that there must have been a big bang because we see the red shift everywhere. So let's listen to the convoluted rationale that's they're going to come up with here. >> Panchchin seems to be speeding up as well. You see, dark energy, if it exists, is not a small contribution to the universe. It would have to make up most of the energy, more than 3/4. Despite that, we supposedly can't measure it anywhere on Earth. It just sits there doing nothing.

We also don't know what, if anything, it's made of. And in the past years, it's become clear that the simple idea that dark energy is just a constant contribution doesn't quite work. We now have multiple sets of data that require dark energy to change in time. and astrophysicists are busy cooking up reasons in hindsight explained why it actually has to be this way. The authors of the new paper say that physicists have simply screwed up the mathematics. You see, physicists usually assume that dark energy is just there since the beginning of the universe.

This team of mathematicians instead asks, okay, but what if it's not there? Instead, they look at the first moments of the universe without dark energy. They just put matter into the universe. Not perfectly smooth. But >> so the answer is that dark energy is just a zero point energy. You could say all these same things about zero point energy.

You could say, well, I can't see it. You can't see magnetism either, but we know it's real. We can see its effects. The zero point energy, that ocean of energy. Imagine that ocean. Imagine you pour a whole bunch of paint on a canvas.

You pour it on a canvas or on a table. It's going to spread out. That's what the zero point energy is doing. The zero point energy produces space. Space exists because 0 point energy is there spread out all over it. And this actually explains why the amount of 0 point energy in background space could change with time because you could imagine it being very thick at one point and then it spreads out and it stretches out and therefore it gets thinner and thinner and thinner.

And if that was true, that would change the physical laws of our reality in our universe. That would be like you're shifting all the physical laws on a dial as the background energy of the universe spreads out more and more and more and more. So, we can actually explain this effect of the energy changing. In fact, this is one of the things I want to talk to Douglas Miller about because I think he made a post about this about the idea that the dark energy could be changing over time. I think that he and I are going to have no problem rationalizing that.

Anyway, let's let's let's listen to them try to spin it here. >> With small deviations from this smooth distribution over time, gravity will make the matter clump, which creates stars and later galaxies. The presence of dark matter alone makes the universe expand. We know this. But it doesn't make the expansion accelerate. This is the usual problem. But the mathematicians find that the case in which the universe expands evenly due to the presence of matter is unstable.

It's a mathematically ideal case that doesn't make physical sense. In reality, they say such a matter universe would not expand evenly. It would fall apart into regions with different expansion rates. In some regions, the expansion accelerates. So they say we live in one of those regions where the expansion happens to accelerate and that's it. No, >> I got a better answer.

I got a much much better answer. The universe isn't accelerating. How's that? How's that for an answer? How's that? All the red shift that we see doesn't need to be explained by an expansion of the universe in every direction.

How's that for a better answer? Do you? And I want you to see this is why there's so many different physics theories because depending on what assumptions you make, you can go down a completely wildly incorrect path like this particular paper is going down. Well, if you make the assumption the universe is expanding and then you make another assumption that it's going to expand ununiformally, then you have to explain why it looks like it's expanding uniformly when we look at it. Therefore, you have to come up with some other nonsensical logic. Oh, it's only in our local bubble is expanding uniformally.

That's what they're trying to say here. These people are basically saying, "Okay, there's a big bang, but it doesn't expand uniformly, but we're in some kind of bubble that it is expanding uniformly. Therefore, we don't need dark energy anymore or something." Still doesn't really make any sense. And that's the problem is they came up with a bunch of incorrect assumptions without questioning them, without proving them and led them to faulty conclusion. Dark energy necessary.

The reason they get a different result from what astrophysicists normally get is that they remove one important assumption which is that the universe is on average the same everywhere. It's called the cosmological principle. The interesting thing about the paper is that their mathematical treatment is totally different from what physicists usually do. They use a formula. >> What did you give? What's different about >> let me guess is physically highly questionable. It's like >> let me guess, chat.

Was she going to give it like a a two on the meter? Does she even do the >> The example of a pencil balanced on its tip. It exists only in Plato's ideal world of mathematics. That all sounds intriguing and I do think it's a nice paper. But this is a paper from mathematicians. They derive equations and this is all well and good.

But they don't check whether the results of their calculations agree with the observations. And that's a high demand. Their idea would have to fit all the cosmological data. Supernovi the cosmic microwave background berionic was used standard model of cosmicians. Well, only because of that is popular because despite it show your comics a lot of data. This is why I give the paper a 6 out of 10 on the meter.

Nice maths, not much physics. >> Okay, cool. Whatever. Uh, she edited the commercials out for her YouTube. Interesting. Or for the uh the X. That's interesting.

Okay. I think we explained enough on that. Dark energy is fake and gay. 0 point energy is real. That paper's absurd. Just ignore that.

0 is still real.