No Need for Dark Energy - Variable Speed of Light

An important consequence of Einstein's 1911 idea.
Typo at 9:20: Zwicky was born in 1898.

[benmcreynolds]

Thank you. I have always felt like the preconceived notion that we have to find dark matter, dark energy, describe why the expansion is speeding up faster and faster.. just has gotten us no where in many years now. Science has been at a stand still. I was hoping more people would be like you and think "hey maybe we should reassess how we look at this? Maybe we are getting it all wrong and we are digging ourselves a deeper and deeper hole that doesn't have any answers because it's not the right perspective? " I'm just glad your channel and mind is even open to considering that. I appreciate your channel and just subscribed.

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Dr Mike McCulloch, Quantised Inertia explains away dark energy, have you seen his work? It is based on the Casimir effect and the idea of an event horizon of Relativity.

[ninjashaw]

This guy is really good. I was really skeptical of him at first but now I fully agree with his criticizm of those current strange cosmology theories!

[kikufutaba]

I find your lectures facinating and thought provoking. Thank you very much for your wonderful channel.

[AbhTri-kqhc]

I'm by no means an expert in physics and cosmology, but I've always felt when reading about cosmology and its models that science is becoming more and more religious, a faith based approach where any alternate theory/explanation is fervently shot down.

[pieterpost]

I love your work very much. Dont understand them very well but they give a lot new entrance points to discover science. Gonna rewatch them lots of times. Thanks.

[konradswart]

I have another "theory". One that _also_ leads to a variable speed of light!

Length scales do not shrink, but _time_ runs faster and faster, as time passes. That is why we see a red shift from far away objects, because the farther away we look, the more we look into the past, and the slower time runs, the slower all processes occur, and therefore the more red-shift we see!

So, which is it, Mr. Unzicker?

I am working on a book about spacetime. I have been working on it on and off for the last 10 years, after I discovered the definition of time. This happened about 40 years ago, when I was a student of physics, and didn't find a proper definition of time in any of the textbooks. When I found my own definition I hadn't realized that it was new!

The reason why it took so long to start writing, is because when I finally realized that it was new, and I submitted a paper, it was rejected. The main reason was that it seemed to be in conflict with the special theory of relativity.

It took me about 30 years to resolve this issue. During that time I have investigated the special theory of relativity from all sides, and found a principle all laws of physics have to satisfy, which I am still working on.

In any case, I _did succeed_ to derive from my definition of time not only the Lorentz transformations, but even the three-dimensionality of space! I know _why_ space is three-dimensional!

I have _finally_ found the time and opportunity to write it all down!

My _real opinion_ on what Mr. Unzicker says, is that he has it wrong. He is the so-many'th physicist who is not able to 'see through' the equations, and confuses them with reality. It wouldn't surprise me that Mr. Unzicker believes also that he can know reality as it is. But I haven't seen enough of him to conclude that he hasn't understood Popper's solution to the Induction Problem.

Mr. Unzicker only looks at length scales. Strictly speaking, the Lorentz transformations already tell us that there is no such thing as length and time in an absolute sense. Philosophically speaking, the special theory of relativity is a much greater breakthrough than the general theory of relativity of Einstein. According to the special theory of relativity there is only 'spacetime'.

When I step into a rocket to travel to the Andromeda nebula with a constant acceleration that is large enough, I will succeed to reach that destiny in my lifetime, even though it is about one million light years away. When I am in that rocket I can 'explain' that, because I see the Andromeda nebula come towards me with an ever-increasing speed, so that the time to cover that immense distance becomes less and less according to the clocks on board. It becomes so small that I will reach the Andromeda nebula within my lifetime.

But an observer from earth explains my ability to reach the Andromeda nebula from looking with a (very, very powerful) telescope to the inside of my rocket, and he sees that time is running slower and slower, until he sees my time running so slow, that he understands I will reach the Andromeda nebula within my lifetime, even though I shall need to travel during more than one million years according to _his _ clock!

According to the state of development my theory about spacetime now, the speed of light must be _the only thing_ that _must be_ constant. It _must be_ constant, because the speed of light is _the fundamental thing_ from which both space and time follow!

To be exact. If we measure the speed of light to be constant in all directions, we are in an inertial frame of reference. When the speed of light _is not_ constant according to our measurements, we are in an _accelerating_ frame of reference. But the speed of light itself _is always constant!_ That is, constant in _any_ frame of reference that is either not accelerating or is not in a gravitational field, or is in a gravitational field whereby the frame of reference is falling.

Therefore, if it is indeed the case that the speed of light varies, this statement is equivalent to the universe either expanding or contracting. _Or_ time runs faster or slower, or any combination of this. These three magnitudes are not independent but are all connected. This means, that whether you say that the unit of measurement is shrinking _because_ the speed of light becomes faster, _or_ you say that time runs faster, but the distances remain the same and the speed of light is slowing dow, _or_ you say that the speed of light is constant, but the universe is expanding, all three statements are completely equivalent! It just depends on what you _choose_ to be the most fundamental magnitude.

In my theory I have chosen the speed of light to be the fundamental magnitude. And that is because from that I can explain why space is three dimensional, _and_ I can explain where the Lorentz transformations come from! Also, the speed of light is a fundamental magnitude, because it follows _directly from_ the Maxwell equations, while the choice of units of time and units of length are arbitrary. Therefore choosing the speed of light to be constant by definition is the most elegant choice to make.

[usuarioenyt]

I don't remember a single moment in history when mainstream thinking was right regarding controversial subjects.
I don't know if this theory is more accurate, but makes much more sense to me.
And I say "accurate" and not "right" because there are not theories that are right, there are theories that work better than others and that's it. None describe (or could do) the "truth" about how the Universe works, and none ever will do. They are all "models" that make approximations that can be used in practice. They are just useful.

[joecaner]

How much Dark Energy is there?
Precisely the amount that make my equation to balance, no more and no less.

[SomeRandomDevOpsGuy]

The scientific illiteracy combined with big scienc-y words in this comment section is astounding.

[erbalumkan]

only problem is that the presence of mass doesn't decrease the speed of light.

[wesbaumguardner]

Actually, gravitation both increases and decreases the speed of light. The Pound Snider experiment concluded that it was the same exact effect as a mass falling. So the light's speed will actually increase as it approaches a massive object and will decrease as it leaves the massive object the same exact way that if you shot a bullet towards the earth the bullet's speed would increase as it approached earth, but if you shot the bullet straight up in the air, it would slow down as it traveled away from earth's surface. So gravitational accelerations directly affect light the same way they effect material objects. This means that light that leaves a star end ends up being observed on earth must necessarily be red shifted because the star has a much greater mass than earth and this greater mass causes a greater acceleration in the opposite direction of the light's velocity which slows down the light. Then as the light approaches earth, it is accelerated and gains back a small fraction of the speed that was lost. The overall result is a redshift. If you went to the surface of a star and observed light that had reflected off of earth, that light would be blueshifted.

[SeminalSimian]

I agree with your thoughts on this subject. If the ridiculous "expansion" band-aid has to be accepted and we must face 96% of all energy unaccounted for, maybe it's because we are trying to make observations fit with a flawed and unproven base assumption.

[douglasstrother]

"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge."

A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations.

Rather thought-provoking questions from an Undergraduate E&M textbook!

[nathanielhellerstein]

So if I got this right... the universe isn't expanding; light is slowing, clocks are slowing, and astronomers are shrinking.

[clifforddicarlo]

If we accept the variable speed of light then do we need to also accept that magnetic permeability and electric permittivity are also variable, since by Maxwell's Equations speed of light = 1/(magnetic permeability * electric permittivity)^(1/2), ?
Also, should we assume that the speed of light [and magnetic permeability and electric permittivity] was different at the time of the “Big Bang” than now?
Also, do you propose a function which describes the rate of change of the speed of light over time?

[SlowCarToChina]

If the universe is in a steady state then how did all the other planets and stars end up millions and billions of miles away from us?

[hooked]

It's funny to read that Unzicker wrote "Accelererated" because he was in a hurry.

[Skandalos]

If universe expands, relative to what does it expand? What becomes smaller relative to the universe?

[martinsoos]

We have an observation that places the universe as being younger the further we look from us. This suggests that the universe is expanding very slowly when I look at the double vortex model with the two vortexes being made of quantum dots. This is to say that something set off the timing of galaxies to be made at nearly the same time and in all directions from us we see younger and younger galaxies as we look back in time (ie, distance). Even though I am a proponent of photon drag to explain red shift, I also like to add possibilities to the list, this one didn't make my list. I do however agree with the idea that variable speed works with density of material that light is traveling through. But again, for that one, I would have to go with a different reason for the speed dif.