Is Dark Energy made of Black Holes? 

The best kind, I'm sure.

And I like dark humour.

Dark German chocolate, I would say.

Kind of dark, kind of light. She is in superposition.

She needs to put that on a tshirt or hoodie!

I noted that the report was from researchers in Britain and Spain. No vested tourism interests here, no sirree! A more valid question might be about the strict necessity of such travel, rather than whether we can do it more efficiently.

fly from Nice to CDG (Paris) to make a flight to elsewhere - a great time and effort saver

@@janibeg3247 The ban is specifically for routes where there is an alternative train journey taking less than 2h30, as I understand it. I've just checked trains from Nice to CDG on the SNCF site - it wasn't showing any journeys under 2h30, so that route wouldn't be affected.

@@robhogg68 thank goodness

I'm a frequent user of the Paris - Strasbourg TGV route (about 500 km) There are no more plane on that route (long before the ban) but if there was, here are my options : Train : 2h30 + 40 min to go to the station + 15 min to my destination in the city center + 20-40 min of margin to wait at the station Plane : 1h + 1h30 to go the airport + 40 min to my destination by bus, or 20 min with a taxi + 1h-1h30 of margin to wait at the airport, including eventually checking my luggage, security... Car : 5h, and nothing else I can do while concentrating on not dying behind the wheel (I sold the only car I've even own at the end of last century) Bus : 5h40 + 40 min go to the bus station + 20 min to my destination in the city center but I can read or play a video game at least These timings are why Air France killed that specific route : they could not compete on the total time. The bus can compete on price. The only reason I've use a car is to move my furniture.

No issue for local travel with no baggage but doesn't seem practical if you have baggage. No one is going to want to drag carts of luggage all over a train station.

@@RS-ls7mm Unless you carry multiple large carts of luggage (which doesn't seem all that common to me), traveling with luggage by train is very much feasible.

@@toomanycharacter At my age, that's not a reasonable expectation.

Good for you. Not everyone shares your preferences and they shouldn’t be forced.

I remember seeing a video about this guy. It was quite fascinating.

That process reminds me of Buckminster Fuller's engineering work.

About 20 years ago I went back to Pasadena to visit (as a Caltech grad), and I met an origami group who followed that.

Its german, similar to elons actually.

it matters.

Everything is irrelevant just like Douglas Adams says.

That explains everything. 😁

Dark humor is like food: not everyone gets it.

@@janerikrasmussen Would you say its a "theory of everything" then? :)

"Technical problems" and a string of cancelled trains is why I ended up driving from Freiburg to Itzehoe. Complete bollocks!

@@rallymaniac92 My favourite is "due to delays in the operational process..." - we are late because we are late :D

These people are morons chasing unicorn farts. But hey, whatever makes you feel good.

I think what this hypothesis actually DOES describe, as well as the initial excitement, is the mounting desperation to explain the dark energy problem in any way they can. There's been ZERO detections of anything outside the Standard Model in terms of particles, The scary possibility is that astrophysics measurements have a fundamental flaw no one has discovered yet, and that could be something simple that's been overlooked. A relativistic effect over time and distance no one considered or anticipated... OR that there IS a serious flaw in the entire Big Bang theory itself. And since no one has any other explanation, that would be a staggering blow.

this maybe universal to all bodies in the universe, if the expanding earth hypothesis holds some weight under certain conditions.

It could just be yet another exo-boob.. The idea of black holes destroying mass as well as attracting it makes a lot more sense to me, perhaps feeding on darkish matter (not necessarily a new particle, just a continuous but sparse mixture of ions end electrons we can't see).. mass destruction on a universe scale. I prefer the idea of black holes concentrating universe glue (that could just be matter) away from the rest of the universe. Perhaps both happen.

Fraser cains interview with the author of that paper is quite good, if you are interested. Sabine should watch it. Its far from certain, the authors know that and are not crackpots, but it is plausible. My 2 cents.

@@deltalima6703Thank you for the reference. This seems to be a topic that requires more information from the source on what was actually meant and less intermediate filtering. It seems like some necessary extra words were filtered out.

​@@deltalima6703 Sabine should NOT watch it. She's read the paper and has given you her conclusion.

Bruh, it's just a big rock, no need to get attached to it 17 years after it was reclassified

@@Lucas__C nope justice for Pluto 😂. Make Pluto planet again.

She needs to do herself a favor though, tell MAGA Muskrat to lose her number, him calling her all the time isn't a good look.

So you mean, the status of Pluto is another sign for her rebellious mind? I have to think about it

@@michaelfried3123 ?, Yo what?, I am not even from USA. That was just a Pluto joke.

That's not what is being proposed. Where there is an existing rail link it makes more sense to sweat that asset. E.g. WLG to PMR

Here, here ! ✔

They're right they're just looking at the wrong back holes. We need better gravitational wave visibility to solve this.

Tehom: Which is why for such ideas, evidence from experiments is critical before the ideas are just accepted as true. And for some ideas like (as I understand it) superstring theory, it can be difficult to have good experiments to prove things.

I read two reviews about their paper, then tried to read the paper itself (I am not a cosmologist!). And yeah, that's how their paper starts, except they call it coupling, which sounds more tangible, so it must be true. Then leaps of logic, like black holes contain (some) vacuum energy, and someone years ago theorized vacuum energy black holes, and these "vacuum energy black holes" "couple" to the expansion of the universe, so: We have the answer!! I didn't see any evidence of a source of energy for all this, which is the real question behind dark energy. Where is this vacuum energy coming from, beyond what we already know, to make up ~ 75% of the total energy in the universe? Best I can figure is that there must be lots of vacuum energy black holes out there sweeping the cosmos and scooping up vacuum energy (while, somehow not draining off the energy of the universe, but somehow expanding it). Or maybe this new type of black hole just takes in regular stuff, converts it to vacuum energy, magically multiplies it, and output this multiplied energy as dark energy? Oh, did I mention that they state at the start that current models of the universe don't model the growth of black holes well - i.e., actual black holes are bigger than current models project. So they don't correlate ("couple") well to the expansion of the universe. Well, duh! That's a big surprise. Models that we know to be insufficient are actually insufficient when tested for insufficiency! My head was spinning after a couple of paragraphs. I concluded that this was all way over my head, or so off the wall that even a layperson could identify it as off the wall.

I found the video with an interview with the author, and my opinion has not improved. It's correlation, correlation all the way down, with no source mentioned. Comment the interviewee makes at the end "the universe is expanding, so dark energy is being created". Which amounts to saying "we don't know where dark energy is coming from". Ok, now their theory: We can't explain the growth of black holes. But that growth is highly correlated with the expansion of the universe, therefore with dark energy. So we propose that black holes are composed of dark energy (which at one point he says = vacuum energy). Basically, what goes into black holes gets converted to dark energy, no singularity at the core, deSitter space etc. So as black holes grow with this dark energy through this new type of core it feeds the expansion of the universe. So - we can't explain how black holes have gotten so big, but their size is correlated with expansion of the universe. But they never propose a source for how black holes got this big (which is essential for their theory to work). And it obviously a new complicated mechanism which destroys our current concept of black holes. And wait, black holes do all this (expand the universe with dark energy while still containing that energy and not getting any smaller)?? So they are a magical funnel duplicator which converts ordinary matter and energy to dark energy, duplicates it and expands the universe with it? Because, correlation?? (and yes he says correlation a lot - coupling was just a magic word used in the paper to make it sound more like a substantial thing). But please, go and watch that video interview yourselves, and reach your own conclusions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--8CIUzPkigQ.html&ab_channel=FraserCain

Just imagine the halt modern physics is at, when the great latest physics news, are so obvious science, that the everyday man can predict.

Try her newsletter. I am guessing that they are referenced there.

A similar technique works with photons.

i can imagine how difficult it is to form correct soundwave patterns in environment with forming object.

@@Andrius319 Quite! It takes extremely complex 4D applied mathematics. It is simplified that one does not require the relativistic dimension.

@@Andrius319 We have the solutions for the wave equations. But this isn't the simple case. There are two problems. İt's hard to create exact boundary conditions practically. You need to consider more parameters. The other problem is that there are two different substances. Depending on the properties the waves could go through particles, could be reflected (particles create new waves) or a mix of both. Or let me say it like this, i know what i am talking about. I am not an expert, but at least i know how to solve wave equations with boundary conditions.

@@Andrius319 Oh are you talking about my second idea? Oh boy that's infinitely easier to solve. The particles are collected in the valleys of waves. So if we take a 2d surface that's not a big deal. İn 3d it gets a little harder.

Sure. I wonder how much energy it will take and how much seawater must be processed to take 20 billion tons of CO2 out of the oceans every year, and then turn it into dry ice, and then sequester that ice underground somewhere forever.

@@LcdDrmr Why bother? We have other uses for it.

@@waynesworldofsci-tech Of course, I was addressing it in the context of the video, as a way of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yeah the dark energy idea becomes even more pathetic when we look at the other observations which challenge the standard model of cosmology using actual observations and an experimental falsification test constructed by Elis and Baldwin 1984. The test is simple in that if the CMB dipole is purely kinematic which is necessary for the CMB dipole to not falsify any and all forms of the cosmological principal within the observable universe then the dipole on the sky for cosmologically distant sources (i.e. after removing local clustering effects) should be identical to that of the CMB regardless of its actual distance. If you have followed this channel for a while you might remember that this was tested by Nathan Secrest et al 2021 using 1.36 million quasars and shown to be more than twice the magnitude of the CMB dipole and thus a 4.9 sigma discrepancy with less than a 1 in 2 million odds of being a statistical fluke. If you saw the results a few weeks ago independent analysis has now verified the results and moreover consequently raised the discrepancy to 5.7 sigma significance. This matters because independent work has long shown that the measurements attributed to "dark energy" are trivially inevitable within any initially expanding and sufficiently large inhomogeneous and anisotropic solutions to the Einstein field equations. Thus by allowing the metric to evolve without artificial constraints of linearity to the allowable behavior of the Einstein field equations made for reasons of convenience we can completely eliminate the whole "dark energy" component in a manner similar to how allowing orbits to be elliptical in a heliocentric frame allowed one to naturally reproduce observed planetary motions without the need of multiple epicycles to force fit geocentric models to observations. And that is moreover before you factor in all the other "crises in cosmology" that have gotten ignored like the axis of evil alignment of the CMB dipole with the higher multipoles (quadrupole, octupole etc.), the Hubble tension, the now many dozens of structures in the universe to large to exist under the current cosmological model, observational constraints on the assembly of the local group incompatible with the standard cosmological model of cosmology, or the actual fing Einstein field equations which if analyzed thoroughly have been mathematically proven that in an initially expanding universe the cosmological principal is mathematically invalid due to requiring logical and or causal violations,(or in simpler words you can't make any mathematically valid nontrivial model where large scale isotropy is preserved but local structure is allowed to form as no such solutions exist within the set of all possible solutions to the full Einstein field equations). I could go on but really I just wanted to point out there is a huge and ever growing number of reasons to doubt the validity of the whole cosmological standard model. For example in denser regions of spacetime you will naturally get more redshift from the perspective of a distant observer independent of the distance hence both of the observed correlations can be explained fairly trivially if you look at the actual theory of general relativity instead of the drastically simplified through a questionable lack of logic and wishful thinking where one assumes that such over densities and underdensities should average out. (That argument also would predict that strong gravitational lensing of clusters of galaxies is impossible just to point out the fallacious nature of such an argument)

You are both wrong. Sabine has been wrong about many things...

@@stevenverrall4527 Your scientific hypothesis that Sabine has been wrong about many things is not supported by the evidence because no evidence thereof is provided.

I talked about thorium reactors here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0kahih8RT1k.html and at the moment I don't have much more to say than that.

​@@SabineHossenfelder fantastic, I will share these with my daughters in the hope they follow you into physics. Or at least, nuclear engineering.

@@SabineHossenfelder Thanks for your response. I am interested in more details about thorium reactors. They say that they cannot be used to make a bomb, why? They say that can't be used to make a dirty bomb, why? That thorium reactors are safer in emergency situations, why? An end of life thorium reactor is easier to deal with, why? The isotopes produced in thorium reactors have shorter half-lives, is this true? I know that thorium was not of military use in the 1940's so research and development was not funded. Is this the only reason that we don't use thorium today? It seems that there are only thorium enthusiasts and everyone else who ignore them. Thus, no detailed discussion.

I'm a retired forester, and I think we patented that name a long time ago, but thanks for the lol!

@@quark-soup prove it

@@quark-soup I'm not aware of whether dark energy and dark matter fall outside the scientific method, but those claims need references

@@quark-soup 🤔 You can use maths to prove that for example √-1 is outside the real numbers...

yes, that baffled me too.

Same...

Fraser is "interesting". One the one hand, he presents professionally and has impressively deep knowledge of his topic. On the other hand, he seems easily taken in by new ideas. The wonderful YT algorithm offered that video to me but I thought "not likely" and gave it a miss. Each to their own.

@@AndrewBlucher When talking about a 100+ year old problem that no one has even an inkling of an idea of how to solve, discarding new ideas will never get you an answer.

@@BenjaminCronce Which 100+ year old problem is that? Dark matter can be traced 1933, dark energy to 1998. People come up with new ideas all the time. The questions they need to answer are what is the mechanism, is it testable, does it make predictions? Take string theory. Has it actually produced any results? Apart from beautiful math and lots of papers?

I'm super excited to defeat the local curvature of spacetime's efforts to mess with my ankles by lying on my sofa. The methode champagne's a great excitement magnifier too.

Enters Anticlimax into The Critical Point : " Only fans or I report to... hwhatever..."

It's a typo, Germany uses µg as well.

Thank you for the µ. :-)

What mechanism would increase the mass of a black hole? Time dilation has nothing to do with it.

@@tonywells6990 A more intuitive way of thinking about this is that it has more to do with the observations which are used to infer indirectly the mass of the black hole based on the Doppler shift period of material accreting onto and or orbiting around it. If the rate of time passing is slowed down by local time dilation then you will observe a broadened spectrum suggesting that the distance of the accretion disk and thus consequently the mass of the black hole is larger than it would otherwise be. Hence the black hole appears to be more massive (and older if we assume all the observed redshift is purely due to distance rather than partly due to curvature of spacetime) to a distant observer than would otherwise be expected.

@@Dragrath1 And no evidence of any of that.

No, because space only expands on scales large enough that gravity doesn't counteract dark energy. Black hole is not a large enough scale.

As Guy correctly says, whether or not an object expands with the universe depends on how strongly it is held together by gravity. Black holes are held together too strongly, they don't expand. Neither do, for that matter, stars or planets or atoms.

@@SabineHossenfelder Where does my belly fit into the scheme of things?

​@@alankott3129 darc beer energy?

By definition, black holes don't grow. They are singularities. The event horizon of a black hole does grow as it's gravity increases but the black hole itself is infinitely small no matter how much stuff it eats.

😂

I don't know, therefore dark "X". 🙃

"Move on"? In what way is conducting extensive research "moving on"? Try not speaking on things that you clearly know nothing about..

Uneducated statement

@@pooperhead1023 he is not lying, my maths lecturer worked on dark energy, he said the same thing. Not trying to discredit scientists though.

If you don't find a way to multiply your money, one day you'll wake up and realize that the money you thought you had is gone. Investment is key.

l agree with you mate. Investing is the key to maintaining your financial longevity. And not just any investment but an investment with guaranteed profitability.

@@economistasincero2780 My investment manager is Mrs Jennifer Allen , she is an expert when it comes to investing that produces a good percentage profit rate.

@@drmarkalexander4142 how do i get started

@@economistasincero2780 she's on what" sap👇