# Is dark energy a fudge factor?

An episode of [Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1436616330), 8 Sep 2026, 55 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/f5d5fac6-77be-47e6-9aee-ae32006cd8c3/75260361-63c6-48dd-95d0-b4bf004f931e/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=b26cbbeb-86eb-4b97-9b34-ae32006cd8d6

Daniel and Kelly talk about whether physicists are trying to understand the expansion of the Universe, or pull the cosmic wool over everyone's eyes. Also, horse milk comes up. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:07] Speaker 1: What's going on with the universe? First, we thought it
[0:11] Speaker 1: was static, a single galaxy, floating in space forever. Then
[0:15] Speaker 1: we learned it's actually expanding. Everything out there is running
[0:19] Speaker 1: away from us. More recently, we figured out it's actually accelerating.
[0:24] Speaker 1: What's happening? This is one of the biggest questions in
[0:28] Speaker 1: modern physics, and the whole area of studies loosely called
[0:31] Speaker 1: dark energy. which is also, confusingly sometimes, the name used
[0:36] Speaker 1: to refer to the leading hypothesis for what's happening. But
[0:39] Speaker 1: do physicists know what they're doing here? Is it physics,
[0:42] Speaker 1: or is it just a bit of wonky math they
[0:45] Speaker 1: stick in to make their precious equations work out? We're
[0:48] Speaker 1: going to dive deep into all of that and hear
[0:50] Speaker 1: my rants on the subject, plus we'll have the usual
[0:53] Speaker 1: hilarious digressions all on today's episode of Daniel and Kelly's
[0:58] Speaker 1: Extraordinarily Dark Universe.
[1:00] Speaker 2: Intro Hello, I'm Kelly Wienersmith.
[1:14] Speaker 3: I study parasites and space, and this is the second
[1:17] Speaker 3: Fudge Factor episode we've done.
[1:19] Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist, and I love
[1:22] Speaker 1: thinking about how aliens imagine the universe. And I suspect
[1:27] Speaker 1: that there are alien physicists out there like me who
[1:29] Speaker 1: don't like fudge.
[1:30] Speaker 3: Oh, wait, we've talked about why you don't like fudge before.
[1:33] Speaker 3: So two things. First of all, when I saw the
[1:35] Speaker 3: outline you sent me, I thought, oh, Daniel didn't realize
[1:38] Speaker 3: he sent me the same outline twice. And then I
[1:41] Speaker 3: was like, oh, wait, this is different. Where do you
[1:43] Speaker 3: think the phrase fudge factor came from?
[1:45] Speaker 1: Oh, that's a great question. I'm going to speculate without
[1:50] Speaker 1: a chance to research about the history of this word.
[1:53] Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, in general, like to fudge something,
[1:56] Speaker 1: means to mess it up or to fake it, right?
[1:58] Speaker 1: And I wonder if that came from somebody like me
[2:01] Speaker 1: who doesn't like fudge or there's another sort of scatological
[2:05] Speaker 1: implication of fudge.
[2:06] Speaker 3: Yep, that occurred to me. That occurred to me.
[2:08] Speaker 1: And so maybe that's a connection, like, oh, you fudged it.
[2:12] Speaker 2: I don't know.
[2:13] Speaker 1: That's a great question. What do you think?
[2:15] Speaker 3: I have no idea. I also, you know, as a biologist,
[2:18] Speaker 3: the scatological connection was made in my brain, but I
[2:22] Speaker 3: didn't bother looking it up. I just thought I'll, you know,
[2:25] Speaker 3: I'll ask Daniel. Are you looking it up?
[2:27] Speaker 1: I'm asking the robot. Let's see. So, based on my
[2:33] Speaker 1: internet research, the Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins says that
[2:37] Speaker 1: the term fudge expresses annoyance and is traced to the
[2:41] Speaker 1: 18th century, originating from another word, fudge, which is sort
[2:46] Speaker 1: of meant to fit.
[2:48] Speaker 3: So then where did the word fudge as a delicious
[2:51] Speaker 3: treat come from? Right.
[2:54] Speaker 1: And apparently fudge, the not so delicious treat, is characterized
[2:58] Speaker 1: as like an accident. And so somebody was trying to
[3:01] Speaker 1: make something else and they fudged it and they made fudge.
[3:06] Speaker 3: Oh, interesting. We learned something new today.
[3:09] Speaker 1: Yes. And we unnecessarily went for the scatological reference.
[3:13] Speaker 2: Well.
[3:13] Speaker 1: On brand for us. Exactly. Yes.
[3:16] Speaker 4: Yes.
[3:17] Speaker 3: Well, we've previously talked about how dark matter is not
[3:22] Speaker 3: a fudge factor. Or would you still say dark matter
[3:25] Speaker 3: is a fudge factor?
[3:26] Speaker 1: Oh, my God. Did you listen to the episode, Kelly?
[3:28] Speaker 1: The whole point of the episode was dark matter is
[3:31] Speaker 1: not a fudge factor.
[3:32] Speaker 2: Okay.
[3:32] Speaker 1: And so, I mean, let me give some context here.
[3:35] Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot we know about the universe
[3:36] Speaker 1: and we do our best to communicate it. But there's
[3:38] Speaker 1: also a lot of misinformation out there about what we
[3:41] Speaker 1: know and how it works. And a lot of folks
[3:43] Speaker 1: out there under the impression that dark matter specifically is
[3:48] Speaker 1: just like a number we plop in the equations to
[3:50] Speaker 1: make the math work because we're stuck on some dogma
[3:54] Speaker 1: and we'll never give it up, even if we have
[3:56] Speaker 1: to insert ridiculous fudge factors in it to get it
[3:58] Speaker 1: to describe the universe, which is not a fair characterization
[4:02] Speaker 1: of dark matter and also avoids the very rich, fascinating
[4:07] Speaker 1: field that has surfaced like 10 independent lines of evidence
[4:11] Speaker 1: for this thing we call dark matter. So I was
[4:14] Speaker 1: inspired to do an episode contrasting this like popular science
[4:18] Speaker 1: misinformation with the reality of the research of dark matter.
[4:21] Speaker 3: I just like riling you up.
[4:25] Speaker 1: Well, button pushed successfully. And in that episode, I made
[4:29] Speaker 1: a contrast between dark matter, which is a thing and
[4:33] Speaker 1: we have a lot of evidence for it and definitely
[4:35] Speaker 1: not a fudge factor. And I used the cosmological constant,
[4:38] Speaker 1: which we'll talk about in more detail today, as an
[4:40] Speaker 1: evidence of something which kind of is a fudge factor.
[4:43] Speaker 1: And a bunch of people wrote in and they were like, wait,
[4:45] Speaker 1: are you saying dark energy is a fudge factor? And
[4:48] Speaker 1: so I thought, all right, we need to do an
[4:49] Speaker 1: episode on is dark energy a fudge factor? Not as
[4:53] Speaker 1: a repeat, not as a rehash, but as an even
[4:55] Speaker 1: deeper dive into the subject of cosmic fudge factors.
[4:59] Speaker 3: Well, I love fudge and I love learning about whether
[5:03] Speaker 3: or not something is a fudge factor. So I'm sure
[5:04] Speaker 3: we're going to have a lot of fun today.
[5:06] Speaker 1: All right. I hope we don't fudge it up.
[5:08] Speaker 3: Oh, watch it, Daniel. We don't want Matt to have
[5:11] Speaker 3: to start dropping a bunch of bleeps into this episode.
[5:15] Speaker 1: Fage is my new favorite archaic term. I'm going to
[5:18] Speaker 1: use it everywhere.
[5:19] Speaker 3: I'm going to work on incorporating it into my life
[5:21] Speaker 3: as well. I'm a little worried about what might happen
[5:24] Speaker 3: if I use it in front of my seventh grader
[5:25] Speaker 3: and then she uses it at school and slips up
[5:28] Speaker 3: a little bit. So, all right. Well, we did what
[5:31] Speaker 3: we always do here at DKEU. And the first thing
[5:34] Speaker 3: we do when we have an interesting question is we
[5:36] Speaker 3: share it with the extraordinaries.
[5:38] Speaker 1: That's right. Research step number one is ask our audience.
[5:42] Speaker 3: That's right. And so we asked our audience, is dark
[5:44] Speaker 3: energy a fudge factor? And if you want to be
[5:47] Speaker 3: on the list of people who get our questions that
[5:49] Speaker 3: are our first step of research, write to us at
[5:52] Speaker 3: questions at danielandkelly.org. And you can get added to the
[5:55] Speaker 3: list of folks who get our emails.
[5:57] Speaker 1: So think about it for a moment before you hear
[5:59] Speaker 1: these answers. Do you think dark energy is a fudge factor?
[6:03] Speaker 1: Here's what folks had to say. It doesn't mean that
[6:06] Speaker 1: it's not real.
[6:08] Speaker 5: Just we don't know what it is or how it
[6:10] Speaker 5: is yet.
[6:11] Speaker 2: Well, I still don't really know what dark energy is.
[6:14] Speaker 2: So I don't know.
[6:16] Speaker 1: It seems maybe it's more of a thing than dark matter.
[6:21] Speaker 2: I don't know.
[6:22] Speaker 4: I have no idea.
[6:24] Speaker 1: I think yes, until we know what it is.
[6:27] Speaker 3: So I'm also a barista in my other job, and
[6:30] Speaker 3: dark energy definitely sounds like a fudgy sort of latte.
[6:34] Speaker 3: I would totally drink that.
[6:36] Speaker 1: I don't think so.
[6:38] Speaker 5: Something is creating space.
[6:41] Speaker 2: Yes.
[6:42] Speaker 1: We don't know what it is. We don't even know
[6:43] Speaker 1: if it's a constant, so... Dark energy is not a
[6:46] Speaker 1: fudge factor.
[6:48] Speaker 3: Yes, I think it is.
[6:49] Speaker 5: Your Honor, I refer you to the previous case of
[6:52] Speaker 5: dark matter and whether it's a fudge or not. in
[6:55] Speaker 5: which I responded, it isn't. So therefore, I must also
[6:58] Speaker 5: respond that dark energy is not a fudge either.
[7:02] Speaker 4: We don't know the underlying mechanism with why it happens.
[7:06] Speaker 4: So I mean, to me, that seems a lot like
[7:08] Speaker 4: dark energy. Like it could be one forces behind there,
[7:11] Speaker 4: or it could be three forces.
[7:12] Speaker 5: I do not think it is a fudge factor, but
[7:14] Speaker 5: I have no idea how to classify it. Dark matter
[7:17] Speaker 5: is not a fudge factor. I think dark energy might be.
[7:22] Speaker 3: All right, so if I remember correctly from the Dark
[7:24] Speaker 3: Matter episode, there was a lot of like.
[7:27] Speaker 2: Oh, I don't know.
[7:29] Speaker 3: I think people were a little bit less willing to
[7:31] Speaker 3: call it a fudge factor. It looks like there's a
[7:33] Speaker 3: little bit more willingness to lean into fudge factoriness when
[7:37] Speaker 3: it comes to dark energy.
[7:39] Speaker 1: Some people here are standing up for dark energy. You know,
[7:41] Speaker 1: an empty space has energy, etc. But yeah, definitely a
[7:45] Speaker 1: lot more skepticism here. And maybe we'll circle back at
[7:48] Speaker 1: the end of the episode and see if that was justified.
[7:50] Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I think it shows that they've been listening
[7:52] Speaker 3: to what you've been saying. So, all right, let's, you know,
[7:55] Speaker 3: we talked a little bit about the etymology of the
[7:58] Speaker 3: phrase fudge factor.
[7:59] Speaker 4: Yeah.
[8:00] Speaker 3: But let's go ahead and dig into, like, what does
[8:03] Speaker 3: a scientist mean when they say fudge factor? What is
[8:06] Speaker 3: the scientific definition of this term?
[8:09] Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I think fudge factor is used in two ways. One,
[8:12] Speaker 1: it's used as an insult or a smear, you know,
[8:15] Speaker 1: to suggest you have a theory that's not really serious
[8:19] Speaker 1: or interesting. You're making the theory work, even though it's
[8:22] Speaker 1: not right. You've fudged it. You know, and I think
[8:25] Speaker 1: that's the essential implication or accusation in this popular misinformation
[8:31] Speaker 1: to say that scientists have an idea and it doesn't
[8:35] Speaker 1: really work. And it's not even very convincing because all
[8:38] Speaker 1: they've done is tweak the numbers to make it work, right?
[8:41] Speaker 1: They've added something to the equation, something mathematical. That's the
[8:45] Speaker 1: other implication that this is purely a math trick to
[8:49] Speaker 1: and not something physical, not something real, not something that
[8:51] Speaker 1: reflects how the universe actually works, because the equations, if
[8:56] Speaker 1: you left them alone, would predict something else, and so
[8:58] Speaker 1: you had to add a fudge factor. Like if I
[9:01] Speaker 1: had some mathematical equation that predicted Kelly's height, and it
[9:07] Speaker 1: predicted three feet, and then we were like, well, that's wrong,
[9:10] Speaker 1: and I'm just going to add a number to it.
[9:11] Speaker 1: I've fudged it so that it gets the right answer.
[9:15] Speaker 1: You'd say like, hey, your Kelly height prediction equation is
[9:18] Speaker 1: garbage because it's got a big fudge factor and it
[9:21] Speaker 1: needs a fudge factor to work. And therefore, it's not
[9:24] Speaker 1: any good.
[9:24] Speaker 3: But would you learn something if like, you know, if
[9:26] Speaker 3: you said, OK, I'm going to predict that Kelly is
[9:29] Speaker 3: three feet tall and then I'm going to add a
[9:31] Speaker 3: fudge factor. But over time, every time. the fudge factor
[9:34] Speaker 3: ended up being the same value. Would that hint at
[9:38] Speaker 3: the realness of the importance of that mathematical constant or something?
[9:42] Speaker 3: Are fudge factors a way of placeholding? There's something we
[9:47] Speaker 3: don't understand, but if it's always the same value, then
[9:49] Speaker 3: maybe we're onto something important?
[9:51] Speaker 2: Maybe.
[9:51] Speaker 1: I think that you have your finger on something useful, though,
[9:54] Speaker 1: which is that science is iterative. And often we can
[9:58] Speaker 1: have fudge factors on the first attempt. Sometimes a fudge
[10:02] Speaker 1: factor isn't a way to lie to people and mislead
[10:06] Speaker 1: and to try to pull the wool over your eyes
[10:09] Speaker 1: and get you to believe our theory. It's just a
[10:11] Speaker 1: way to say, we don't know how this works. Let's
[10:14] Speaker 1: try something. And if it doesn't quite work the first time,
[10:17] Speaker 1: we'll insert some fudge factors which we'll then intend to
[10:21] Speaker 1: come back and revisit and improve on. Like, as you say,
[10:24] Speaker 1: if my prediction for Kelly's height is three feet too short,
[10:27] Speaker 1: and for Zach's height is three feet too short, and
[10:29] Speaker 1: for Katrina's height is three feet too short, I'm gonna
[10:31] Speaker 1: go back and look at my prediction and be like,
[10:33] Speaker 1: why am I systematically three feet too short? What is
[10:35] Speaker 1: wrong with my theory? And then I'm gonna come back
[10:38] Speaker 1: with another theory that I hope is more accurate, right?
[10:41] Speaker 1: And so in that sense, a fudge factor is not
[10:44] Speaker 1: always bad. It just sometimes means you're in the early days.
[10:48] Speaker 1: You know, like say, for example, you're walking through your
[10:51] Speaker 1: backyard and you see like elephant footprints, right? And so
[10:54] Speaker 1: you're like, okay, well, I'm going to assume there's probably
[10:56] Speaker 1: some elephants. I don't have direct evidence yet, but I
[10:59] Speaker 1: have a theory that there are elephants walking through my backyard.
[11:02] Speaker 1: If you come back later and you find like elephant
[11:04] Speaker 1: poop and tusk marks and you smell elephants, you're like, okay, yeah,
[11:07] Speaker 1: the theory is probably right. But if you don't, or
[11:09] Speaker 1: if you come back and you see like cow poop
[11:11] Speaker 1: and you smell horses and the evidence doesn't really come together, then,
[11:15] Speaker 1: you know, you got to adapt your ideas. And so-
[11:18] Speaker 1: It's okay to have initial guesses that aren't totally solid,
[11:22] Speaker 1: even sometimes just numbers that you put in there that
[11:25] Speaker 1: you don't yet know how they work until you later
[11:28] Speaker 1: do figure out why they work. It just reflects that
[11:31] Speaker 1: you're not done sometimes.
[11:33] Speaker 3: I find myself trying to figure out how many people
[11:36] Speaker 3: there are on this planet that could sniff the difference
[11:39] Speaker 3: between an elephant, a cow, and a horse. There must
[11:43] Speaker 3: be someone who works at a zoo who can do that.
[11:46] Speaker 1: I think I can do that.
[11:47] Speaker 2: Oh, yeah?
[11:47] Speaker 1: I've spent enough time around horses with my daughter that
[11:50] Speaker 1: this is a very definite horsey smell, for sure.
[11:54] Speaker 3: But is it different than a cow poop smell?
[11:57] Speaker 2: Oh, yeah.
[11:57] Speaker 3: Because they're all eating grass. Okay, all right.
[11:59] Speaker 1: Well, I mean, you know how different animals all have
[12:02] Speaker 1: cheeses that taste different, right? Like goat cheese tastes different
[12:06] Speaker 1: from cow cheese.
[12:07] Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
[12:07] Speaker 1: You ever notice how goats smell different from cows? And
[12:10] Speaker 1: how goat smell is sort of related to the way
[12:13] Speaker 1: goat cheese tastes.
[12:14] Speaker 2: I love it.
[12:15] Speaker 1: There's just like a goatiness.
[12:16] Speaker 3: Yeah. And the goat milk has a bit of a
[12:18] Speaker 3: goatiness too.
[12:19] Speaker 1: Yes.
[12:19] Speaker 2: I love it all.
[12:21] Speaker 3: All right. Point made.
[12:25] Speaker 1: I've never had horse cheese before. But I'm pretty sure
[12:27] Speaker 1: if somebody made horse cheese, I could be like, this
[12:30] Speaker 1: is pretty horsey.
[12:31] Speaker 5: You know what?
[12:31] Speaker 3: I shouldn't have said, eh, because I do think there
[12:33] Speaker 3: are cultures who do a lot with horse milk.
[12:36] Speaker 4: Yeah.
[12:36] Speaker 3: Just I don't happen to have come from one. I see.
[12:38] Speaker 1: You've never had horse milk yourself.
[12:40] Speaker 3: I have never had horse milk myself. I have a
[12:42] Speaker 3: friend who has had fermented horse milk. It was not
[12:44] Speaker 3: his bag. But, you know, it's the bag of many
[12:48] Speaker 3: other people.
[12:49] Speaker 1: Well, rather than pulling us back from this digression, I'm
[12:51] Speaker 1: going to take us even deeper and ask you, what
[12:53] Speaker 1: is the most interesting kind of milk you've ever had?
[12:56] Speaker 3: Interesting, I mean, I don't think, I haven't had that
[12:58] Speaker 3: much milk variety.
[12:59] Speaker 1: I have had- You've never had like beaver milk?
[13:02] Speaker 3: Have you?
[13:02] Speaker 1: No. But you like animals. You have like 65,000 different
[13:07] Speaker 1: kinds of things in your farm. Who knows?
[13:09] Speaker 3: Doesn't mean I'm suckling all the animals that come across.
[13:16] Speaker 3: We do joke about, you know, should we try pig
[13:19] Speaker 3: milk and get pigs or something? But no, I've had
[13:21] Speaker 3: sheep milk, goat milk, and cow milk. And I think
[13:24] Speaker 3: those are all the milks I've had.
[13:27] Speaker 1: I have had pony milk, actually.
[13:29] Speaker 2: Oh, when?
[13:30] Speaker 1: Not horse milk. Yeah, there's a little organic store near
[13:33] Speaker 1: where we used to live when we were at CERN,
[13:36] Speaker 1: and they sell pony milk. And I was always like,
[13:39] Speaker 1: what is this? We have to try it in these
[13:41] Speaker 1: tiny little bottles. And so, yeah, I actually have had
[13:44] Speaker 1: pony milk. I forgot about that.
[13:45] Speaker 3: Wait, so what's the difference between pony milk and horse milk?
[13:48] Speaker 3: I just think of ponies as young horses.
[13:50] Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, Kelly, what?
[13:52] Speaker 3: Okay, you tell me, horse guy.
[13:54] Speaker 2: What's the difference?
[13:56] Speaker 1: How far off topic are we now? Really far. All right,
[13:59] Speaker 1: we're going to have to bring this back to tell
[14:01] Speaker 1: a story about making fudge with pony milk or something. Ponies... Okay. So...
[14:12] Speaker 1: Ponies are not baby horses. That's a foal, right? A
[14:15] Speaker 1: baby horse is a foal. A pony is a distinct,
[14:19] Speaker 1: fully grown, smaller equine, right? So like a mature pony
[14:23] Speaker 1: is like five feet tall at the shoulder, while a
[14:26] Speaker 1: mature horse is much taller than that. So it's sort
[14:30] Speaker 1: of like a, you know, it's like a short version
[14:32] Speaker 1: of the horse.
[14:33] Speaker 3: But they're the same species, right?
[14:34] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[14:35] Speaker 1: Yeah, they can interbreed and their offspring are fertile, but
[14:38] Speaker 1: it's sort of like, you know, the difference between a
[14:40] Speaker 1: Chihuahua and a Great Dane.
[14:41] Speaker 2: Okay.
[14:42] Speaker 5: Right?
[14:42] Speaker 1: It's like a Chihuahua is not a baby version of
[14:45] Speaker 1: a Great Dane, right? It's a smaller kind of dog.
[14:48] Speaker 3: All right.
[14:49] Speaker 2: All right. All right.
[14:49] Speaker 3: Well, thank you for this biology lesson, physicist.
[14:54] Speaker 1: All right. All because of my elephant example.
[14:56] Speaker 3: My biology knowledge is a fudge factor. And let's move
[15:00] Speaker 3: back to physics.
[15:01] Speaker 1: The point I was trying to make is that often
[15:04] Speaker 1: we don't understand something or we understand things partially. And
[15:07] Speaker 1: what you want to do the first time is make
[15:10] Speaker 1: simplifying assumptions and fill in numbers you don't know and
[15:13] Speaker 1: then come back and revisit it. And so you can
[15:16] Speaker 1: dig in and understand it better. And so maybe you
[15:19] Speaker 1: want to call that a fudge factor while you're still
[15:22] Speaker 1: in the process of figuring it out, but not in
[15:24] Speaker 1: a negative sense, not in a misleading sense. We're open,
[15:28] Speaker 1: we're honest about what we're doing and the status of
[15:31] Speaker 1: our understandings. I think fudge factor has too much of
[15:34] Speaker 1: a negative connotation for me to say that a first
[15:37] Speaker 1: draft of a theory, even with numbers you don't understand,
[15:40] Speaker 1: has fudge factors in it.
[15:42] Speaker 3: What would you call it instead?
[15:44] Speaker 1: I'd say unexplained constants. For example, we measure the coefficient
[15:49] Speaker 1: of friction. When two surfaces rub together, how much force
[15:52] Speaker 1: is there on those surfaces because of their friction? And
[15:56] Speaker 1: if you didn't understand how friction works, that it's due
[15:59] Speaker 1: to the microscopic grabbing and dragging- of the little features
[16:03] Speaker 1: of those surfaces. You just measure it as a number
[16:06] Speaker 1: and say, well, that's what it is. And then if
[16:08] Speaker 1: you have a microscope, you can zoom in. You can see, oh,
[16:11] Speaker 1: Teflon is a tiny coefficient of friction because it has
[16:14] Speaker 1: almost no surfaces. And sandpaper has a high coefficient of
[16:18] Speaker 1: friction because look at all these features. And so then
[16:21] Speaker 1: you can reveal it and you can even calculate it
[16:23] Speaker 1: from those images. And so that's an example of like
[16:26] Speaker 1: you start with a fudge factor and then you go
[16:27] Speaker 1: off and you explain it, you understand it. And so
[16:30] Speaker 1: it's not always a bad thing. Sometimes it's just a
[16:32] Speaker 1: first step towards a deeper understanding.
[16:35] Speaker 3: So before we take a break, I guess I want
[16:36] Speaker 3: to like jump the gun a little bit and know,
[16:39] Speaker 3: is dark energy a like, this is a first step.
[16:43] Speaker 3: This is the constant we're using to hold in place.
[16:45] Speaker 3: Or is it a lot, are we farther than that?
[16:48] Speaker 1: Oh, it's so much more nuanced than that, Kelly. You're
[16:49] Speaker 1: going to have to listen to the rest of the episode. Sorry.
[16:52] Speaker 2: Oh man. All right.
[16:52] Speaker 3: Well, let's take a break so I can work up
[16:54] Speaker 3: the energy and we'll be right back. all right we're
[17:17] Speaker 3: back and we're discussing whether or not dark energy is
[17:20] Speaker 3: a fudge factor so daniel catch us up what is
[17:23] Speaker 3: what what do we think dark energy is Yeah, it's.
[17:26] Speaker 1: Important to separate dark energy into two different categories, which
[17:30] Speaker 1: are very closely related, but also really importantly different. One
[17:35] Speaker 1: is our observation that the universe is expanding and that
[17:39] Speaker 1: that expansion has been accelerating for the last five to
[17:44] Speaker 1: six billion years. So that's number one. Observation experimentally, and
[17:49] Speaker 1: we'll talk about in more detail, that the universe's expansion
[17:52] Speaker 1: is accelerating. Sometimes that's called dark energy. The other side
[17:57] Speaker 1: of it is our attempt theoretically to describe that, to
[18:00] Speaker 1: make sense of it, to either incorporate it into our
[18:02] Speaker 1: theories or to extend our theories to describe it. And
[18:06] Speaker 1: that involves something called the cosmological constant. And so those
[18:11] Speaker 1: are two big pieces of this concept of dark energy,
[18:15] Speaker 1: but it's important to keep them separate because one is
[18:17] Speaker 1: something we know, we measure, we see, and the other
[18:20] Speaker 1: are theoretical ideas that we're putting together to understand it.
[18:23] Speaker 3: Okay, so tell me more about how we know the
[18:25] Speaker 3: universe is expanding and how we measure this.
[18:28] Speaker 1: Yeah, so we've known that the universe is expanding for
[18:32] Speaker 1: more than 100 years. Before Hubble and Henrietta Leavitt, people
[18:36] Speaker 1: thought the universe was static. They thought, here we have
[18:39] Speaker 1: a galaxy and we're just sitting out here in space
[18:42] Speaker 1: and stars are stars and that's it. And they didn't
[18:45] Speaker 1: even know that there were other galaxies. And it wasn't
[18:48] Speaker 1: until Henrietta Leavitt came up with a way to measure
[18:51] Speaker 1: the distance to things in the sky that Otherwise, it's
[18:54] Speaker 1: hard to know, are you looking at something that's big
[18:57] Speaker 1: and bright and far away or something that's small and
[19:02] Speaker 1: dim and close? Those two things look similarly. Until Levitt
[19:06] Speaker 1: figured out how to use Cepheids, these variable stars, so
[19:09] Speaker 1: you can measure how their brightness changes. And by measuring
[19:13] Speaker 1: how their brightness changes, you can tell what their brightness
[19:15] Speaker 1: actually is. And then you can, from that, determine how
[19:18] Speaker 1: far away they are. So she came up with this
[19:21] Speaker 1: method and then Hubble used it. and discovered that, oh
[19:24] Speaker 1: my gosh, there's a bunch of stuff in the sky
[19:25] Speaker 1: that's not even in our galaxy. It looks like it
[19:28] Speaker 1: is because it's sort of mixed up there in the sky,
[19:31] Speaker 1: but it's actually really, really far away. And that was
[19:34] Speaker 1: the first observation that there's stuff outside our galaxy. There's
[19:37] Speaker 1: more than one galaxy in the universe, right? Mind-blowing realization.
[19:42] Speaker 1: At the same time, he discovered those galaxies are redshifted,
[19:46] Speaker 1: that they're moving away from us. So that's when we
[19:49] Speaker 1: went from the universe, is static to the universe is
[19:52] Speaker 1: expanding and everything is moving away from us.
[19:55] Speaker 3: That sounds like an exciting time to be alive and
[19:57] Speaker 3: be in science.
[19:58] Speaker 1: Yeah. And for like 80 years or so, that's how
[20:02] Speaker 1: we thought the universe worked. And the big question in
[20:04] Speaker 1: cosmology at the time was, Is that expansion going to
[20:08] Speaker 1: turn around? Is there enough gravity in the universe to
[20:10] Speaker 1: pull everything back together to make a big crunch? Or
[20:14] Speaker 1: is there not enough gravity in the universe and things
[20:16] Speaker 1: will slow down but keep drifting forever? Those are the
[20:21] Speaker 1: two options. Keep drifting forever and expanding or slow down,
[20:26] Speaker 1: turn around, and come back to a big crunch.
[20:28] Speaker 3: Oh boy, existential dread.
[20:30] Speaker 1: Yeah, and so to know whether it was going to
[20:31] Speaker 1: be like option A, drift forever, or option B, big crunch...
[20:36] Speaker 1: They had to make more precise measurements of the really
[20:38] Speaker 1: far away stuff to look like further back into the
[20:41] Speaker 1: history of the universe and see how those distances have
[20:43] Speaker 1: been changing with time to see, does it look like
[20:46] Speaker 1: it's going to turn over or does it look like
[20:48] Speaker 1: it's just going to keep spreading out? So they developed
[20:50] Speaker 1: a new way to measure distances, which are type 1a supernova.
[20:54] Speaker 1: These are stars that go supernova, they implode, but they're
[20:57] Speaker 1: a special kind of supernova. They're stars that didn't initially
[21:01] Speaker 1: go supernova. They just became white dwarfs. They didn't have
[21:04] Speaker 1: enough mass in them to go supernova. But then later,
[21:07] Speaker 1: they get fed extra stuff from their partners in a
[21:10] Speaker 1: binary system. And then they go over the threshold and
[21:13] Speaker 1: become supernova. And because of this particular way that they
[21:16] Speaker 1: do it, it's very easy to measure from how their
[21:19] Speaker 1: light curve goes, how bright they actually are, and therefore
[21:22] Speaker 1: how far away they are. So then we got this
[21:25] Speaker 1: extra candle that we could use to measure really, really
[21:28] Speaker 1: far away stuff. And then we had much more lever
[21:31] Speaker 1: arm on our fits to understand the whole history of expansion.
[21:34] Speaker 1: Because Cephids, these variable stars, tell you about closer up stuff.
[21:38] Speaker 1: And type 1 supernova are bright enough to tell you
[21:41] Speaker 1: about really far away, really far back in time, longer history.
[21:45] Speaker 2: Okay.
[21:45] Speaker 3: I think you lost me on the lever arm thing,
[21:46] Speaker 3: but then you summarized the point and I'm with you now.
[21:50] Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, the point of the lever arm is just
[21:51] Speaker 1: like you're trying to understand the trend and you want
[21:54] Speaker 1: to be able to predict it. Say, for example, you're
[21:56] Speaker 1: looking at like apple stock and you want to know
[21:58] Speaker 1: is it going to go up or is it going
[21:59] Speaker 1: to go down if you only have three days of
[22:01] Speaker 1: data it could go anywhere but if you have like
[22:03] Speaker 1: 50 years of data you can make a more confident
[22:06] Speaker 1: prediction and so you have a better lever arm you're
[22:09] Speaker 1: like theories are more constrained and so in order to
[22:12] Speaker 1: predict the future of the universe we had to look
[22:14] Speaker 1: deeper into the past and this was one of my
[22:16] Speaker 1: favorite moments in science it's around 2001 they made this
[22:20] Speaker 1: measurement And they asked the universe, okay, is it scenario
[22:24] Speaker 1: A that we're going to expand forever? Or is it
[22:26] Speaker 1: scenario B that we're going to come back and do
[22:28] Speaker 1: a big crunch? And the universe said, no, it's secret
[22:31] Speaker 1: option C. It's something you never considered, which is that
[22:35] Speaker 1: neither of those things are going to happen. And instead
[22:37] Speaker 1: what's happening is that the expansion is accelerating. Both option
[22:41] Speaker 1: A and option B suggested the expansion was decelerating. Things
[22:45] Speaker 1: were slowing down. And the difference was like, is it
[22:47] Speaker 1: going to slow down enough? To actually go to negative expansion,
[22:51] Speaker 1: to collapse, or just sort of drift out towards slower
[22:54] Speaker 1: and slower expansion. But secret option C, which is reality,
[22:58] Speaker 1: says no, the expansion is increasing. It's getting faster and
[23:01] Speaker 1: faster every year. And this was mind-blowing. This was a
[23:05] Speaker 1: crazy idea.
[23:07] Speaker 3: Where were you when you learned this? Because this was
[23:09] Speaker 3: in our lifetime, right?
[23:10] Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely.
[23:11] Speaker 1: Absolutely. I was in grad school and I was actually
[23:14] Speaker 1: at Berkeley in grad school. And one of the big
[23:16] Speaker 1: teams to do this was at Berkeley. Saul Perlmutter was
[23:18] Speaker 1: leading that team and he was racing against another team
[23:21] Speaker 1: in Australia. It was very exciting. I knew grad students
[23:24] Speaker 1: working on that project up at LBL was a big deal.
[23:27] Speaker 1: And then of course they won the Nobel prize like
[23:29] Speaker 1: five minutes later. So yeah, it was a big deal
[23:32] Speaker 1: at Berkeley at the time. It was exciting. You know,
[23:34] Speaker 1: anytime you find a surprise, those are the best moments,
[23:37] Speaker 1: you know, because, it shocks you. It forces you to
[23:41] Speaker 1: upend your understanding, you know, to get rid of the
[23:44] Speaker 1: dogma and change the mainstream narrative. The kind of thing
[23:47] Speaker 1: that like, you know, pop sign misinformation artists are always
[23:50] Speaker 1: saying we never want to do. This is our dream
[23:52] Speaker 1: come true.
[23:53] Speaker 3: I'm imagining grad student Daniel, like taking the whole weekend off,
[23:57] Speaker 3: going out into the woods and just staring at the
[23:59] Speaker 3: stars with his mind blown for a whole weekend.
[24:02] Speaker 1: Yeah. And also being like, why didn't I work on that?
[24:04] Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. I could have won a Nobel Prize
[24:07] Speaker 1: in grad school. That was the second time I missed
[24:11] Speaker 1: a Nobel Prize. I also had the opportunity to go
[24:14] Speaker 1: to Caltech and to work on LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory.
[24:17] Speaker 1: And I remember visiting and they were like, you should join.
[24:20] Speaker 1: It's a really exciting time. And I remember thinking to myself,
[24:23] Speaker 1: these guys are crazy. They're never going to see this.
[24:26] Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. They're going to work forever and see nothing.
[24:29] Speaker 1: And boy, was I wrong.
[24:31] Speaker 2: Oh, man.
[24:31] Speaker 1: All right.
[24:32] Speaker 3: So if you want to know which projects are going
[24:34] Speaker 3: to win the Nobel Prize, check out projects Daniel turns
[24:36] Speaker 3: his nose up at.
[24:37] Speaker 1: Exactly. They have a great track record. And so this
[24:42] Speaker 1: is a big surprise. This is shocking. Already invites a
[24:46] Speaker 1: lot of wonder and speculation about the cause of it,
[24:49] Speaker 1: because we're talking about accelerating the whole universe. The amounts
[24:53] Speaker 1: of energy required and involved are staggering, right? Absolutely staggering.
[24:59] Speaker 1: You need some kind of thing which is going to
[25:01] Speaker 1: overwhelm gravity and overwhelm all the other forces. So this
[25:04] Speaker 1: is a big new opportunity to learn about the universe.
[25:08] Speaker 1: And before people were like, well, are you really sure
[25:11] Speaker 1: you want to like understand the universe? They're like, let's
[25:14] Speaker 1: figure out some other ways to see if this is right.
[25:17] Speaker 1: Because what if you like misunderstood how supernova go or
[25:20] Speaker 1: misunderstood something else? And then that's misleading. It's confusing you, right?
[25:25] Speaker 1: So what we always love to do in experimental science
[25:27] Speaker 1: is find other independent lines of evidence that will either
[25:32] Speaker 1: contradict the first ones that tell you like, no, you
[25:34] Speaker 1: messed up, that the story's not coherent, or tell you
[25:37] Speaker 1: the same story. Because if you hear the same story
[25:40] Speaker 1: from four different ways that aren't related to each other,
[25:43] Speaker 1: then it's much more likely that you're hearing the true story.
[25:46] Speaker 1: You know, it's like you see elephant poop and you
[25:48] Speaker 1: hear elephants and you smell elephants and you see elephant footprints,
[25:51] Speaker 1: you probably got an elephant problem.
[25:53] Speaker 3: Yeah, it would be nice to also see the elephant,
[25:56] Speaker 3: but sometimes you don't get to do that.
[25:59] Speaker 1: And so we've done that. We have other ways to
[26:00] Speaker 1: know the universe is expanding and accelerating. One of those
[26:05] Speaker 1: is something we've talked about in the show a few times.
[26:06] Speaker 1: It's baryon acoustic oscillations. This comes from seeing that the
[26:11] Speaker 1: universe used to be a hot, glowing soup of matter
[26:15] Speaker 1: and light, and it was really dense. And so you
[26:18] Speaker 1: think about sound in space, you think, oh, nobody can
[26:21] Speaker 1: hear you scream, but Back in the early universe, the
[26:24] Speaker 1: universe was dense enough that sound could travel through that
[26:27] Speaker 1: soup and actually traveled like nearly half the speed of light.
[26:30] Speaker 1: It was really, really dense. And so sound traveled really,
[26:33] Speaker 1: really fast. And then you had these oscillations where like
[26:37] Speaker 1: light pushed matter out and then gravity pulled it back
[26:40] Speaker 1: in and then it bounces back out. So you get
[26:42] Speaker 1: these oscillations and those create sound waves. And you can
[26:46] Speaker 1: see those sound waves propagating through the early universe plasma
[26:50] Speaker 1: because where things were denser you later on, like billions
[26:54] Speaker 1: of years later, you get more galaxies. And where things
[26:56] Speaker 1: were less dense, you get fewer galaxies. And when they
[26:59] Speaker 1: go out there and they look at the pattern of
[27:01] Speaker 1: galaxies in the universe, they can see these rings. These
[27:04] Speaker 1: like literal rings in the sky. Those rings are still
[27:08] Speaker 1: there because they got frozen in when the universe expanded
[27:12] Speaker 1: and the speed of sound dropped. So those sound waves
[27:14] Speaker 1: were propagating out. And then they got frozen into the universe,
[27:19] Speaker 1: into its structure again. when the universe cooled and expanded
[27:22] Speaker 1: enough that the protons and electrons combined to become neutral,
[27:26] Speaker 1: so then they were transparent and they weren't getting pushed
[27:29] Speaker 1: by the photons anymore, which changed the whole dynamics and
[27:32] Speaker 1: then left this imprint. And so we know when that happened.
[27:37] Speaker 1: We know how big the universe was when they got
[27:40] Speaker 1: frozen in. That's like an absolute measure of something. Here's
[27:44] Speaker 1: how big it was when it was created, and then
[27:46] Speaker 1: we can see how big it is now And that
[27:48] Speaker 1: gives us a standard candle, like a metric, a ruler.
[27:51] Speaker 1: So we can use that to see the history of
[27:54] Speaker 1: the expansion of the universe because we can see it now.
[27:56] Speaker 1: We can see it in early days. We can see
[27:58] Speaker 1: it 6 billion years ago if we look out into
[28:01] Speaker 1: the universe. It's like somebody put a meter stick in
[28:05] Speaker 1: the early universe and then we watch it grow through time.
[28:08] Speaker 1: And you can just use that to literally measure the
[28:11] Speaker 1: expansion of the universe and see it accelerate.
[28:13] Speaker 3: That's amazing.
[28:14] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[28:14] Speaker 3: So at first I thought it was going to be
[28:16] Speaker 3: like you get two points of time. You can get
[28:18] Speaker 3: that point and then where we are now. But you'd
[28:20] Speaker 3: need multiple points of time to be able to say
[28:22] Speaker 3: it's accelerating.
[28:24] Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah.
[28:25] Speaker 3: But you've got that. So that's amazing.
[28:26] Speaker 1: It's very cool.
[28:27] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[28:28] Speaker 1: And then there's another one which is super cool, which
[28:29] Speaker 1: relies on time. These are like cosmic clocks. The idea
[28:34] Speaker 1: is to find galaxies who formed stars a long time
[28:37] Speaker 1: ago because stars kind of evolve in a predictable way.
[28:42] Speaker 1: Older stars look different from younger stars, and we know
[28:45] Speaker 1: how long stars last. And so by looking at how
[28:48] Speaker 1: blue are the stars and how red are the stars,
[28:51] Speaker 1: because blue stars tend to be hotter and brighter and
[28:53] Speaker 1: not live as long, and red stars are cooler and
[28:56] Speaker 1: dimmer and live longer. So as a population of stars age,
[29:00] Speaker 1: they tend to go from having some blue stars to
[29:03] Speaker 1: having fewer blue stars. So by measuring how red is
[29:07] Speaker 1: this population of stars, you can get a sense for
[29:09] Speaker 1: how old it is. So just by looking at a galaxy,
[29:11] Speaker 1: you can age it by measuring the redness and the blueness. Now,
[29:15] Speaker 1: if you look at two different galaxies at different redshifts,
[29:19] Speaker 1: ones that are further away and ones that are closer,
[29:22] Speaker 1: then we're seeing clocks at different points in cosmic history. Awesome.
[29:26] Speaker 1: Their stellar populations have different ages. And so you don't
[29:29] Speaker 1: need to know the absolute age of either galaxy. You
[29:33] Speaker 1: just need to know the change of age, which comes
[29:35] Speaker 1: from their change in redshift. And that tells you the
[29:38] Speaker 1: rate at which the cosmic redshift is changing with time.
[29:42] Speaker 1: So the galaxies sort of act as clocks that let
[29:45] Speaker 1: us measure how fast the universe was expanding when their
[29:48] Speaker 1: light was emitted. And you repeat this like many different redshifts,
[29:52] Speaker 1: as you were saying, and you can trace the expansion history.
[29:55] Speaker 1: So neither of these are perfect, and there's questions about
[29:58] Speaker 1: both of them. One relies on understanding early universe dynamics,
[30:02] Speaker 1: another one relies on understanding stellar populations, and there are uncertainties.
[30:07] Speaker 1: But the cool thing is that they are different uncertainties.
[30:09] Speaker 1: There are questions and things we don't understand that are
[30:12] Speaker 1: different in each of those three measurements, but they all
[30:15] Speaker 1: paint the same story about the universe's accelerating expansion. So
[30:20] Speaker 1: in the same way that dark matter is not a
[30:22] Speaker 1: fudge factor because we have lots of independent evidence for
[30:25] Speaker 1: it in all sorts of different ways, people thought of
[30:28] Speaker 1: so many different ways to check dark matter, and it
[30:30] Speaker 1: almost always comes out with the same story. Like, yes,
[30:33] Speaker 1: there's a lot of invisible matter out there. In this way,
[30:36] Speaker 1: we've also checked the expansion of the universe, and it
[30:40] Speaker 1: tells the same story over and over again, that it's
[30:43] Speaker 1: been expanding the whole time. In the very early universe,
[30:46] Speaker 1: it was decelerating, and about 6 billion years ago, it
[30:48] Speaker 1: turned around and started expanding. accelerating, which is amazing. Absolutely amazing.
[30:53] Speaker 3: Maybe this is too much to ask, given the uncertainties
[30:56] Speaker 3: associated with each of the different methods that we use
[30:58] Speaker 3: that you mentioned earlier. But do these various methods sort
[31:02] Speaker 3: of clock the accelerations and the decelerations at the same
[31:06] Speaker 3: rate or similar rates? Or is there a lot of
[31:08] Speaker 3: variability there?
[31:09] Speaker 1: Yeah, great question. And this is connected to a big
[31:12] Speaker 1: puzzle in cosmology right now, which is the Hubble tension,
[31:15] Speaker 1: which tells us about the rate of expansions. The Hubble constant,
[31:18] Speaker 1: which is not a constant, it's a number that changes
[31:21] Speaker 1: in time.
[31:21] Speaker 3: Thanks, physicists.
[31:23] Speaker 1: I know. And to be fair to the physicists and naming,
[31:26] Speaker 1: the Hubble parameter, which tells you the rate of expansion,
[31:30] Speaker 1: is changing. But technically, the Hubble constant is just its
[31:33] Speaker 1: value now, which is a single number. The Hubble constant
[31:37] Speaker 1: tells you about the rate of expansion, and that changes
[31:39] Speaker 1: in time. And so we can measure this in lots
[31:42] Speaker 1: of different ways, and we don't see total agreement. There
[31:45] Speaker 1: are things we still have to figure out there. And
[31:48] Speaker 1: I think that's a sign of a healthy field because
[31:50] Speaker 1: people are constantly coming up with new ways to measure this.
[31:53] Speaker 1: And the overall story is the same. We know this expansion.
[31:56] Speaker 1: We know that expansion is accelerating. There are differences in
[32:00] Speaker 1: those expansion rate measurements in early universe and in late universe.
[32:04] Speaker 1: And it requires more complicated theories than some of the
[32:07] Speaker 1: simple theories that we'll talk about in a minute. And
[32:10] Speaker 1: so whether you expect that expansion to be constant in
[32:13] Speaker 1: time or not, is a subtlety that you have to
[32:16] Speaker 1: address when you build your theory of why this is happening.
[32:19] Speaker 1: But yeah, there's also some fuzziness and disagreement about the
[32:22] Speaker 1: measurements themselves.
[32:24] Speaker 3: Well, I still think we're very clever apes that we
[32:26] Speaker 3: figured out any of these methods of trying to explore
[32:29] Speaker 3: what's happening in our universe.
[32:30] Speaker 1: I know from this tiny little rock that we basically
[32:33] Speaker 1: never left just by gathering photons that happened to come
[32:37] Speaker 1: our way. We figured out this incredible cosmic story. That's
[32:40] Speaker 1: so much bigger than us. It's, it's amazing how, what
[32:44] Speaker 1: people can do. As Hazel says, you know, science is
[32:47] Speaker 1: just like looking around and figuring out what happened.
[32:50] Speaker 3: I mean, but that's a profound question.
[32:52] Speaker 1: What happened? What happened?
[32:55] Speaker 2: Exactly.
[32:56] Speaker 1: I love the way she minimizes it. She's like, you know,
[32:58] Speaker 1: you're just figuring out what happened. I'm like, yes, what
[33:00] Speaker 1: happened to the whole universe? That's right.
[33:03] Speaker 3: Or, you know, through the evolution of our species, there's
[33:05] Speaker 3: lots of what happened questions that we want to answer. Okay,
[33:10] Speaker 3: so you mentioned that there's sort of two different things
[33:12] Speaker 3: people are talking about when they mention dark energy. And
[33:15] Speaker 3: the first is the fact that the universe expansion is accelerating.
[33:19] Speaker 3: So we've talked about that. So let's take a break.
[33:21] Speaker 3: And when we come back, we'll dig into this cosmological
[33:24] Speaker 3: constant idea. And we're back and we're talking about whether
[33:47] Speaker 3: or not dark energy is a fudge factor. And the
[33:50] Speaker 3: second thing that people are usually referring to when they
[33:53] Speaker 3: say dark energy is this idea of a cosmological constant.
[33:57] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[33:57] Speaker 3: So, Daniel, what's the cosmological constant?
[34:00] Speaker 1: Yes. So we want to understand how could the universe's
[34:04] Speaker 1: expansion be accelerating? What's doing that?
[34:07] Speaker 2: Right.
[34:08] Speaker 1: And there's a really interesting history here, which goes all
[34:11] Speaker 1: the way back to the beginning of the story we
[34:13] Speaker 1: told about when people thought the universe was static. So
[34:17] Speaker 1: Einstein came up with his theory of general relativity, which
[34:20] Speaker 1: tells us about space and time and how things pull
[34:24] Speaker 1: away from each other or expand also. And this theory
[34:27] Speaker 1: of general relativity, it predates Hubble and Leavitt. Their discovery
[34:30] Speaker 1: that the universe was expanding, that wouldn't come for a
[34:33] Speaker 1: long time, many years after Einstein developed his theory of
[34:36] Speaker 1: general relativity. So, Einstein was dealing with the assumption that
[34:41] Speaker 1: the universe was static. And when he put his theory together,
[34:43] Speaker 1: he was like, all right, so mass bends space, the
[34:46] Speaker 1: universe is filled with mass, so it should curve space
[34:49] Speaker 1: and pull stuff together. And then he thought, hmm, well,
[34:52] Speaker 1: why hasn't the universe collapsed, right? Like, if space is
[34:56] Speaker 1: filled with all this mass, why hasn't it all crunched down? So,
[35:00] Speaker 1: his theory essentially predicted the universe should have collapsed already.
[35:04] Speaker 1: But he looked out and he said, no, the universe
[35:05] Speaker 1: is static, so … What's going on? Well, there's another
[35:09] Speaker 1: knob in his theory. General relativity tells us that space
[35:13] Speaker 1: is bent by mass. And the sort of pop-side level
[35:15] Speaker 1: understanding of general relativity tells you, like, you can think
[35:19] Speaker 1: of the force of gravity as the bending of space.
[35:22] Speaker 1: But general relativity is much more than that. Different kinds
[35:25] Speaker 1: of energy enter into general relativity in a different way. So,
[35:29] Speaker 1: for example, if you have internal stored energy, what we
[35:31] Speaker 1: call mass, that does bend space and does pull things
[35:34] Speaker 1: together effectively, although they're actually in free fall. But if
[35:38] Speaker 1: you have another kind of energy, stored potential energy that
[35:42] Speaker 1: just fills space, that actually makes space expand. So general
[35:47] Speaker 1: relativity broadly doesn't just pull things together. It can also
[35:52] Speaker 1: create expansion.
[35:54] Speaker 3: Okay. And he recognized that at the time, question mark.
[35:59] Speaker 1: He knew that at the time. And so he thought,
[36:00] Speaker 1: all right, what if I just stick a number into
[36:04] Speaker 1: my theory? If I add potential energy to the universe,
[36:08] Speaker 1: no explanation, no idea what it's referring to, just a
[36:12] Speaker 1: fudge factor, put that in to balance gravity so that
[36:15] Speaker 1: the universe is then static. Because that's what he wanted
[36:19] Speaker 1: to achieve. He wanted to describe the universe. He wanted
[36:21] Speaker 1: to see if his theory was compatible with the universe.
[36:23] Speaker 1: And is that a bogus thing to do? No, it's
[36:26] Speaker 1: just essentially asking, well, what would I have to put
[36:29] Speaker 1: into my theory to make it describe the universe as
[36:32] Speaker 1: I think it works? And remember, he was working on
[36:34] Speaker 1: a false premise. He was trying to describe a static
[36:36] Speaker 1: universe because that's what they thought we lived in at
[36:39] Speaker 1: the time, but they were wrong.
[36:40] Speaker 3: The OG fudge factor.
[36:42] Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. So the OG fudge factor was put in
[36:44] Speaker 1: to make general relativity agree with the misunderstanding at the
[36:48] Speaker 1: time that the universe was static. And the other problem
[36:52] Speaker 1: with this fudge factor is that the universe as he
[36:55] Speaker 1: described it had these two competing things, the cosmological constant
[37:00] Speaker 1: pushing out and gravity pushing in. And for that to
[37:03] Speaker 1: give you a static universe, they had to be perfectly balanced.
[37:06] Speaker 1: So the universe is like on a knife's edge. It's
[37:08] Speaker 1: not stable at all. Somebody like drops an extra raisin
[37:11] Speaker 1: in the universe, boom, it collapses. You get a tiny
[37:14] Speaker 1: smidge more potential energy, boom, it expands. So it doesn't
[37:18] Speaker 1: really make sense as a model of the universe.
[37:21] Speaker 3: One more reason to hate raisins.
[37:23] Speaker 2: I know.
[37:24] Speaker 1: Wait, hold on a second. I love raisins. What are
[37:27] Speaker 1: you talking about?
[37:28] Speaker 3: You're wrong is what I'm talking about. Yeah, no, raisins
[37:31] Speaker 3: and cookies are why I have trust issues.
[37:34] Speaker 1: That's only because you think they're chocolate chips and then
[37:37] Speaker 1: you're disappointed. But if you're expecting raisins, then you're like, yum, raisins.
[37:42] Speaker 3: No, then I'm mad at whoever thought I would like
[37:44] Speaker 3: raisin cookies. They don't know me at all.
[37:47] Speaker 1: Well, the answer is to put raisins and chocolate chips
[37:49] Speaker 1: into your cookies.
[37:50] Speaker 2: Oh, no.
[37:50] Speaker 1: Porque no los dos.
[37:52] Speaker 3: Because then you've ruined the cookie with the raisins.
[37:56] Speaker 1: All right.
[37:56] Speaker 3: We've had milk digressions, raisin digressions. We should start a
[37:59] Speaker 3: food podcast.
[38:00] Speaker 1: So then Hubble and Leavitt discover the universe is actually expanding.
[38:04] Speaker 1: And this whole point of putting in a cosmological constant
[38:06] Speaker 1: to describe a static universe, yeah, that was a mistake.
[38:09] Speaker 1: And Einstein said, okay, I'm going to get rid of
[38:11] Speaker 1: the cosmological constant. And instead, I'm just going to assume
[38:14] Speaker 1: that the universe is decelerating. It's currently expanding, but it's decelerating.
[38:19] Speaker 1: So here we're distinguishing between essentially velocity and acceleration. So
[38:24] Speaker 1: think about how your car operates. You can have forward velocity.
[38:28] Speaker 1: You're going to 50 miles an hour. and you're hitting
[38:30] Speaker 1: the brakes. You're decelerating, so you're slowing down. You're still
[38:34] Speaker 1: moving forwards, but you're slowing down. That's what Einstein assumed
[38:38] Speaker 1: was happening. He said, okay, the universe isn't static. The
[38:40] Speaker 1: car is not just sitting on the highway. It's moving forward,
[38:44] Speaker 1: and gravity is slowing it down. He thought eventually it
[38:48] Speaker 1: will crunch. That was his supposition, but he didn't need
[38:52] Speaker 1: cosmological constant anymore, and he got rid of it.
[38:55] Speaker 2: Okay.
[38:55] Speaker 3: And this was in response to information he learned in
[38:58] Speaker 3: his lifetime. He went from thinking the universe was stable
[39:01] Speaker 3: to decelerating.
[39:02] Speaker 2: Okay.
[39:02] Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's the origin of his comment. I don't
[39:05] Speaker 1: know the exact quote, that the cosmological constant was his
[39:08] Speaker 1: greatest blunder. You know, that he put it in and
[39:10] Speaker 1: then he had to take it out.
[39:12] Speaker 3: We all make mistakes.
[39:14] Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, 80 years later, we discover, okay, the universe
[39:18] Speaker 1: isn't just expanding. It's expanding and accelerating, right? And so
[39:21] Speaker 1: now people are searching for for a theoretical reason that
[39:25] Speaker 1: might happen. What could accommodate that? Not just that it's accelerating,
[39:29] Speaker 1: but that it started accelerating recently, right? That the history
[39:34] Speaker 1: is that we were always expanding, but that expansion was
[39:37] Speaker 1: decelerating for the first 9 billion years. Gravity was winning.
[39:41] Speaker 1: And then around 5 billion years ago, 9 billion years
[39:44] Speaker 1: into the history of the universe, it turned around and
[39:46] Speaker 1: it went from decelerating to accelerating. So like the car
[39:50] Speaker 1: was always moving forward, it was slowing down the first
[39:52] Speaker 1: 9 billion years. And then we went from brake to gas.
[39:56] Speaker 1: And now we're accelerating. We're still moving forward, still expanding.
[39:59] Speaker 1: But now that expansion is faster and faster.
[40:02] Speaker 3: Somebody was like, would you like a cookie with raisins
[40:04] Speaker 3: in it? And you put your foot on the gas
[40:06] Speaker 3: to get out of there as fast as you can.
[40:08] Speaker 3: The universe is trying to.
[40:10] Speaker 1: Escape raisin cookies. I am driving as fast as possible
[40:13] Speaker 1: to the oatmeal cookie factory.
[40:15] Speaker 3: No, huge mistake.
[40:15] Speaker 1: So I can consume them as quickly as possible. Huge mistake.
[40:18] Speaker 1: And so the cosmological constant can actually describe this. It's
[40:22] Speaker 1: amazing because the cosmological constant says, look, you got some
[40:26] Speaker 1: potential energy that fills space. We don't know what it
[40:28] Speaker 1: is yet, but say you have something that fills space
[40:30] Speaker 1: with potential energy. that will cause some expansion. And the
[40:34] Speaker 1: amazing thing is that as the universe expands, matter gets
[40:38] Speaker 1: more dilute, radiation gets more dilute, right? By which I
[40:41] Speaker 1: just mean like you got more space and the same
[40:43] Speaker 1: amount of stuff. So the density of matter goes down,
[40:47] Speaker 1: which means essentially gravity is decreasing, but potential energy doesn't.
[40:52] Speaker 1: It's just built into space. So if you get twice
[40:55] Speaker 1: as much space, you get the same density of potential
[40:58] Speaker 1: energy everywhere, which means more energy. So as the universe expands,
[41:04] Speaker 1: the cosmological constant becomes more and more important because everything
[41:08] Speaker 1: else has energy density that's decreasing with expansion, but it's
[41:11] Speaker 1: staying constant, which means that it gets a larger and
[41:14] Speaker 1: larger fraction. So expansion leads to more expansion because as
[41:19] Speaker 1: time goes on, as the universe expands, the cosmological constant
[41:23] Speaker 1: becomes more and more important, which according to the equations
[41:26] Speaker 1: of general relativity means more expansion until at some point,
[41:30] Speaker 1: it starts to win and it's overwhelming everything. And that's
[41:33] Speaker 1: what happened 5 billion years ago. So it actually goes
[41:36] Speaker 1: to accelerating expansion, a runaway effect. And this predicts that
[41:40] Speaker 1: as time goes on, it's just going to get more
[41:42] Speaker 1: and more important. We're in a dark energy dominated universe.
[41:46] Speaker 3: So my brain is trying to make a connection to Noether.
[41:49] Speaker 3: And Noether, did she play a role in helping us
[41:52] Speaker 3: understand this?
[41:53] Speaker 1: So she didn't help us understand it, but she helps
[41:55] Speaker 1: us understand the implications. Because you're probably remembering that Noether
[41:59] Speaker 1: has her amazing theory about conservation laws and symmetries. And
[42:04] Speaker 1: there's a connection between whether the laws of physics and
[42:07] Speaker 1: space are constant in time and conservation of energy. And
[42:12] Speaker 1: she says, if space is not expanding and the laws
[42:14] Speaker 1: of physics don't change, actually, if the action is invariant
[42:18] Speaker 1: over time, then energy is conserved. Check out our whole
[42:21] Speaker 1: podcast episode about action if you want to learn more
[42:24] Speaker 1: about that. But now we know that the action is
[42:27] Speaker 1: not invariant, that as time goes on, space is expanding
[42:30] Speaker 1: and accelerating. And that's how we know that energy can't
[42:33] Speaker 1: actually be conserved in our universe. It shouldn't be conserved
[42:37] Speaker 1: in our universe because the symmetry that you would need
[42:40] Speaker 1: to get energy to be conserved is broken, right? Space
[42:44] Speaker 1: is expanding. The action is not invariant. So that's the
[42:47] Speaker 1: connection to Emmy Noether. Is that what you're asking about?
[42:49] Speaker 3: Yeah, and so I guess now I'm trying to connect
[42:51] Speaker 3: that to... So as the universe is expanding, you're getting
[42:55] Speaker 3: more dark energy being made.
[42:56] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[42:57] Speaker 3: Is that the same thing as the cosmological constant? Or
[43:00] Speaker 3: is that like a part of understanding the cosmological constant?
[43:04] Speaker 1: It's a great question because that's the essential piece of
[43:06] Speaker 1: this theory that helps us make it work. That as
[43:09] Speaker 1: the universe expands, cosmological constant is constant. It's a constant density, right?
[43:15] Speaker 1: It does not get diluted. That's the reason that it works. Okay.
[43:18] Speaker 1: And it's sort of amazing that our theory of general
[43:21] Speaker 1: relativity already has a knob in it, which if you
[43:25] Speaker 1: crank it up to a certain number, explains perfectly, well,
[43:28] Speaker 1: not perfectly, but very, very well, this accelerating expansion of
[43:32] Speaker 1: the universe. You don't have to reach for totally crazy
[43:35] Speaker 1: new theory of physics, but what you do need is
[43:38] Speaker 1: potential energy that fills all of space and doesn't get diluted.
[43:42] Speaker 1: And that's the big mystery. So we've made sort of
[43:44] Speaker 1: a step forward by saying like, oh, there's feature of
[43:47] Speaker 1: general relativity, which can create this thing which we've observed,
[43:51] Speaker 1: which we know is happening. But it also kicks the
[43:54] Speaker 1: can down the road and invites more questions like, well,
[43:56] Speaker 1: what is this potential energy? You just put it in there.
[44:00] Speaker 1: You haven't said what it is. Potential energy is not
[44:02] Speaker 1: just some abstract thing. You can have potential energy stored
[44:06] Speaker 1: in a field, for example. We know that the Higgs
[44:09] Speaker 1: boson is a particle that's an oscillation in a field
[44:12] Speaker 1: that's out there. And one of the most interesting things
[44:15] Speaker 1: about the Higgs field, the reason it does what it does,
[44:18] Speaker 1: is because it's filled with potential energy, unlike other fields.
[44:21] Speaker 1: The photon field and the electron field don't have this
[44:24] Speaker 1: kind of potential energy, but the Higgs does. It's potential
[44:27] Speaker 1: energy that fills all of space. And you might think, oh, wow,
[44:32] Speaker 1: is the Higgs boson field providing the potential energy you
[44:36] Speaker 1: need to explain the cosmological constant? Wouldn't that be incredible?
[44:40] Speaker 1: If you came out from one direction, you're like, hey,
[44:43] Speaker 1: the universe is expanding, and that suggests maybe there's potential
[44:46] Speaker 1: energy in all of space. And you came out from
[44:48] Speaker 1: the other direction, you're like, hey, particle physicists have discovered
[44:51] Speaker 1: a field that fills all of space with potential energy.
[44:53] Speaker 1: And you might be like, oh my gosh, am I
[44:55] Speaker 1: about to make the best understanding in the history of
[44:57] Speaker 1: the universe? And you put these two numbers together and say,
[44:59] Speaker 1: do they agree? And the answer is no. And not
[45:03] Speaker 1: even to within 10% or 50%. They're different by 10
[45:07] Speaker 1: to the 120.
[45:08] Speaker 3: And so let me guess, this is a project you
[45:11] Speaker 3: decided you wanted to be part of because it was
[45:13] Speaker 3: destined to not get a Nobel Prize.
[45:16] Speaker 2: Oh my gosh.
[45:17] Speaker 1: Understanding theoretically the source of dark energy would definitely get
[45:20] Speaker 1: somebody the Nobel Prize. And so we have no explanation.
[45:24] Speaker 1: We have this mechanism, the cosmological constant, which if you
[45:27] Speaker 1: put into general relativity can explain the accelerating expansion of
[45:32] Speaker 1: the universe. But we have no idea what the cosmological
[45:37] Speaker 1: constant really is. It's just like a first idea. It's
[45:39] Speaker 1: a number we put in to make things work. And
[45:42] Speaker 1: then we come back and say, well, what could be
[45:44] Speaker 1: causing it? And our first idea, all the quantum fields
[45:47] Speaker 1: that we know about, definitely is not explaining that. That
[45:50] Speaker 1: does not work.
[45:51] Speaker 2: No.
[45:51] Speaker 1: We don't have another better idea yet. So is that
[45:55] Speaker 1: a fudge factor? I mean, I think it's a little
[45:57] Speaker 1: bit of a fuzzy question because it's not a bad
[46:00] Speaker 1: fudge factor. It's not like, hey, we discover the universe
[46:03] Speaker 1: is expanding and accelerating and we really want to stick
[46:06] Speaker 1: with general relativity. So we're going to do anything to
[46:08] Speaker 1: make it work. And we're just going to stick this
[46:10] Speaker 1: number in here. We're going to pretend it makes sense,
[46:12] Speaker 1: even though it doesn't, right? That's the cartoon version of
[46:16] Speaker 1: conspiratorial physicists trying to defend general relativity or something. I mean,
[46:21] Speaker 1: which makes no sense because in reality, everybody, especially the
[46:23] Speaker 1: conspiracy folks out there, are trying to disprove Einstein. I
[46:27] Speaker 1: get Einstein was wrong emails 10 times a day. So
[46:30] Speaker 1: I don't know why they think that physicists don't also
[46:33] Speaker 1: want to disprove Einstein.
[46:34] Speaker 3: Because then your face would be on all the posters.
[46:37] Speaker 3: What would your quote be, Daniel?
[46:41] Speaker 1: My quote would be, this is never going to work.
[46:43] Speaker 1: Daniel was wrong again.
[46:44] Speaker 3: Oh, I'd put that poster up.
[46:46] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[46:48] Speaker 3: Good to always be skeptical.
[46:49] Speaker 1: And the issues go deeper, right? It's not just that
[46:52] Speaker 1: we don't know where this number, the cosmological constant, comes from.
[46:57] Speaker 1: We'd love to be able to derive it from first
[46:59] Speaker 1: principles to say, oh, the Higgs field, and you calculate it,
[47:02] Speaker 1: and here's the potential energy, and here's the number you
[47:04] Speaker 1: put in, and it works. We're not there yet. We're
[47:06] Speaker 1: nowhere close to there. The other issue is that, as
[47:09] Speaker 1: I was saying earlier— Even just having a single number,
[47:13] Speaker 1: the cosmological constant, doesn't quite work because we see the
[47:16] Speaker 1: number you would need changing over time a little bit,
[47:20] Speaker 1: like the early universe measurements, the late universe measurements. So
[47:23] Speaker 1: it might be that there's two different kinds of expansion
[47:26] Speaker 1: happening there. So there's a theory of early dark energy
[47:30] Speaker 1: that is another kind of dark energy that turned on early,
[47:35] Speaker 1: kicked things off, and then turned off, which maybe explains
[47:39] Speaker 1: why we're seeing inconsistent measurements. So there's like complexity to
[47:43] Speaker 1: this fudge factor. And there's, you know, even other people
[47:46] Speaker 1: out there with totally different theories. Like a couple of
[47:49] Speaker 1: years ago, there was all this excitement because people noticed
[47:51] Speaker 1: a correlation between supermassive black holes at the hearts of
[47:55] Speaker 1: galaxies and the expansion of the universe and the accelerating expansion.
[48:00] Speaker 1: And so there was thought for a while, like maybe
[48:02] Speaker 1: supermassive black holes in the hearts of galaxies are the
[48:05] Speaker 1: dark energy. Maybe somehow they are doing this to the universe.
[48:08] Speaker 1: And there were some problems with that theory and it
[48:10] Speaker 1: sort of went away, but You know, what it shows
[48:12] Speaker 1: you is not a field that's out there to convince
[48:16] Speaker 1: you of one idea of whether or not it works,
[48:18] Speaker 1: but it shows you a group of people being curious
[48:21] Speaker 1: about the universe, scratching their heads, being open about what
[48:24] Speaker 1: works and what doesn't work. Like the big mysteries that,
[48:28] Speaker 1: you know, we write 10,000 pop-sci articles about a year,
[48:30] Speaker 1: the Hubble constant and all this kind of stuff. We're
[48:33] Speaker 1: open about what's not working, and it's a work in progress,
[48:35] Speaker 1: and it's a work in progress that's out there in public.
[48:38] Speaker 1: You can see people making progress, people disagreeing about it,
[48:42] Speaker 1: people suggesting new ideas. There's no defense of the dogma here.
[48:47] Speaker 1: This is just like you're watching it in action. Welcome
[48:51] Speaker 1: to the forefront of ignorance. This is how science works.
[48:54] Speaker 1: We're confused about how stuff is happening, and we're trying
[48:58] Speaker 1: to figure it out. There are some older questions that
[49:01] Speaker 1: we're much less confused about, and we're not very excited
[49:04] Speaker 1: about revisiting, like, is the speed of light constant? Maybe
[49:08] Speaker 1: we're wrong about that, I don't know, but it doesn't
[49:10] Speaker 1: seem as interesting as other questions that we know we're
[49:13] Speaker 1: wrong about, and we have no explanation for, like, you know,
[49:17] Speaker 1: what is the source of dark energy, theoretically. So that's
[49:20] Speaker 1: why some questions get more attention and other questions get
[49:23] Speaker 1: less attention because, hey, we're humans and we're driven by
[49:25] Speaker 1: our curiosity, and curiosity is frankly subjective and personal and And,
[49:30] Speaker 1: you know, driven by what gets you excited to get
[49:32] Speaker 1: out of bed and spend your day doing science.
[49:35] Speaker 2: Yeah. All right. End rant. And this is the process.
[49:39] Speaker 3: You know, you do what you can with the information
[49:41] Speaker 3: you have. You try to collect more information so that
[49:44] Speaker 3: you can ask more specific and better questions. And sometimes
[49:47] Speaker 3: you're going to be wrong. You just always need to
[49:48] Speaker 3: be open to that.
[49:49] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[49:50] Speaker 3: And you move forward the way you can.
[49:52] Speaker 1: Yeah. And, you know, let's also acknowledge that there are
[49:55] Speaker 1: structural incentives in science and in every human endeavor, right?
[50:00] Speaker 1: for people to defend an idea even after we're clear
[50:04] Speaker 1: it's not working. You know, there are people who have
[50:07] Speaker 1: an idea and stake their reputation on it. And, you know,
[50:10] Speaker 1: it was their baby. And when it doesn't look like
[50:12] Speaker 1: it's working, they try to make it work and they
[50:14] Speaker 1: stick to it. And there are definitely structural incentives for
[50:17] Speaker 1: people to not do the right thing. But, you know,
[50:19] Speaker 1: people have lots of incentives and they're not always necessarily
[50:23] Speaker 1: just going to follow one set of incentives. There are
[50:26] Speaker 1: also incentives to figure out how things work and to
[50:28] Speaker 1: be a reasonable human being. And in reality, people's actions
[50:32] Speaker 1: are complex and this is not a perfect system. And
[50:35] Speaker 1: I don't want to suggest that like science is a
[50:37] Speaker 1: pure meritocracy and every idea rises to the top perfectly.
[50:41] Speaker 1: And that we always work on the most useful thing.
[50:44] Speaker 1: Absolutely not. It's a messy political human endeavor, but it's
[50:48] Speaker 1: also the best system we've ever had for building knowledge
[50:52] Speaker 1: about the universe. So anyway- I was supposed to end
[50:55] Speaker 1: my rant a minute ago, but this is the real end.
[50:57] Speaker 3: That's rant part two. But I mean, there's like, you know,
[51:00] Speaker 3: different people have different incentives. So if you've got somebody
[51:02] Speaker 3: whose incentive is to like not back down, even when
[51:05] Speaker 3: it's clear that their theory isn't explaining things as well
[51:07] Speaker 3: as they thought, there's an incentive for the like lab
[51:09] Speaker 3: at the other university across the ponds to prove you wrong.
[51:12] Speaker 3: Or there's the incentive of your grad students who like maybe,
[51:16] Speaker 3: you know, when they start their own lab realize, oh,
[51:18] Speaker 3: I'd really like to be remembered as someone who was right.
[51:22] Speaker 3: And so maybe they slowly push back against the ideas
[51:25] Speaker 3: of their advisor because they don't want to spend their
[51:28] Speaker 3: whole careers on an idea that's wrong. And so, you know,
[51:30] Speaker 3: it's different people have different motivations. And hopefully in the end,
[51:33] Speaker 3: science pushes everybody towards the right answer.
[51:35] Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
[51:37] Speaker 1: Yeah, and another note for people who have ideas that
[51:41] Speaker 1: they're excited about and they can't get the community to engage.
[51:46] Speaker 1: You've written grant proposals and they've all been rejected or
[51:49] Speaker 1: nobody will read your theory. Remember that resources are limited.
[51:53] Speaker 1: In a perfect world, we could give everybody money to
[51:55] Speaker 1: investigate the universe, no matter whether their theories were popular
[51:59] Speaker 1: or not. But we have limited funding, we have limited time,
[52:02] Speaker 1: we have limited attention. We have to make decisions about
[52:05] Speaker 1: where to put those resources. And so rather than having
[52:09] Speaker 1: one random YouTuber decide this is what's most important and
[52:12] Speaker 1: everybody else is wasting their time, we have panels. We
[52:15] Speaker 1: have consensus. We argue over it. We do it in
[52:17] Speaker 1: public so that we try to get as many perspectives
[52:21] Speaker 1: as possible. But in the end, yes, we do want
[52:23] Speaker 1: to put resources towards the things we think are going
[52:26] Speaker 1: to lead to discoveries. And that means investing in the
[52:29] Speaker 1: mainstream ideas, not always giving money to everybody out there
[52:34] Speaker 1: with a crazy new idea, which may be promising and
[52:36] Speaker 1: may even be correct, right? But in the same way
[52:38] Speaker 1: that like the best screenplays aren't always turned into movies
[52:42] Speaker 1: in Hollywood, right? Like the system isn't perfect because of
[52:46] Speaker 1: limited resources. And that's just the unfortunate reality. And the
[52:49] Speaker 1: way to fix that is not to burn academia to
[52:52] Speaker 1: the ground, but to spend more money to fund more
[52:57] Speaker 1: of these ideas further from the mainstream, right? If we
[53:00] Speaker 1: instead invest in academia, then we get more crazy blue
[53:04] Speaker 1: sky ideas. We can take more risks. Anyway, for the
[53:07] Speaker 1: third time, I'll say end rant then.
[53:09] Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, sure.
[53:10] Speaker 1: We'll see.
[53:10] Speaker 3: We'll see.
[53:12] Speaker 1: I should stop saying that.
[53:14] Speaker 3: That's right. It's like when you title a document or
[53:17] Speaker 3: a grant or a manuscript final version, you are making
[53:21] Speaker 3: it certain that there will be a final version two
[53:24] Speaker 3: and a final version three.
[53:25] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[53:25] Speaker 3: But, okay, to try to bottom line, we have this
[53:28] Speaker 3: observation that we feel pretty darn confident about because we've
[53:32] Speaker 3: seen it using a bunch of different methods.
[53:33] Speaker 2: Yes.
[53:33] Speaker 3: We're doing our best to explain it. We realize that
[53:36] Speaker 3: there's shortcomings in our explanations. We are trying to figure
[53:39] Speaker 3: it out. It is an open conversation.
[53:42] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[53:42] Speaker 3: And this is one of the big exciting questions in
[53:45] Speaker 3: physics that, you know, hopefully we'll figure out in the
[53:47] Speaker 3: next generation or two or this generation.
[53:49] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[53:50] Speaker 3: And if Daniel thinks the lab is probably not on
[53:52] Speaker 3: the right path, those guys and gals are getting a
[53:55] Speaker 3: Nobel Prize.
[53:57] Speaker 1: That's my backwards seal of approval.
[53:58] Speaker 2: Exactly. That's right.
[54:00] Speaker 1: All right. Well, thank you, everybody, for going on this
[54:02] Speaker 1: journey with us back into history to our understanding of
[54:05] Speaker 1: the universe and how the universe evolves and how our
[54:07] Speaker 1: understanding of it has evolved to try to predict the
[54:10] Speaker 1: future and how our understanding will eventually, we hope, coalesce
[54:15] Speaker 1: into a crystal clear picture of the history and future
[54:18] Speaker 1: of the universe.
[54:19] Speaker 3: Good luck, physicists.
[54:29] Speaker 1: Thanks, everybody, for listening. Please go and do us a
[54:31] Speaker 1: favor and rate the show on whatever podcast app you're using.
[54:35] Speaker 1: It really helps people find us.
[54:37] Speaker 3: Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe is edited by the amazing
[54:41] Speaker 3: Matt Kesselman.
[54:42] Speaker 1: He really is a wizard. You can also find us
[54:45] Speaker 1: online on Blue Sky, Instagram, and X, D & K Universe.
[54:50] Speaker 1: Come engage with us.
[54:52] Speaker 3: You can email us at questions at danielandkelly.org. We really
[54:56] Speaker 3: do want to hear from you.
[54:57] Speaker 1: And you can find our website, www.danielandkelly.org, where you'll also
[55:02] Speaker 1: find an invitation to join our Discord, where everybody comes
[55:06] Speaker 1: and talks about the amazing universe.
[55:08] Speaker 3: And we also have the most amazing moderators. This is
[55:12] Speaker 3: an iHeart podcast. Thanks for joining us.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.