Discussing the Cosmos & the Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) Construct. This is an [AI] generated Audio-Overview; it isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. For the precise Mathematical Construct, please access the literature in the links below:
(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338816675_The_Existence_Effect_of_Dark_Energy_Redshift_on_Cosmological_Age
(2) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2436965
(3) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363860392_The_History_of_The_Cosmos_From_The_Big-Bang_to_The_Present-Epoch
(4) https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/astro-2022-0226/html
(5) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391424120_The_Cosmological_History_of_the_Electro-Gravitational_Force_Ratio
(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338816675_The_Existence_Effect_of_Dark_Energy_Redshift_on_Cosmological_Age
(2) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/2436965
(3) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363860392_The_History_of_The_Cosmos_From_The_Big-Bang_to_The_Present-Epoch
(4) https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/astro-2022-0226/html
(5) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391424120_The_Cosmological_History_of_the_Electro-Gravitational_Force_Ratio
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00Welcome to the Deep Dive, the place where we take complex topics and distill them down so you can get smart fast.
00:06Okay, let's unpack this.
00:08Today, we're diving headfirst into some truly mind-bending stuff, cutting-edge research that's making us rethink the very foundations of the universe,
00:16especially how old it is and, you know, the models we use to understand it all.
00:19Whether you're looking to impress at your next astrophysics chat, trying to wrap your head around the cosmos,
00:25or you're just plain curious about the big questions, this Deep Dive is packed with surprises.
00:29Our guides on this cosmic journey are two fascinating research papers from Ricardo C. Storty.
00:34We'll be exploring ideas around cosmological age, this intriguing thing called dark energy redshift,
00:40and his comprehensive electrograbimagnetic, or EGM, construct.
00:44Yeah, and what's really fascinating here is that these papers, they don't just sort of tweak the edges of our current understanding.
00:50They go right to the heart of some really persistent problems in cosmology.
00:54Storty offers alternative ways of looking at things, ways that could completely change how we see the universe's past, present, and future.
01:02We'll be comparing his ideas to the existing standard model of cosmology, the framework most cosmologists use, you know,
01:09and pinpointing where he suggests some major revisions are needed.
01:13Right. So let's start with what Storty calls the age problem.
01:17Now, the standard model of cosmology, or SMOC, that's the prevailing theory,
01:22it uses the cosmic microwave background radiation, you know, the afterglow of the Big Bang,
01:26to estimate the age of the universe at about 13.797 billion years.
01:31Sounds pretty precise.
01:32Mm-hmm. Very precise.
01:33But here's the kicker.
01:34There's this star called HD140283, nicknamed Methuselah,
01:38and an age is estimated to be around 14.46 billion years.
01:42Yeah. And if you connect this to the bigger picture, you immediately see the puzzle.
01:46It's like, um, finding a grandchild who's older than their grandparent.
01:50And while there's some wiggle room, some uncertainty in those age estimates...
01:55Sure. Always is.
01:55...the fact that the star appears older than the universe itself, according to our best measurements,
02:00well, it suggests a potential crack in our cosmic timeline.
02:04I mean, Storty points out that as our measurements get even more accurate,
02:08this discrepancy could become, you know, a full-blown crisis in cosmology.
02:12Exactly. And the age of the universe in the SMO key comes from a specific formula.
02:18Yeah.
02:18It takes into account how fast the universe is expanding, that's the Hubble constant,
02:22and how much dark energy there is.
02:24Now, to simplify things, this formula often uses a value of Z equals 00V
02:29for cosmological redshift when we're talking about the present day.
02:32Yeah.
02:33Think of redshift as, like, how much the light from distant galaxies has been stretched as the universe expands.
02:38Well, the further away, the more stretched, the higher the Z.
02:40Exactly. Higher redshift value.
02:42But this Z equals 0 thing, it raises an important question that Storty highlights.
02:47Assigning Z equals 0 for the present day isn't something we, like, observe directly.
02:53It's more of a convenience setting in our equations.
02:55Ah, okay.
02:56And while it might seem harmless, he challenges us to think about what that assignment really implies about our understanding of the universe.
03:03To do this, he looks at an alternative way of thinking about gravity, the polarizable vacuum, or PV model.
03:10Okay, let's unpack this.
03:12The PV model, it offers a different perspective on gravity than Einstein's general relativity.
03:17Probably different conceptually, yeah.
03:19So instead of gravity being caused by, like, the warping of space-time, the PV model suggests it's more like an optical effect,
03:27using something called a refractive index, KPV.
03:29Exactly.
03:30Like, space itself has optical properties that bend light, and that's what we perceive as gravity.
03:34What's really interesting, though, is that even though it's a totally different way of thinking about gravity,
03:38the PV model can actually explain all the same gravitational stuff in our solar system that GR does.
03:45Things like planet orbits, even black holes.
03:47Right, the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom solutions, those key mathematical results, the PV model handles them, too.
03:54It's isomorphic to GR in those cases.
03:56So it's a powerful alternative framework.
03:59It is, and what's fascinating here is that the PV model gives us a new lens, a new way to look at cosmological redshift.
04:06In this model, redshift isn't just about the stretching of light from expansion.
04:10It's also related to this refractive index KPV of the vacuum itself.
04:16Okay.
04:16And when we take the standard model's formula for the age of the universe and rewrite it using the PV model's refractive index,
04:23well, the equations match up perfectly.
04:25Which makes sense.
04:25You said they're equivalent in many ways.
04:27Exactly.
04:27It shows consistency.
04:29Here's where it gets really interesting.
04:31Uh-huh.
04:31The PV model reveals a crucial insight about that ZO0 value we talked about.
04:36According to this framework, a refractive index of KPV OA1, which is what corresponds to Z equals 0, could only happen for an observer who could see the entire, possibly infinite universe all at once.
04:49Or someone infinitely far away.
04:51Yeah.
04:51Maybe even outside our universe.
04:52So basically, setting Z equals 0 for us, right here, right now.
04:56Yeah.
04:57It actually describes a non-physical scenario, a calculation step that doesn't match reality.
05:03Precisely.
05:04Using 0, 0 essentially assumes we have this godlike infinite view, which directly contradicts what we're trying to do when we observe the cosmic microwave background.
05:12We're trying to measure a finite universe.
05:15As other researchers have shown, in the PV model's version of Einstein's equations, KPV Oels 1 only happens at an infinite distance.
05:23It's an asymptotic limit.
05:24So, okay, if Z equals 0 is a problem, the next logical step is, what value should we be using for cosmological redshift today?
05:32Good question.
05:33Storty tackles this by considering a universe that has a Hubble radius, RH.
05:37Think of the Hubble radius as like a boundary.
05:39Yeah, a sort of observational horizon due to expansion.
05:42Objects farther away are receding faster than light.
05:45So, if we connect this to the bigger picture, imagine trying to walk around the circumference of a universe defined by this Hubble radius.
05:56Storty argues that, from our perspective, inside this finite universe, the PV model's refractive index needs to account for this limited size.
06:03This leads him to define a dark energy refractive index, k.
06:07k, lambda.
06:07Yeah, okay.
06:08And it depends on how much dark energy there is, the dark energy density parameter, and the size of the universe within that Hubble radius, the Hubble volume.
06:17Okay, let's unpack this.
06:18By plugging this dark energy refractive index into the relationship between redshift and KPV, Storty gets a value for dark energy redshift.
06:26And here's a really surprising twist you mentioned.
06:28Yeah, this is wild.
06:29For a universe that's expanding at an accelerating rate because of dark energy, this Z actually turns out to be a negative value in the present day.
06:36Negative redshift.
06:38How does that even work?
06:39Well, it's a pretty radical departure from how we usually think about redshift.
06:43It implies something different about our local space-time environment due to dark energy's influence within that Hubble volume.
06:51Furthermore, by combining this dark energy refractive index with the PV model's idea of time dilation.
06:58Time slowing down or speeding up.
06:59Right, depending on the gravitational field, or in this case, the effect of the universe's expansion.
07:04Storty comes up with a revised way to calculate the cosmological age, dear.
07:09Okay, a new formula for the age.
07:11So what happens when we use it?
07:12Well, Storty first considers a theoretical universe of Hubble radius.
07:16It's a simplified case where the age of the universe is simply the Hubble time, which is just 1 divided by the Hubble constant, 180.
07:23Okay, age 180.
07:23In this scenario, his calculations give values for the amount of dark energy and for K and Z-er.
07:30And what's really interesting is that the amount of dark energy he calculates is very close to the range the standard model suggests.
07:36So that part matches up roughly.
07:38It does.
07:39And what's fascinating here is that within this theoretical framework, K turns out to be greater than 1, and Z is negative.
07:46Both of those results are consistent with a universe that's undergoing accelerated expansion.
07:51Ah, so the math works out for acceleration.
07:54It does.
07:54This gives us some initial support for the idea that the Hubble age, calculated using this PV-corrected approach, might be the real age of the universe,
08:03instead of the slightly younger age we get by setting Z equals 0.
08:07Storty then takes things a step further, right, with a constrained theoretical solution.
08:12Exactly.
08:13Here, the idea that the universe's age equals the Hubble time, T0 equals 1H0, is now tied or constrained by the observed temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
08:25He uses a specific formula that he and his colleagues developed involving something called the Big Bang Hubble constant and other fundamental constants.
08:32So linking the age directly to the CMB temperature now.
08:35Precisely. And this constrained solution gives a range of possible values for the different cosmological parameters.
08:43These are shown in his research in Table 1.
08:45What's really remarkable is that quantities like Wog related to dark energy, Wog related to matter, Case, and Z stay incredibly stable,
08:55even when you consider the entire observed range of CMBR temperatures.
08:58They barely budge.
09:00Wow, that's stable.
09:01And on top of that, the value he calculates for the present day Hubble constant, 8, 0, fits right within the range the standard model gives us,
09:08but with much higher precision, much smaller error bars.
09:12Better resolution on AGO.
09:13Yeah, and this strengthens the idea that there's a real connection between the Hubble constant and the CMBR temperature,
09:18something scientists expect, but, you know, haven't fully nailed down within the SMNU.
09:22Here's where it gets really interesting.
09:25The age of the universe that comes out of this constrained solution, it's around 14.5685 billion years.
09:31And the margin of error is incredibly small.
09:3414.5685.
09:35That number is strikingly close to the estimated age of that ancient star, HD 140283, Methuselah.
09:42Which was about 14.46 billion years, plus or minus 0.8.
09:46Exactly.
09:48So this could mean that this whole approach helps resolve that initial age problem we talked about.
09:54It potentially avoids that crisis in cosmology.
09:57It certainly brings the numbers into much better alignment, much more comfortable territory.
10:02Storty then looks into heuristic solutions too, right?
10:05Yeah.
10:05Using SMOC data ranges.
10:07Yeah, heuristic and constrained heuristic.
10:09He uses key data ranges from the standard model itself, along with his formula linking CMBR temperature to other parameters.
10:16The heuristic solution basically shows that the age calculated by the SMOC doesn't actually line up with the observed CMBR temperature, using his formula.
10:25Ah, another hint that the SMOC age might be off.
10:28Right.
10:28But it also shows that the SMOC's values for the Hubble constant and the amount of dark energy are consistent with the CMBR temperature when you use his equation.
10:36So it's specifically the age calculation that seems disconnected.
10:39Interesting distinction.
10:40Okay, let's unpack this.
10:41The constrained heuristic solution looks at different combinations of the SMOC's dark energy amount and the CMBR temperature.
10:49This analysis reveals that while you can find many combinations of SMOC parameters that fit the CMBR temperature requirement, some of the extreme values within the SMOC's accepted range actually contradict other observations.
11:04Specifically, the value of the Hubble constant.
11:07Like the upper limit for dark energy doesn't work with the upper limit for 8-year-old energy.
11:10Do there are internal tensions within the SMOC ranges when constrained this way?
11:15Exactly.
11:15Which leads to a really important discussion.
11:18Storty emphasizes the strong link he sees between physical reality and his theoretical universe of Hubble radius.
11:25Which supports the idea that the Hubble age is the true age.
11:28Yeah.
11:29He argues that the SMOE's way of determining the universe's age might be off because it doesn't have that clear, direct connection to the CMBR temperature.
11:36He suggests the universe's age, its expansion rate, the amount of dark energy, the CMBR temperature, they're all deeply connected.
11:43And the SMOE's current explanation doesn't fully tie all those pieces together in the same way.
11:47And that first clue we noticed, that SMOE's age calculation, not directly involving CMBR temperature, is made even more significant by the second clue.
11:56The age estimate being younger than that old star.
11:59Right.
11:59And while the error bars technically overlap, Storty rightly reminds us, just because the range is touched doesn't mean the central values are correct.
12:07And overlap doesn't resolve the tension if the central values are far apart.
12:11Good point.
12:12Error bars don't guarantee correctness.
12:14And what's fascinating here is how Storty explains this difference from the standard model.
12:19He pinpoints the assignment of Z equals zero as the likely culprit.
12:23The root cause.
12:24Proposes using the dark energy redshift Z as the fix, and quantifies the effect using K.
12:31He suggests that the SMOE's simplified age equation, the one usually used, is basically incomplete.
12:37It doesn't properly consider the time dilation effects caused by what he believes is a massive photonic field.
12:43Which he equates to the dark energy field itself.
12:45Exactly.
12:46He thinks dark energy might be this massive photonic field, and its effect on time needs to be in the age equation.
12:52Here's where it gets really interesting.
12:53He even points back to a study from 2008.
12:56Oh, yeah.
12:56Where he and his colleagues apparently accurately calculated the CMBR temperature and predicted the value of the Hubble constant before those values were actually measured experimentally.
13:07Using their formula relating photon mass energy and other constants.
13:11Wow.
13:12Okay.
13:13Predicting values that are later confirmed, that's a pretty strong track record.
13:16That lends weight to the framework.
13:18Definitely adds credibility.
13:19So, this naturally brings us to the second research paper and the electrogravimagnac, or EGM, construct.
13:26This work takes on another really fundamental puzzle in physics.
13:30That mind-bogglingly huge difference, like 42 orders of magnitude between the strength of the electrostatic force and the gravitational force.
13:38The many orders of magnitude problem, or moo.
13:42That huge gap.
13:43That's the one.
13:44Why is gravity so incredibly weak compared to electromagnetism?
13:47Okay, let's unpack this.
13:48The EGM construct.
13:50It offers a completely new way of thinking about gravity, doesn't it?
13:53Oh, yeah.
13:54Radically different.
13:55Instead of seeing it as the curvature of space-time, like in GR, it proposes that gravity is actually a kind of ripple or disturbance in the quantum vacuum, the QV.
14:04The quantum vacuum.
14:05Not empty space, but that sort of sea of virtual particles.
14:08Exactly.
14:09That seething soup of potential.
14:12The EGM construct builds on the polarizable vacuum model we just discussed.
14:16It suggests that the curvature of space-time we observe as gravity arises from changes in how this quantum vacuum affects light and other fields its refractive index, that KPV again.
14:27So gravity is like a side effect of the vacuum's properties changing.
14:32In a sense, yes.
14:32What's fascinating here is how the EGM construct uses the zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of this quantum vacuum.
14:40This field has a specific distribution of energy across different frequencies, described by a cubic spectral energy density law.
14:47It's not uniform.
14:48Okay, cubic law.
14:49And to make sense of all this, the framework uses some sophisticated math tools like Buckingham theory and quantized Fourier distributions, basically ways to break down mass and energy into fundamental vibrations or spectra within the QV.
15:00So it's all about vibrations in the vacuum.
15:03Pretty much.
15:03This allows for a connection between Einstein's geometric view of gravity and the quantum world of particles and fields.
15:12It tries to bridge that gap.
15:13And the EGM construct has had some pretty impressive successes, right, in explaining things we actually observe.
15:19It has, both at the particle level and cosmologically.
15:22For example, in particle physics, it accurately predicts the size, the charge radii, of protons and neutrons.
15:29They are physical size.
15:30Yeah.
15:31And the mathematical formula it uses is the same for both, which aligns really well with experimental measurements, including the latest data.
15:38That's quite neat.
15:39Okay, that's particle physics.
15:41What about the big picture?
15:42Well, if we connect this to the bigger picture, the EGM construct also shows remarkable consistency when we look at astrophysics and cosmology.
15:49It helps constrain the properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation in ways that match observation.
15:55It might even explain why the James Webb Space Telescope is seeing more early galaxies than our standard models predicted.
16:02Ah, the JWST results.
16:04Exactly.
16:05And, crucially, remember that 2008 prediction.
16:08The EGM construct's prediction of the Hubble constant is very close to the values measured later by the Planck satellite and other methods.
16:16Addressing the Hubble tension again.
16:17Directly.
16:18And it even offers a potential solution to the cosmological flatness problem, which is another big mystery about why the universe's geometry seems so finely tuned.
16:26We'll get to that one.
16:27But first, here's where it gets really interesting.
16:31The EGM construct tackles the Moomand, that huge force difference.
16:36How?
16:36It suggests the gap is related to the different vibrational patterns, or frequency spectra, within the quantum vacuum associated with electric charge versus mass.
16:46Different vibrations for charge and mass.
16:48Yeah.
16:49And a key part of this explanation is the idea of a 90-degree phase difference between how the quantum vacuum responds to electric fields and how it responds to gravitational fields.
16:58Like, they're out of sync.
16:5990 degrees out of phase.
17:00This phase difference, which comes out of the math of the EGM framework, essentially amplifies the difference in strength between the two forces, while still allowing electric charge and mass to be independent properties, which they obviously are.
17:12So it explains the weakness of gravity relative to electromagnetism.
17:16By looking at how these spectral vibrations relate to the accelerations caused by the forces, the EGM construct reveals that the 42-order-of-magnitude gap is a natural consequence of this cubic frequency ratio and that 90-degree phase shift in the QV.
17:31It just falls out of the model.
17:33Wow.
17:33So it's not just an arbitrary difference.
17:34It's baked into the vacuum's response.
17:36That's the claim.
17:37The paper then looks at simplified scenarios at the quantum scale, where that PV refractive index KPV becomes equal to 1.
17:45This leads to simpler formulas for the fundamental vibrational frequencies within the quantum vacuum and the maximum frequencies that can exist cut-off frequencies.
17:54And this helps bridge the quantum and classical worlds.
17:57It helps show the consistency.
17:58And as we mentioned, the fact that it derives the same mathematical form for the size of both protons and neutrons is a powerful example of this unification working at the quantum scale.
18:08So the main takeaways from the EGM construct are pretty significant then.
18:12Absolutely.
18:12It proposes a way to unify fundamental forces through this phase misalignment and frequency ratio.
18:19It suggests a spectral space-time where gravity as curvature is linked to the QV's refractive properties.
18:26It's shown strong agreement with experimental data through its predictions, like for H0 and particle radii.
18:32And it provides important cosmological insights, like supporting the Hubble age as the true age, which aligns better with JWST observations of early galaxies.
18:41Okay.
18:42Now let's dig into the cosmological history of the Moon P. How might that force ratio have changed over time?
18:48Right.
18:49Storty maps this out, assuming that the ratio of the electrostatic to gravitational force, let's call it EG, scaled proportionally with the size of the cosmos.
18:57So as the universe grew, the ratio changed.
19:00That's the hypothesis explored here.
19:02He defines the very beginning, the Big Bang singularity, and the current state, defined by the Hubble radius, using a set of equations involving fundamental constants, like Planck frequency, Hubble constants, etc.
19:15Setting the start and end points.
19:16Yeah. Then, by converting these initial and final states into descriptions based on those QV vibrational frequencies we talked about, the EGM construct establishes a link between these vastly different epochs.
19:28This link is then related back to that force ratio, EG, using a scaling factor that connects the present day to these early times.
19:36Here's where it gets really interesting. This framework gives us an equation describing how the force ratio changes as the universe expands.
19:44By solving this equation for the point where the forces have the same strength when EG equals one.
19:50Electro-gravitational unity.
19:51Right. We can find out how large the universe was and at what incredibly early time this unification occurred.
19:56And the answer is...
19:57A tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, during the period we call inflation, extremely early on.
20:02So the forces were unified during inflation, according to this model. Makes sense.
20:07The model also allows us to estimate the extremely high temperatures back then.
20:11Storty includes diagrams that visually show how the force ratio changes with cosmic size, and how CMBR temperature changes with age, giving a nice picture of this evolution.
20:21There's also a table, table one in this second paper, that gives a detailed history of this electro-gravitational force ratio, predicted by EGM across different eras.
20:31Inflation, radiation era, matter era, present future.
20:36A whole timeline for the force ratio.
20:38Yeah. And using another equation, Storty even makes predictions about how this force ratio might change relative to its current value over different timescales.
20:47Like, how much weaker will gravity get compared to electromagnetism in the future?
20:51And what does it predict? Is it measurable?
20:53Well, what's fascinating here is that the predictions suggest we might actually be able to experimentally detect a change in the force ratio in the future.
21:00Really? How soon?
21:01Maybe within the next few thousand to a hundred thousand years, given how quickly our measurement tech advances.
21:07The predicted change over a billion years is around minus 5%.
21:1195%. Okay.
21:12That's potentially detectable eventually.
21:14A very long-term experiment.
21:16Definitely not next week's project.
21:17Yeah.
21:18Okay, finally, let's explore the third paper, which directly tackles the Hubble tension using both the EGM construct and the PV model.
21:26Bring it all together.
21:26Exactly.
21:28Storty reminds us again of his earlier successful predictions for CMBR temperature and the Hubble constant, which were later confirmed, just reinforcing the credibility.
21:36Setting the stage.
21:37So the main goal of this third paper is?
21:39To calculate the current values of the standard CDM parameters and describe the entire history of the cosmos in a way that agrees with the standard model where it works.
21:49Okay.
21:49But crucially, to show that this apparent Hubble tension, the disagreement between early universe and late universe measurements of 8-0, doesn't actually exist within his framework.
22:00Bold claim.
22:01So he thinks the tension is an artifact of the standard model itself.
22:05That seems to be the argument.
22:06He argues that the fact that general relativity doesn't inherently predict accelerated expansion and can't account for most of the universe's mass suggests it's incomplete at cosmic scales.
22:17He uses this really relatable analogy, like relying on a single GPS unit in the vast Siberian forest.
22:24It might seem okay, but if it's slightly off, you could be way off course.
22:28Relying only on GR might be risky.
22:30So he proposes using, what, three GPS units?
22:33Yeah.
22:34GR, the PV model, and the EGM construct.
22:38By combining insights from all three, he argues that the apparent conflict in data about when acceleration started is resolved.
22:44How so?
22:45Table 1 in this paper shows his calculated values for key parameters at different cosmic ages, and these values seem to align with different data sets, like Freemans and PDGs, at the appropriate times, suggesting they aren't actually in conflict when viewed through the EGM lens.
22:58Okay, so reconciling different measurements across time, what about the present day values?
23:02By comparing the EGM predictions with the SOSC for the present day, that's, Table 2's story points out significant agreement on most parameters, except for the universe's age, as we discussed.
23:12The EGM gives that older 14.5 billion year age, but for things like dark energy density, matter density, the numbers are very close.
23:21And he emphasizes that the EGM's adjustments are constrained by the CMBR data, right?
23:26Yes, that's a key constraint. It's not just arbitrary changes.
23:29Then there's the cosmological calendar, Table 3.
23:31Right, a detailed timeline from the Big Bang to the distant future, according to EGM.
23:36For each major event, inflation, nucleosynthesis, recombination, today, etc., it lists the predicted values for the Hubble constant and the cosmological constant, showing how they evolve.
23:48A full history based on the EGM.
23:50Here's where it gets really interesting. Storty explains how cosmological inflation, that super rapid early expansion, it rises naturally within the EGM construct.
23:59It doesn't need to be patched in like it sort of is in the standard model.
24:02It's an organic outcome of the EGM physics.
24:05That's the idea.
24:06Figure 2 and Table 4 outline the different phases of this early EGM inflation and the subsequent expansion, showing it as a natural precursor to the later universe.
24:15And crucially, you mentioned the EGM construct doesn't actually require dark energy as a separate thing.
24:21Correct, because the model establishes a direct mathematical link between the CMBR temperature and the Hubble constant value used in TDM.
24:28Well, the effects we attribute to dark energy are just inherently part of the EGM framework's description of expansion.
24:34So the accelerated expansion happens, but it doesn't need a separate dark energy field to drive it in this model.
24:40Seems so. The relationship between CMBR and H0 handles it.
24:45Storty then presents the core EGM equations and compares parameters like the cosmological constant, density parameters for dark energy and matter, the deceleration parameter, mass density between EGM and SMLC across cosmic history in tables 5 through 9.
25:00Lots of comparative data.
25:01Showing the similarities and differences over time.
25:04Right. Then the paper tackles critical density and the flatness problem.
25:07Ah, yes, the flatness puzzle.
25:09Why does the universe seem so geometrically flat?
25:12Storty discusses the EGM's prediction for the Hubble constant way back then, refining the moments of maximum temperature and maximum H0.
25:19Table 10 compares the critical density calculated using the SMOC formula, but plugging in the EGM's evolving H0 values.
25:27Okay, and table 11 compares the density parameters.
25:30Yeah, the EGM's total density parameter versus the SMOC's density parameter.
25:34It shows key differences in their evolution and points out that the SMOC calculations actually become undefined, mathematically singular, at the moment of maximum cosmological temperature.
25:45Which is a problem for the standard model.
25:47Seems like it.
25:48And this leads into the flatness problem, that seemingly incredible fine-tuning needed in the early universe for it to be so close to flat today.
25:56Storty argues the EGM results offer a way out by suggesting the geometry isn't constant.
26:01It changes over time.
26:02Which goes against a key SMOC assumption.
26:04Big time.
26:05Okay, let's unpack this.
26:07Storty proposes a revised way to think about the density parameters that basically avoids the flatness problem.
26:13He suggests the observed flatness is just a temporary present-day approximation.
26:17He then lays out the steps using the EGM construct, introducing new concepts like resultant density parameters and cosmological curvature parameters.
26:26Well, more parameters.
26:27To describe this evolving geometry.
26:30Figure 6 plots these, and tables 12 through 14 show the numbers.
26:33Table 15 highlights similarities between EGM and SMOC at different times.
26:38But the key is Table 16, right?
26:40The curvature history.
26:41Exactly.
26:42Table 16 outlines the cosmological curvature according to EGM.
26:45It suggests the universe started barely open at the Big Bang.
26:49Became maximally closed during inflation.
26:51I know.
26:51I transitioned back to barely open, which looks apparently flat to us today, and is heading towards becoming asymptotically open in the distant future.
27:00So, a dynamic geometry.
27:01Never perfectly flat, just passing through a near-flat phase now.
27:05That's the picture.
27:07And based on this, Storty concludes the flatness problem, as usually formulated, doesn't actually exist in this framework.
27:13It dissolves.
27:14Wow.
27:15Okay.
27:15That's a major claim.
27:17In the final section, The Ideal Universe, Storty argues that, look, the standard model was mostly built for the present-day universe.
27:24The EGM construct, he suggests, helps fertilize it by providing a more complete cosmic history.
27:31He points back to the evidence for EGM's credibility in earlier tables.
27:35And he highlights that there are now two different mathematical solutions, EGM and a modified Speris-Movastra, that give similar present-day results, but really diverge back at that point of maximum cosmological temperature.
27:47Right.
27:48And he introduces another equation, Equary 21, for a cosmological curvature parameter.
27:52Oh, yeah.
27:53Which he claims is an exact solution from the Big Bang to now, resolving that discontinuity at maximum temperature and staying consistent with other curvature parameters.
28:01Providing a smoother, complete mathematical description.
28:04Yeah.
28:04And he concludes the universe is heading towards that asymptotically open state, reinforcing again.
28:10The flatness problem isn't really a problem.
28:12Okay.
28:12Quite a journey through these papers.
28:13Here's where it gets really interesting.
28:15So what does this all mean?
28:16In this deep dive, we've seen how that seemingly simple assignment, Z equal more for redshift today, might be, you know, a fundamental flaw in how we calculate the universe's age.
28:27A potentially incorrect starting assumption.
28:30And the polarizable vacuum model, and especially the electrogravid magnetic construct, they offer some really compelling alternative ways of thinking about gravity, dark energy, how the cosmos evolved.
28:41Frameworks that seem to address multiple problems at once.
28:43Right.
28:44And the Hubble age, around 14.5 billion years, as suggested by these frameworks, might actually be the true age, which could solve that puzzle of Methuselah, the star seemingly older than the universe.
28:56Brings things into line.
28:57And on top of that, the moon pee, that huge force cap, and the flatness problem, two massive, longstanding mysteries in cosmology.
29:07They might have potential answers within the EGM construct that tries to tackle it all.
29:11These alternative models, they definitely pose a real challenge to the current standard model of cosmology.
29:17It opens up some incredibly exciting new avenues for research, could lead to a major shift in our fundamental understanding.
29:25Absolutely.
29:25And the deep interconnectedness between the age, dark energy expansion, fundamental forces, it really comes through in this research, doesn't it?
29:33It really emphasizes that these probably aren't separate problems.
29:36They're likely different facets of a deeper underlying physics.
29:39And the fact that we might, might, be able to experimentally verify the predicted changes in the electrogravitational force ratio in the future.
29:48And that's a tantalizing possibility, right?
29:50A way to directly test these ideas eventually.
29:52It is a very long-term prospect, but a concrete prediction nonetheless, which is what you want from a scientific theory.
29:58So, this leaves us with a final thought for you, the listener, to ponder.
30:04How might our entire understanding of the universe shift if these alternative models gain more traction, if they're supported by further evidence?
30:11Yeah.
30:11What new questions might arise about the true nature of dark energy, or if it even exists as we think?
30:18What about the fabric of space-time itself and those fundamental forces?
30:22If gravity isn't quite what GR says on the largest scales, what does that imply?
30:27So, what does this all mean?
30:29It means we're at a truly fascinating point in our exploration of the cosmos.
30:33Lots of questions, and maybe some surprising new answers emerging.
30:36Thank you for taking this deep dive with us.
30:38We definitely encourage you to dig into the source material yourself, if you're inclined,
30:42and really consider the profound implications of these findings.
30:44Thanks.