Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Rajendra Gupta On Tired Light and the REAL Age of the Universe [Ep. 431]

Episode Date: June 23, 2024

Join my mailing list https://briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN! Is the universe twice as old as we thought? Current estimates suggest that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. But today, we’re joined by Rajendra Gupta, a luminary in the field of cosmology who claims that the universe is actually 26.7 billion years old. I've invited him on the show so he can make a case for his claims! Professor Gupta is a theoretical physicist currently teaching astrophysics to senior undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Ottawa. His research focuses on astrophysics, cosmology, general relativity, the dynamics of the universe under evolutionary physical constants beyond the standard model, CMB, JWST, BAO, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the large-scale structure and formation of galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy.  To say I am thrilled to have him on the show for the second time would be an understatement.  So, without further ado, let’s jump right in!  Key Takeaways: 00:00 Intro 01:50 Judging Rajendra’s paper  05:34 Changing cosmic constants  10:45 Tired light hypothesis  13:58 Falsifying the notion that the universe is 26 billion years old  18:57 Falsifying tired light  21:41 The Big Bang and galaxy formation  28:31 Hybrid model of dark energy  33:27 The expanding universe  36:41 Audience questions 44:20 Outro — Additional resources: 📝 Get one month of Snipd Premium for free with this link: https://get.snipd.com/Cx7S/brianSnipd Snipd lets you take Smart Notes 🧠 with AI 💡 — it’s my favorite podcast player 😀 ! ➡️ Learn more about Rajendra Gupta: 💻 University website: https://www.uottawa.ca/faculty-science/professors/rajendra-gupta ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating  🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1  📝 Join my mailing list: https://briankeating.com/list  ✍️ Check out my blog: https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/  🎙️ Follow my podcast: https://briankeating.com/podcast Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is the universe twice as old as we thought? Current estimates suggest that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. But today, on Into the Impossible, we're joined by Regendra Gupta, a luminary in the field of cosmology who claims that the universe is actually 26.7 billion years old. That's almost twice as old as the current model suggests. So naturally, this claim catapulted him straight into the headlines. But as Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So I invited Gupta on the show to make a case for his radical theory that could completely change our understanding of the universe.

Gupta is a University of Ottawa, adjunct professor renowned for his pioneering work on dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe. So without further ado, let's jump right in to an expansive. conversation. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Anyway, Rajendra, you're supposed to be here in person. There were horrible events on UCSD's campus, the anti-Israel protesters getting arrested. 75 or so are arrested as we speak. And that prevented us from being in person, but you're gracious enough to give us your time today. Thank you so much. I'm so sorry that you came all the way to San Diego to do this interview in your hotel room, but the campus is on lockdown right now.

Oh, my pleasure to be here. At least you are talking, that's a good thing. You know, we have to always see what is positive out of all the difficult times. It is. And you're one of the most requested guests recently on the podcast. I'm so glad that we got a chance to have this conversation. And we're going to start. Usually we start off when we have an author on discussing his or her book.

we show the book and we say, we're going to judge the book by its cover. I printed out this paper, and I want you to tell us the title, what was behind the title of the paper? There's no artwork. There's no cover dust jacket, but it's called Testing CCC plus TL, cosmology with observed barian acoustic oscillation features. And in the acknowledgments, I was delighted to see my name acknowledge as well. Professor Gupta tell us what was behind this title and what is a short summary of the paper.

and then we'll get into the details of it. Actually, we had a lot of challenges. When we published the first paper which came out last summer, I wasn't expecting the age to be a big issue, but somehow it did become a big issue. Then people say, okay, oh, we have maybe cherry-picked the data, and we haven't shown anything else which fits this new model. So I thought, let's try to do something simple.

before we get something more complicated and more difficult, which requires additional resources, additional people, which I'm working with now. But this kind of thing is fairly simple. For example, the sound horizon, so we said, okay, let's try to test the model with the sound horizon. And sound horizon is the disturbance in the early universe, which propagates until the recompens,

recombination time of the creation of atoms in the universe from plasma. So that is the time which is observed directly, was observed like plaque, as an angular size. It is not a physical size. It's the angular size. So we say, okay, angular size we are measuring. Forget about physical. They say it is 130 kiloparsec or something. No.

It's the angle which we measure. So we took that angle and we tried to calculate that angle with our approach. And we say, okay, it matched very well with that. That was very nice without any time of tweaking, except slightly, which is required. For example, the variation of the constant itself, we are defining it with single parameter. and that has slightly evolved, as if you might say, but we didn't have to change Hubble constant, we just had to change this thing slightly about 5%

in order to fit that data, which should be expected. Then we said, all right, this is essentially a barionic acoustic oscillation feature in the early universe. Now, same thing now exists in the late universe in the form of galaxy, distribution. The correlation between the galaxy distribution, so two-point correlation, for example. So he said, okay, let's try to test it with that. So there was some data available at different Z values. So I said, let's try to fit that too. And it fitted very well, and it gave

exactly its same parameter, which almost exactly within the error bars of the odd, within the uncertainty you might see, we get the same result. So this gave us some more confident that the model is indeed reasonably good to put additional resources to study it further. When my audience wants to know what is CCC, you know, changing coupling constants, why should they believe that that's true? What evidence, just from physics, not from astronomy, astrophysics, not from fitting data to a model as you do? So a skeptical person who's doubtful about changing constants. We have limits on the variation of the fine structure constant and other things. Why should he or she listening have any confidence that any other constants could be changing with time?

That's a very good point. And this is what we have, it has been studied quite a bit, especially for gravitational constant after DRAC in 1937 predicted its variation based on his a large number, hypothesis. And since then, a lot of people have tried to measure it. But I had read a paper written by Shulip Uzan some time ago, and I think in 2010 or even earlier, in which he mentions if one constant varies,

firstly, he said dimensional constant shouldn't be varying. But if one varies, then others will also vary. So we can't ignore their variation. This gave me an idea that, okay, maybe we should consider not the variation of one only, but multiple constants which are involved. But why should they be vetting? I mean, it is not arbitrary weaken assume. I then looked into what is the physics behind it.

The physics behind is that came from, say, if you have exploding a star, like super noise. How does it explode? When it explodes, then different energies are converted into each other, like nuclear energy is there, and then thermal energy, photons are radiated, all these things happen at that time, and you cannot change, say, gravitational energy while ignoring the change in others. So when you try to do local energy conservation, when you apply a local energy conservation on it, you get a relationship in that. There's not that you can just allow G to be varying, others have to vary, and they are then correlated through a single dimensionless function. If one varies, then other have to be

very too. I don't say, this kind of analysis doesn't say that they vary. If they vary, they have to vary in a certain way. There has to be correlation. When that correlation came, then we say, okay, if we have to apply this kind of thing, we have to apply it for all the constant. That's what the physics is behind it. So when we look at the universe, a lot of the criticism that you have faced for these papers is that, oh, Regendra, there's too many free parameters.

And this is very important for my viewers, because most of my viewers, Regina, are young people in science or older people in science. They're scientists. Some are developing their abilities and learning more about being a good scientist. So it's important to recognize when a scientist is doing good work. And I want to highlight what you say. You say quite frequently that we have to be careful to attack a model before we understand it. And I think that's very commendable. And so you pointed out many times that this is actually.

true of the standard Lambda CDM model as well. So can you take us through? If you were looking at standard Lambda CDM, and then you're looking at CCC plus Tired Light, which we still have to get into, which is more simple in the Occam's Razor perspective? Are they identical? Do they have the same number of free parameters?

Which is more preferable from the economy of physical assumptions that must go into it? I think that's another very good concern people have. Firstly, both the models have exactly the same number of three parameters, too. In the case of Lambda-Sidium model, the Hubble constant, and the second constant is the lambda itself. There are the two constants. Now, you might relate, lambda, okay, you don't say lambda,

you might say that it is the energy density of the metal energy density, then they are correlated with each other. But you end up in the late universe, not early universe, for example, C and B, all that, you have multiple parameters which come out from that. But in the late universe, which we are analyzing, it is two parameters. We have exactly the same number of parameters. There are no more, no less. But in terms of which one is simpler, yes, I think Lambda CDM is definitely simpler to you. You said this place was steps from the water.

We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now.

Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton for the stay. Let's get into Tired Light. What is Tired Light? We heard a lot, and I've had a lot of online, you know, kind of back and forth with Eric Lerner.

I have not actually met him or conversed with him yet. Maybe I will, and maybe I won't. But it's important to make a distinction between you and what he does, because I think he has been publishing sort of the similar features and claims against the Big Bang. The Big Bang never happened since 1990, since the original Hubble, you know, a telescope was launched. and the first results came in, and he's never updated his theory, even as a wealth of information came in. It completely ignored the findings of Kobe DMR, then later WMAP, then later Plank, and it is completely incompatible with barrett acoustic oscillations, his model, but his model uses

tired light as well, but there's a big difference. Your model assumes there was a big bang, effectively, that the universe is expanding, whereas he repudiates that notion. Tell me, how do you describe a model of tired light? And what features does it have in common with Mr. Lerner that is, and what differences does it have in your conception? My thinking is that the two can coexist. I had this idea right from very long time that there's no need for either expansion or the tire life. They can simultaneously exist.

One good thing is that because both are traveling exactly the same distance, whether light get tired or it loses energy through the expansion, they are still due to the same distance they are traveling. So when you equate that distance for the two, you eliminate extra parameter. Most people think that since I am bringing another form of friendship, there must be another free parameter. No, it's not there. This is one end. Moreover, as I will discuss later today in the talk I'm going to give at your place, I'm going to show that the contribution of tidal light in early universe is extremely small. In later universe, it can go up to about 20%. Because of this kind of the way we equate them.

We don't say how much it is at each stage. It's just derived by equate. equating these distances which has traveled by the light. So I think it is fairly straightforward how we use the two things. But whereas other people say it is one or the other, that's the major difference. While I can't say for sure the universe is 26 billion years old, I can say that only about 50% of you are subscribed to my YouTube channel or following my podcast on one of the many streaming platforms. It's a shame, really, because I know that you love the content and the amazing guests we've been bringing on. So please subscribe and follow.

It helps the show a lot. And let me know in the comments below how old you think the universe is. Thanks. Now, back to the episode. And from my audience, I'm going to record the talk that Professor Gupta has generously agreed to give later on. I'll put that on this channel too, and I'll have a link to it in the show notes below, or perhaps you can click on it up here. So you can get the full detail.

Now, that's for experts. That's for real professionals. So Professor Gupta is not scared to debate people. He is incredibly courageous. And I think it's fair to say you didn't expect the attention that you got last year, the media, and you didn't seek it out either. And when I did an analysis of that paper with a colleague, Professor Alison Kirkpatrick, who had been quoted by Lerner and others,

to cast aspersions on her work or her dealings with the Big Bang theory as it is. So when we had this conversation, and by the way, again, for my young students out there, this is what you should emulate. Professor Gupta doesn't shy away. He doesn't make ad hominem attacks. He doesn't take cheap shots. He is approaching things wherever the data may lead him. And I think it's fair to say, right, Regendra, that you would have accepted it.

If your data came out to be compatible with the Big Bang, it just so happened that it didn't. and you find that there's reason to consider it. But you would have accepted it, whereas I don't believe that other opponents of the Big Bang can really take seriously the notion that their ideas could be falsified. So, for example, let's talk about your work, and your work is now being applied to barren acoustic features,

not just to the JWST data that brought attention to you last year. So talk about how this new paper, which I'm graciously acknowledged, Talk about how this, you could have disproven your earlier work, and that I think is the sign of a good scientist. What was the expected result or unexpected result that could have perhaps falsified the notion that the universe is 26 billion years old? What could have that barrier and acoustic oscillation of the early, the features in the early universe which is sound horizon, it is part of CMB, cosmic microwave background. It is happening at extremely high land shift. According to Lambda CDM, time scale, if we take that, it is happening at around 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

So naturally, it is very much early in the time of the universe. So we said, okay, can we test something in the early universe? All I had done is supernova data and cosmic dawn data, which is still we are talking about Z or the what Americans, like to say the red shift in the range of 10 to 20. I am saying that we cannot be applied to very high red shifts, which is 1,000 or so. So this was the motivation for me to do the third. horizon test. In sound horizon, then, is what eventually expands into the galaxy formation, those perturbation leads to the galaxy formation. So I said, okay, if we get some information

about these features in the early universe, do we get the similar results in the later universe? That was the motivation for me to do, prove or disprove the new model. Let's get back to Tired Light. So Tired Light is a phenomenon that was originally suggested a very long time ago and has fallen out of favor among all but a very small handful of professional cosmologists. Talk about the evidence which, again, even Mr. Lerner, in the few conversations I've had with him online at least, will admit that there is no mechanism known to physicists that can do this, can accomplish this tired light behavior and how that is distinguishable, in principle, your model from the ordinary expansion of the universe, which tires the light, if you will,

via the diminution of the number density of photons and by increasing their wavelength and thereby plank formula decreasing their energy. So what is your concept of tired light? Should we really have a notion of a new phenomenon in physics where there's no real evidence for it other than perhaps these cosmological observations? See, tired light, what causes the tire light effect. This is something very difficult to explain. It's not Compton Scattering. If that was proposed by Zwicki, for example, that may be that kind of scattering, no. If it was that kind of scattering, you will have bludering, you will have other problems with that. No, we don't know what it is, but we don't know a lot of physics in the world. For example,

what is dark matter? Nobody knows what is dark matter. So there are a lot of unknown. Well, I would only object, Regendra, just with respect, that we do have an example of dark matter. Neutrinos fit the, you know, all the categories that are needed, all the characteristics of dark matter. Now, it's true. They don't make up the entirety of the so-called dark matter or missing matter, but we have evidence for the existence of particles that have mass and don't interact with light. So I would say that would not be the only, I would say dark energy might be even more appropriate than dark matter. But again, we look to the universe for evidence, but in principle, it should be possible to do a test and discover tired light, even in a laboratory setting. So, and to my knowledge, it hasn't been done, even though we can get to, you know, sub-femthossecond precision on laser cooling of atoms to measure energy transition.

So at any rate, I wouldn't use dark matter because, as I say, Nantrinos exists. But what about, so besides the dark matter, that's like saying, well, your model is not good. you have, you know, but mine also may not be good. So is there any way that we could prove or falsify tired light, in your opinion? Yes. Actually, this is one thing which I sent, the next paper which I had sent, you know, our friend Ethan Wichnack, he's the editor of APJ, chief editor, he wrote to me and asked me the same question.

And the answer to that is yes, there is what you call. the time dilation effect. Time dilation doesn't happen in tire light. Time dilation happens only in expending universe. So there is data which shows the time dilation and there are uncertainties in there. So I produced certain switch to that thing and it turns out tire light alone doesn't fit that bill. So So tire light is out. But the thyroid plus the covariing constant CCC plus TL, what we call the model, it doesn't, this data does not falsify it.

But if these uncertainties in that data can be improved, then it might be possible to show which one is better, whether TARLight can at all be included. Because tire light, as I said, I'm including, it comes out in a very small quantity when it is put in naturally. As I said, it is not because I'm trying to artificially add additional parameter to really add the tire light. It is naturally by comparing the distance traveled. Let's get into which of the following types of evidence you think is more concerning. There's a so-called impossible early galaxies problem, and that was related to your work on JWST. Again, I have to keep extolling what you do, Regendra.

I'm a big fan of what you do, even though I don't agree with you, but that's the nature of science. We can be friends and we can talk and we can share ideas, even though we may have different predilections and opinions, we're not entitled to our own facts. So it's really a delight to talk to a scientist such as yourself. Now, the early impossible galaxies. Well, this podcast is called Into the Impossible, and that comes from Sir Arthur C. Clark, who said the only way of knowing the limits of the possible is to go into the impossible. Eleanor Roosevelt said the word impossible has the phrase, I'm possible. And I made this case when I went on Joe Rogan's show discussing your work and somewhat bleakly Eric learners as well.

Imagine that you're talking to some evolutionary biologists. And they come from a different planet, and they're looking at the Earth. And they see us with these devices, you know, these, these, you know, silicon and glass devices. And we're typing on them and they're electrified and we can do all sorts of things with them. And they say, no, no, no, that shouldn't be possible because our calculations suggest that the human civilization is only 9,000 years old. You know, started in India, you know, maybe the Middle East, maybe China, Africa, you know, proto-civilization. There's no way in just 8,000 years, it's impossible. There's the impossible early cell phone problem, I call it.

So why is it that that casts doubt on the big bang occurring in the words of Mr. Lerner and does it for you? In other words, isn't that just a failure to maybe match observations or expectations of our galaxy formation model having nothing to do with the origin of the universe? It's like saying because we have cell phones, the Earth has to be 20 billion years old because it would take that much time to evolve creature. So to me, the impossible early galaxies problem is not a problem for the Big Bang. It may be for galaxy formation, but it's not for the Big Bang.

Where do you come down? Do you believe these galaxies present a problem for the Big Bang itself? Actually, I don't see it. I see a lot of authors presenting that kind of problem and saying, oh, there's no way these galaxies can be formed in such a small time. and a whole lot of papers are there on that. So I just said, okay, let us see if there could be another way to resolve this problem. I came across a paper which resolved this problem just simply by Tired Light.

And I said, no, that is not possible because I know Tired Light can resolve that problem, but it cannot resolve so many other problems which are there. So then it came to my mind, what if we combine that two? This is where the combination of two, which I had tried before several years ago, but that was not really leading anywhere. But eventually when this information came and so many people were making noises about the impossible early galaxy problem, then I got in there, maybe there is the explanation I can suggest by including.

tire light. So I don't see this to be a cell phone effect, as you said, impossible cell phone effect. Yes, you are right. If you see that even 100 years ago, we couldn't have dreamed about this kind of thing, or 60, 70 years ago, we couldn't have dreamed about this kind of thing which we are seeing today. So yes, that galaxies perhaps could be formed by some method already rapidly. Yeah. Now, the massive galaxy problem or the size of the galaxy problem, I've had Chris Hayward from the Flatiron Institute on the Center for Computational Astrophysics, and their work with the fire simulation project suggests that Starbursts can cause these galaxies to be completely possible and not only that probable due to previous simulations,

missing out on the effect of feedback. And I know you talk to Professor David Spargo, the president of the Simons Foundation who oversees the Flatiron Institution and is my collaborator on Simon's Observatory, co-founder of it, and he's a wonderful individual. I know you acknowledge him, too, in this newest paper. But talk about that. What reconsideration might you have based on the work by his staff at Flatiron, which is funded by his foundation? So what have you updated, you know, the considerations of these so-called Impossible Galaxies after the initial papers last year? Not only that paper, there are so many papers which have come out since then, adjusting the galaxy formation, simulation and adjusting the parameters in them and saying, yes, it is indeed possible to have galaxies of these sizes, super addington accretion rate, for example, could be one of the thing. And then they also say that, okay, dark matter is placed the extremely important part in the formation. of these galaxies and how it can be affecting. So there are all sorts of parameters. I don't, I'm not expert in simulation on galaxies. I am not going to pretend or comment intelligently on that kind of thing.

But really, I could only say that their adjustment has been made to the models to make sure it can be created. The thing is this. We have to see if we go beyond what we are saying today, If we still see the galaxies at higher redshift, then we have additional problem. And already some of the galaxies they are seeing are not too many, but some galaxies they are seeing an extremely high red shift. And to me, out and they are the outliers.

I was just reading a paper. Oh, there are some outliers. Because initially, James Webb was. direct was in one direction. And people say, okay, we should see other section of the sky and they found they, they are different. They are not exactly the same kind of density of galaxies. They are not same size. But any sizes which are very large, they say they are outliers. It has outliers which requires new physics. You can't ignore the outliers. That's all I can say in this regard. So another feature that is kind of interesting is to think about future data sets.

The previous dataset, you did look at the Pantheon kind of dataset, and now you're looking at a BAO data. Of course, you must know, the DESE results just came out, which seemed to confirm, you know, even more so, you know, at least in terms of the free parameters of Lambda CDM, that, but, you know, things are still quite, quite in place. and very much even more solidified, if you will, with regard to Lambda CDM based on the DESE results. What's your next kind of opportunity? What next could you look to in other data sets to confirm or refute possibly these ideas? Actually, Daisy results are still not very conclusive. Some of the papers I was reading, they are talking about, for example, the, the, instead of simple dark energy model, evolutionally dark energy, water of their docking.

And if you interpret the model I have proposed and try to relate to the Lambda CDM model, we can see this co-waring constant, the constant which described that, it can be related to the dark energy and dark matter. are not dark energy and dark matter, but if you write the equation in certain ways, you can relate them. And in that one, there's a term which is maybe consider the interaction between matter and dark energy, which gives rise to so-called varying dark energy, which turns out to be in the model I have proposed also. So I don't think Daisy at this point is in conflict with I have proposed. And what about the criticism that often is raised, and I've raised it as well, that not only the CMBs and isotropies, but also it's isotropy. And that's very difficult to explain in the hybrid model as far as I understand.

But not only that, that's only looking at the temperature. we now have, you know, extra modes from polarization. And we also have further information because we are so concerned about contamination from the galaxy that we can actually, you know, predict the structure that galaxy polarization would look like in the CMB channels that we look for. And in fact, we dedicate many, many channels, not only to synchotron radiation and dust, things that we cannot be used to constrain the inflationary gravitational wave signal. How does your model reconcile that?

How can you explain the isotropy, the one part and 10 to the fifth of the Cmb, the seeming fine tuning of the fluctuations at large scales to produce the 10 to the minus fifth fluctuations on degree scales and smaller? And then finally, how can you account for the correlation and sort of confluence of the C&B data with Lambda CDM in terms of polarization of the Cmb and potential foreground? How does hybrid model treat these and how can it be reconciled? This is what exactly we are working on. I have a postdoc now. He's currently overseas. He is going to join me soon.

And another postdoc I'm trying to hire. And these two people will be working together to answer exactly this question. But in principle, if you see that the tire line component in early university is extremely small. It is less than 3% of the total expanding universe type, Big Bank type or expanding universe. So all the features of a big bank are not negated by this new model. So inflation, I'm not saying inflation didn't happen. It is still there. In fact, initial parameters, which we will require for fitting that will be coming from inflation.

I don't see there is any conflict in that. If polarizations are there, they won't be there. Drive gravitational lengthening, which is also very important in the CMB observation, that will not be affected in any way. So it is still, as I say, the model is mostly expanding universities, and only partially

and Illinois University is extremely small. If you're going to even higher redshift, then for the CNB, you are fine that tire light doesn't exist at all, almost. And what about... It's peak pollination season,

and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speeds. That's why I chose GoogleFi wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay.

Explore GoogleFi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. Gaining confidence of the laboratory scale. You mentioned time dilation, and that's interesting. It was one of the original kind of tests and proofs of general relativity. Pan Rebka experiments at Harvard in the 1950s, we're still learning about relativity. Are there any input sources or hope to get additional confirmation or disconformation from instruments like LIGO or nanograv, gravitational wave observatories?

I have been trying to see that, that is it possible to find out the variation of the conspresent in some way? because one thing is very important. Do the constant really very. I have yet to come up with an experiment which will, in a lab, or astrometrically, within our, within where we can reach, our satellites or our human can reach that, in that region, can we plan an experiment

which will measure this. The problem is any equations I have seen, which could possibly measure it, in those equations, they cancel out. The variation, because so many constants are varying, they cancel out. And so we'll have to design an experiment in which they don't directly cancel out. In this, any talk I give anywhere, I put this challenge to the people, come up with an experiment where we can definitely see it. Oklo experiment doesn't do it. Oplo experiment people say that's nuclear reactor, a natural reactor that can do. But that is alpha.

Alpha in our case is dimensionless. That does not vary. Actually, interestingly, I can say how they vary these constant is the length dimension. If you see a constant in what, it has multiple dimensions. For example, we say L, M, and T. Length mass and time is the dimension. and in some constant there are some other things, but they are the major one. And we find in expanding universe, not only the universe is expanding,

the length dimension is also evolving. So you focus on length dimension and you will find immediately how it will escape. For example, gravitational constant will escape, when scale is this dimensional function to the power 3, because left dimension and gravitation is to the power three. In speed of light, length dimension is one, 3D scales F to the power 1, and so on. Hey guys, I'm sorry to interrupt this fantastic deep dive with my colleague Regendra Gupta.

You're very keen on cosmology, aren't you? I can tell because you made it this far into the episode. Well, what if I told you that you could own a real tangible piece of the cosmos, a. A.k.a. a meteorite. one that we know for sure is four billion years old. You just join my mailing list to enter the drawing at briankeetting.com. If you have a us.org-edu email address, you automatically win.

Interesting. So in terms of our kind of questions that we've acquired from the audience, I'd love to ask you a couple in the last couple of minutes before I have to go to another telecon, and then we'll be joined by you again later for a tech. technical talk, which will be coming up. So reminder, you can always ask questions of my guest at Dr. Brian Keating on Twitter and on YouTube. And for those of you out there with a dot edu email address, I can send you an actual example of cosmic data and cosmic substances that come to us that actually confound our instruments when we measure the universe in the CMB form. Go to

Brian Keating.com slash edu, and you'll win a meteorite, guarantee. sent to your door in the United States. Unfortunately, Canadians are not eligible because they somehow thinks your border patrol thinks that these are dangerous objects or danger. Okay, here's a question from Find 591. What's wrong with the steady state theory other than radio sources and the CMB? If you had to support the CMB, what would you say, or sorry, if you had to support the steady state, what would you say other things that could be used against it before your work?

Actually, I want to ask a counter question. What is the evidence they have to support the steady state universe? Yeah, well, as you know, I had a conversation with Giant Narlocar about two years ago, and he still believes the steady state. And even despite the CMB, it's polarization, BAA, all the other things. And so, yeah, there are some people that still, maintain it, Jeff Burbage, who is my colleague here at UCSD, I have his office. He believed it until his dying day. Okay, trying to understand dark energy and expansion. How is it that we

matter like us do not feel the exponential expansion in expanding galaxies in space time? How do we manage to avoid this expansion? That's from Larry Culver. I don't understand the question. The expanding universe. How come human beings don't expand or the solar systems don't expand with the expanding universe. In your model or in the standard Lambda CDM. Yeah. Why we don't expand? Who knows? We might be expanding. Who says we don't expand? But if you have to have a cosmic timeline, if you are willing to wait for, if you can live for one giga years, perhaps we might expand, who knows? But at the same time, gravitationally collapsed objects don't expand with the universe. And we are in the

gravitationally collapsed region. What expense is beyond that? That's my understanding. That's true. The expansion rate, first of all, is, you know, even the gravitational force of a massive object, a meter apart, is, you know, would require, say, two, one meter, you know, radius steel balls in space.

It would take more than a year or two years for them to get attracted to each other. And the equivalent, and that's with the equivalent, density of, you know, something like six, you know, or 10 times 10 to the 24th power atoms per cubic meter or more. And the cosmic acceleration, the equivalent

amount of dark energy in the universe something like five protons worth of energy per cubic meter. So you're talking about 24 orders of magnitude. So the effects are minuscule, even compared to gravity of the expansion, the equivalent expansion energy. So, yeah.

Okay, a couple more questions. This comes from Rajiv Gangal. I too believe that the 13.8 billion number is temporary. But why 27, Rajendra? Why not much more? And why use a mix of different hypotheses to get to that number? We don't create numbers. They come out of certain equations.

We derive it based on certain assumption in whatever number comes out, we present it. It is not something like, at one time, the age of the universe was only two billion years in early part of last century. Then before the Hubble was launched, people were talking about it could be 12 billion or 20 billion. Then Hubble came and some models were developed to satisfy the observation of Hubble, and that's what led to 13.8 billion years, which we have. all agree at the moment. Now, when we create a new model to study what we are observing around us, and we get some number and we present that number, so we don't create these numbers. They come out of the model. And the last question I'll take for myself, although apparently a man or woman goes by the name of Thinking Citizen says that you look just like his granddad or her granddad.

So that's very special. But Rajendra, the last question I ask you is related to Mr. Lerner, who you've had a conversation with on his channel. He always throws in, you know, a plea to build, you know, donate money to support his fusion reaction projects. That's fine, I guess. I don't have anything to sell. But one of the things that he talks about is the so-called lithium problem. And again, I feel there's a great difference in quality between your attacks on the Big Bang and his in that he cherry, picks data, whereas you do not. He accuses, you know, astronomers of suppressing and censoring him.

He compares himself to people like Galileo and Giordana Bruno at times, which I think is, you know, kind of a histrionic. But tell me, Regendra, what do you make of the lithium problem? Great many experts I speak to in nucleosynthesis claim it's not a problem at all, and in fact can be solved by modifying stellar astrophysics. Why is it that these stellar processes and the galactic processes get so much attention from people like Mr. Lerner when they're trying to attack the Big Bang, which occurs in your model as well as the one that I support, or at least believe is supported by data. I don't like to talk about faith.

What do you make of the lithium problem? Is it really that big a deal as Lerner attempts to make it out to be? A lithium problem is there, and I think this is of concern to people. but is it observational problem or really the BBN, Big Bang nucleot synthesis problem, is debated quite a bit. But I think if it is BBN problem, actually, this is another thing you want to handle with the co-adding coupling constant approach, because constants are now different value at the time of BBN. And one of the earlier work I did and published that paper, it shows that the lithium problem is resolved in that one. But then I found that this is not enough.

Maybe lithium problem was resolved, but then the deuterium problem was created or tritium problem is created or enhance somewhat. So there was some concern. You resolve one and you get another problem. That's not a solution of a problem. So I think lithium problem, based on lithium problems, you start saying that some other theories are good enough or they should be considered seriously. I think that is a little bit stretch, I would say. Well, Regendra, it's such a pleasure to speak to you.

I wish that we were in person. Maybe next time we'll be in person. Maybe in Canada, there won't be as many riots as we've had lately in America. I thank you so much. Stay tuned for a talk that I'll post also on this channel, as well as on the podcast feed. Reminder, you can find out all about the guest. Going to Dr. Brian Keating on YouTube

or Into the Impossible podcast on your podcast feed. Rajenja, thank you so much. Thank you very much, Brian, for inviting me on this podcast. Thank you. Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th,

the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at Yamavatheater.com, only at Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You in? Must be 21 to enter.