To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/ChrisPattison/ . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription. Thank you for supporting the channel!
IDK but my best guess is that we don't really understand the dark sector or even where the constants of physics emerge from, or even if they're truly constant. What if gravity is not attraction by mass but pressure from vacuum (i.e. essentially indistinct from dark energy but not equal everywhere but much lower or even negative where mass or "concentrated energy" exists)?, what if (totally unrelated to the previous conjecture) explaining how mass warps space-time could explain the discrepancy? ... or what if the amount of dark matter is under or over-estimated for some reason? The possibilities are many but blaming the data doesn't seem like an option anymore: theory seems to demand refinement or even a total rework.
The "Hubble constant" was first theorized and estimated by Georges Lemaitre (After all he is one of the 4 people that theorized the expansion of the universe as we know it today and is one of the foundations of Λ-CDM). It always bothers me that Edwin Hubble is far more known than Lemaitre. The only space related thing named after him was a lousy ESA resupply capsule to ISS
@@LuisAldamiz Lemaitre was theoretical physicist / cosmologist (no telescope observations) and he told a previous pope to stay in his lane and not mess with physics. I'm no friend of the religion as well, But his work is not known as much as it should have
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/ChrisPattison/ . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription. Thanks for watching and supporting the channel!
Hi Chris, please comment on the little Hubble Constant "fixing" geometrtry based equation 2 X one Mpc X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 71k/s/Mpc. Regards, David Hine
First off, there's no such thing as a Hubble constant or Hubble law. Space doesn't expand at a single rate. The expansion of space between galaxies per megaparsec is different with every galaxy that is measured. Clearly there's no such thing as a Hubble constant. The CMB radiation is an artifact. That's why it doesn't agree with redshift measurements or cepheid variables. Edwin Hubble measured several galaxies that clearly didn't fit the dark energy or Hubble constant assumptions, here are just 4 galaxies out of many he measured. Galaxies A & B were both 16 megaparsecs away. Galaxies C & D were both 93 megaparsecs away. Galaxy A was moving at a redshift indicating it was receding 500 km/s which is 500 km a second / 16 Mpc means it's receding away from us at 31.2 km/s per Mpc. Galaxy B was moving at a redshift indicating it was receding 6,500 km/s which is 6,500 km a second / 16 Mpc means it's receding away from us at 406 km/s per Mpc. Galaxy C was moving at a redshift indicating it was receding 3,500 km/s which is 3,500 km a second / 93 Mpc means it's receding away from us at 38 km/s per Mpc. Galaxy D was moving at a redshift indicating it was receding 10,200 km/s which is 10,200 km a second / 93 Mpc means it's receding away from us at 110 km/s per Mpc. Not one of the galaxies recede away from us at the same rate per Mpc. None of them fit a Hubble constant postulate.
The missing understanding in the Standard Model (lamba-CDM), giving us this Hubble constant discrepancy, will most likely be found when a theory of dark energy (vacuum energy) is fully realized! This will involve extension to General Relativity and a more refined (quantum) theory of spacetime.
What if the rate of expansion is different in different places because the Big Bang wasn't a singular event? What if, like CO² bubbles popping in a soda, different areas of the universe "popped in" at different times, with varying quantities of mass and/or energy? If you remove the idea that the big bang was one event at a finite point and time in history, this idea potentially explains why we're seeing galaxies that are too well formed for how old they're supposed to be, because the creation of those galaxies are no longer bound to a set point in the past. It may also explain why all galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other, and not some central location, as is indicative of an explosion, i.e. a "big bang." I'm not a scientist, just a layman. So if this is dumb, you know why.
Thanks @ChrisPattisonCosmo for the great video and explanation. Can you comment on how time dilation may affect the expansion rate and if this effect can help the current tension. Thanks 😊
What if expansion isn't a real thing? Electro magnetism can cause the same visual effect without expanding space at all. This is all based on redshift witch cannot be proven untill one of those objects is actually measured.
Wouldnt Reverse expansion rate = a 0 point to measure speed from? 0 point, origin, or Center of Universe. I'm told the universe does not have a center, but I don't believe that's exactly correct either. I believe once we "crack the code" and nail the specific speed we will then have a goal to travel that speed in a specific direction towards the center of Universe to reach a REALITIVE FULL STOP when dimensional to FALL OUT from space time into space ought time. The friction of these to dimensions is what generates DARK ENERGY and is where mass exist WITHOUT TIME or DARK MATTER. Using this method should be obtainable from anywhere, and the speed and direction would vary depending where earth is at any specific point as we are moving thru the cosmos. Entering space without time (space ought time) would allow you to return at anytime or location INSTANTANEOUSLY for where time does not exist, speed (thus distance) would be irrelevant. ITS NOT ABOUT FOLDING SPACE to travel the universe it is about DIMENSIONAL JUMP. This would also effect CERN variables as earth is moving thru universe. AND by definition, space ought time must be (both) older and younger than space time. SO SPACE TIME (was, is and will be) BORN INTO SPACE OUGHT TIME. See i got it all figured out for us! Or so I believe
The Universe has a center but has expanded so much since the BB that it's exactly everywhere. On the good side, congratulations: you are the center of the Universe... along with everything else, along with any other coordinate of space and time.
We observe that stars moving faster and faster as they are further away from us. We conclude that space is expanding. But ... can we not conclude that we all moving toward some 'center' (... a black hole?) ... faster and faster then our surrounding stars/galaxies? ... I wonder ...
@@joshocht3483 - They're not just moving faster, they are all moving AWAY from us (except for the Local Group, which is gravitationally entangled). All non-local galaxies (not "stars") are redshifted (i.e. they're moving away), that's what Hubble realized.
@@LuisAldamiz Yes, I understand, but ... If things moving/falling towards their own 'center(s)' then all non-localgalaxies appears redshifted too ... . since we are closest to 'our' center, we accelerate faster towards it then everything else (except the local group) ...
@@joshocht3483 But they are also moving away from each other, not towards each other. It's as if the Universe would be ruled at such scales by repulsion, not gravitational attraction, and that requires an explanation. The best they could come up with was the plump pudding model (call it Big Bang, inflation, dark energy, lambdaCBM). For some reason in science it's always plum pudding... until proven wrong.
Yes, it is about 13.7 billion years old. To be a bit more helpful, the age of the universe could actually be slightly less if the nearby measurements are correct and there was some extra expansion in the early universe. Maybe about 13 billion years old.
"the true age of the universe" - not a real thing. Time is measured in intervals (which is why it is relative). From our perspective, the interval of time back to when the universe was not transparent (i.e., light can propagate long distances) is about 13.7 billion years. That's an interval we can measure with light. To go any farther back we'd need to use something other than light. Perhaps gravity waves, but we don't yet have the ability to do that.
Time is our matrix! I'm told the universe does not have a center, but I don't believe that's exactly correct either. I believe once we "crack the code" and nail the specific speed we will then have a goal to travel that speed in a specific direction towards the center of Universe to reach a REALITIVE FULL STOP when dimensional to FALL OUT from space time into space ought time. The friction of these to dimensions is what generates DARK ENERGY and is where mass exist WITHOUT TIME or DARK MATTER. Using this method should be obtainable from anywhere, and the speed and direction would vary depending where earth is at any specific point as we are moving thru the cosmos. Entering space without time (space ought time) would allow you to return at anytime or location INSTANTANEOUSLY for where time does not exist, speed (thus distance) would be irrelevant. ITS NOT ABOUT FOLDING SPACE to travel the universe it is about DIMENSIONAL JUMP. This would also effect CERN variables as earth is moving thru universe. AND by definition, space ought time must be (both) older and younger than space time. SO SPACE TIME (was, is and will be) BORN INTO SPACE OUGHT TIME. See i got it all figured out for us! Or so I believe
Hmm... this discussion suggests me yet another wild conjecture: what if clocks have changed? Because how can there be time without clocks, even if these are quantum level oscillations?
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/ChrisPattison/ . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Thank you for supporting the channel!
Chris, that was the BEST explanation of the distance ladder I have yet heard. Excellent ... as always! 👍
I wish I understood what you are saying but I very impressed by your enthusiasm
The point of the video: When the data doesn't make sense, that's when things get very interesting for physicisits!
thankyou danfobb
i wanted to say the same thing!
IDK but my best guess is that we don't really understand the dark sector or even where the constants of physics emerge from, or even if they're truly constant. What if gravity is not attraction by mass but pressure from vacuum (i.e. essentially indistinct from dark energy but not equal everywhere but much lower or even negative where mass or "concentrated energy" exists)?, what if (totally unrelated to the previous conjecture) explaining how mass warps space-time could explain the discrepancy? ... or what if the amount of dark matter is under or over-estimated for some reason? The possibilities are many but blaming the data doesn't seem like an option anymore: theory seems to demand refinement or even a total rework.
The "Hubble constant" was first theorized and estimated by Georges Lemaitre (After all he is one of the 4 people that theorized the expansion of the universe as we know it today and is one of the foundations of Λ-CDM). It always bothers me that Edwin Hubble is far more known than Lemaitre. The only space related thing named after him was a lousy ESA resupply capsule to ISS
That's because the Pope hasn't yet made him a saint. He must have been to keep faith while looking into the Heavens and seeing his deity nowhere...
@@LuisAldamiz Lemaitre was theoretical physicist / cosmologist (no telescope observations) and he told a previous pope to stay in his lane and not mess with physics. I'm no friend of the religion as well, But his work is not known as much as it should have
@@asicdathens - I appreciate Lemaître, I was just trying to be funny. You're right that he deserves more recognition (along so many others).
Thanks i look forward to your videos! I started called the JWST the 'juiced'
This is the best explanation I've ever seen on this topic. Super interesting. Thanks Chris!
Fascinating video, great work as always!
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/ChrisPattison/ . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Thanks for watching and supporting the channel!
Hi Chris, please comment on the little Hubble Constant "fixing" geometrtry based equation 2 X one Mpc X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 71k/s/Mpc. Regards, David Hine
First off, there's no such thing as a Hubble constant or Hubble law. Space doesn't expand at a single rate. The expansion of space between galaxies per megaparsec is different with every galaxy that is measured. Clearly there's no such thing as a Hubble constant. The CMB radiation is an artifact. That's why it doesn't agree with redshift measurements or cepheid variables.
Edwin Hubble measured several galaxies that clearly didn't fit the dark energy or Hubble constant assumptions, here are just 4 galaxies out of many he measured.
Galaxies A & B were both 16 megaparsecs away.
Galaxies C & D were both 93 megaparsecs away.
Galaxy A was moving at a redshift indicating it was receding 500 km/s which is 500 km a second / 16 Mpc means it's receding away from us at 31.2 km/s per Mpc.
Galaxy B was moving at a redshift indicating it was receding 6,500 km/s which is 6,500 km a second / 16 Mpc means it's receding away from us at 406 km/s per Mpc.
Galaxy C was moving at a redshift indicating it was receding 3,500 km/s which is 3,500 km a second / 93 Mpc means it's receding away from us at 38 km/s per Mpc.
Galaxy D was moving at a redshift indicating it was receding 10,200 km/s which is 10,200 km a second / 93 Mpc means it's receding away from us at 110 km/s per Mpc.
Not one of the galaxies recede away from us at the same rate per Mpc. None of them fit a Hubble constant postulate.
The missing understanding in the Standard Model (lamba-CDM), giving us this Hubble constant discrepancy, will most likely be found when a theory of dark energy (vacuum energy) is fully realized! This will involve extension to General Relativity and a more refined (quantum) theory of spacetime.
What if the rate of expansion is different in different places because the Big Bang wasn't a singular event? What if, like CO² bubbles popping in a soda, different areas of the universe "popped in" at different times, with varying quantities of mass and/or energy? If you remove the idea that the big bang was one event at a finite point and time in history, this idea potentially explains why we're seeing galaxies that are too well formed for how old they're supposed to be, because the creation of those galaxies are no longer bound to a set point in the past. It may also explain why all galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other, and not some central location, as is indicative of an explosion, i.e. a "big bang."
I'm not a scientist, just a layman. So if this is dumb, you know why.
Thanks @ChrisPattisonCosmo for the great video and explanation. Can you comment on how time dilation may affect the expansion rate and if this effect can help the current tension. Thanks 😊
parallax is 3.26 light-years and the closest cepheid variable is Polaris at 445.5 light-years away... I'd say this is where you'll find the error.
Standard cosmological model will most probably have to be modified prior to CMB.
Wouldn't the wCDM model fix that problem? (phantom dark energy leading to big rip).
Great explanation. 👍
Awesome video
3:20 what?
Apparent brightness vs real brightness: a distant lightbulb seems less bright than one right on your face, right? Same for stars.
What if expansion isn't a real thing? Electro magnetism can cause the same visual effect without expanding space at all. This is all based on redshift witch cannot be proven untill one of those objects is actually measured.
Wouldnt Reverse expansion rate = a 0 point to measure speed from? 0 point, origin, or Center of Universe. I'm told the universe does not have a center, but I don't believe that's exactly correct either. I believe once we "crack the code" and nail the specific speed we will then have a goal to travel that speed in a specific direction towards the center of Universe to reach a REALITIVE FULL STOP when dimensional to FALL OUT from space time into space ought time. The friction of these to dimensions is what generates DARK ENERGY and is where mass exist WITHOUT TIME or DARK MATTER. Using this method should be obtainable from anywhere, and the speed and direction would vary depending where earth is at any specific point as we are moving thru the cosmos. Entering space without time (space ought time) would allow you to return at anytime or location INSTANTANEOUSLY for where time does not exist, speed (thus distance) would be irrelevant. ITS NOT ABOUT FOLDING SPACE to travel the universe it is about DIMENSIONAL JUMP. This would also effect CERN variables as earth is moving thru universe. AND by definition, space ought time must be (both) older and younger than space time. SO SPACE TIME (was, is and will be) BORN INTO SPACE OUGHT TIME.
See i got it all figured out for us!
Or so I believe
The Universe has a center but has expanded so much since the BB that it's exactly everywhere. On the good side, congratulations: you are the center of the Universe... along with everything else, along with any other coordinate of space and time.
We observe that stars moving faster and faster as they are further away from us. We conclude that space is expanding. But ... can we not conclude that we all moving toward some 'center' (... a black hole?) ... faster and faster then our surrounding stars/galaxies? ... I wonder ...
@@joshocht3483 - They're not just moving faster, they are all moving AWAY from us (except for the Local Group, which is gravitationally entangled). All non-local galaxies (not "stars") are redshifted (i.e. they're moving away), that's what Hubble realized.
@@LuisAldamiz Yes, I understand, but ... If things moving/falling towards their own 'center(s)' then all non-localgalaxies appears redshifted too ... . since we are closest to 'our' center, we accelerate faster towards it then everything else (except the local group) ...
@@joshocht3483 But they are also moving away from each other, not towards each other. It's as if the Universe would be ruled at such scales by repulsion, not gravitational attraction, and that requires an explanation.
The best they could come up with was the plump pudding model (call it Big Bang, inflation, dark energy, lambdaCBM).
For some reason in science it's always plum pudding... until proven wrong.
Not a crisis. The war in Ukraine is a crisis. Cosmology does not have a crisis.
You don't understand how much cosmologists are spending in psychotherapy because of this. Mental health does matter!
Spot on chris ,
I wonder if we will ever find out the true age of the universe 🚀🛰🛰🌙🌞🌞🌞
Yes, it is about 13.7 billion years old. To be a bit more helpful, the age of the universe could actually be slightly less if the nearby measurements are correct and there was some extra expansion in the early universe. Maybe about 13 billion years old.
"the true age of the universe" - not a real thing. Time is measured in intervals (which is why it is relative). From our perspective, the interval of time back to when the universe was not transparent (i.e., light can propagate long distances) is about 13.7 billion years. That's an interval we can measure with light. To go any farther back we'd need to use something other than light. Perhaps gravity waves, but we don't yet have the ability to do that.
@@TheDanEdwards True age of the universe since the big bang, yeah.
Time is our matrix! I'm told the universe does not have a center, but I don't believe that's exactly correct either. I believe once we "crack the code" and nail the specific speed we will then have a goal to travel that speed in a specific direction towards the center of Universe to reach a REALITIVE FULL STOP when dimensional to FALL OUT from space time into space ought time. The friction of these to dimensions is what generates DARK ENERGY and is where mass exist WITHOUT TIME or DARK MATTER. Using this method should be obtainable from anywhere, and the speed and direction would vary depending where earth is at any specific point as we are moving thru the cosmos. Entering space without time (space ought time) would allow you to return at anytime or location INSTANTANEOUSLY for where time does not exist, speed (thus distance) would be irrelevant. ITS NOT ABOUT FOLDING SPACE to travel the universe it is about DIMENSIONAL JUMP. This would also effect CERN variables as earth is moving thru universe. AND by definition, space ought time must be (both) older and younger than space time. SO SPACE TIME (was, is and will be) BORN INTO SPACE OUGHT TIME.
See i got it all figured out for us!
Or so I believe
Hmm... this discussion suggests me yet another wild conjecture: what if clocks have changed? Because how can there be time without clocks, even if these are quantum level oscillations?