AD | Enjoy 10% OFF on all Hoverpens and free shipping to most countries with code DrBecky: North America & other countries: bit.ly/drbecky_novium UK & Europe: bit.ly/drbecky_noviumeu
The comment section is way too long. You’ll never read this unless I post it here but I have two questions one what are these polls really matter it feels like the scientist were given multiple sets of data and they kind of just chose which sets of data they wanted to use data line through some thing and that’s it. I see a bunch of lines but it’s really just scientific interpretation of data. It’s not real things second question is why in the world they call of the axis of Evil You went over in the video, but never bother to explain why such an outrageous name.
I ordered my Hoverpen (from Australia) after watching this excellent video clip last night and it arrived less than 12 hours later! What amazing service.
im guessing one of the problems is that it merely shifts the question of "why would the solar system be aligned with the axis of evil?" to "why would the solar system be aligned with the galaxy cluster precisely in a way that makes it look aligned with the axis of evil?"
Just past the 10 minute mark in the video she states that the dipole is “exactly” 90 degrees to the quadrupole and the octipole. My understanding was that the angle of the dipole is accounted for by the direction of travel of the Milky-way. It seems to me then that the mystery is really what possible reason could there be for these higher order poles to be at right angles to our galaxy’s direction of travel. 🤷🏻
Douglas Adams said it first: Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
until i see anything to prove it otherwise digital watches are fuckin neat and life here is the most important thing to exist. Adams was entertaining, but he was still a fool.
I mean, we are sorta really special. Take our star, G-Class, but unlike other G-Class stars, ours is freakishly calm (this is a very big thing not many mention). Then there's the Sun's position within the Milky Way galaxy, which places it in the galactic habitable zone. Then our actual solar system has not one but four gas giants acting as cosmic vacuum cleaners, protecting us. And then we've got our planet, which is positioned in the perfect spot for habitable life to form. And then our moon is perhaps one of the most bizarrely useful moons in the entire solar system. If our planet were a lottery winner, it would have won the jackpot multiple times. It's really quite improbable that we should even exist.
That's my favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox. Space-faring life arises only once or twice per galaxy because the conditions for it to arise are so unlikely (but still possible).
I fear there's a lot of reaching going on here. Our star is relatively stable - at present. It wasn't cooperative to life when it was young (although life managed anyway) and absolutely won't be cooperative in the future as it grows old. It's already well on its way to becoming too luminous and active for Earth's atmosphere to cope with and in about 250 million years the biosphere of the planet will begin to collapse as a result. A billion years from now and the surface of Earth will be sterile. The sun's "galactic suburbs" position in the Milky Way is shared by about 100 billion other stars and probably a trillion planets so is hardly remarkable. Nobody would bother to look for life in the Galactic core for instance because conditions there are extremely hostile, both to life and to astronomical observations. We have yet to determine the "standard" form a star system takes (if one exists at all). Exoplanet research has a rather skewed sample data built in due to it favouring systems conducive to current methods of discovery. Detection methods have extreme difficulty seeing small bodies and pretty much no ability to see distantly orbiting bodies, so these are massively under-represented. So whether the solar system's layout is atypical or not is currently unanswerable. Also the "vacuum cleaner" hypothesis is a bit old fashioned these days and the situation is a bit more nuanced. Some modelling suggests gas giants create more problems to terrestrial worlds than they solve. I'll grant you the Moon is impressively useful in its current configuration (although it would have been an unholy menace in its early days when whipping around the Earth in 9 days). However there's no reason to believe the Earth would not be able to support life without it. Only that life has taken advantage of its presence. Don't forget that you are Douglas Adams' "sentient puddle" marvelling at how the hole it fills up fits its body shape so perfectly. Meanwhile an objective observer understands the puddle can _only_ take the shape of the hole it fills. It has no choice in the matter. Likewise we have the life cycles, morphologies and chemistry on Earth that this environment, time frame and locality in the cosmos makes possible. To assume this is the only form and only way in which a biosphere can manifest is at best only a guide for finding "Earth analogues" and at worst comically arrogant and near guaranteed to be wrong. For all we know life exists on hundreds of millions of worlds, many of which are likely to be far removed from the conditions here. But at present we do not know enough to answer the question one way or the other. All we can know is that life exists in the Milky Way, because we are a sample of it. A sample set of 1 tells us only that it _can_ happen and little else and a lottery with only 1 ticket isn't remarkable at all.
@@MaGaO That assumes your sense of self comes from the eyes and not your brain(with is about as central in you as you get), witch is a philosophical question and not a Astrophysics question
Am I allowed to question if the earth actually rotates on its axis every 24 hours and revolves around the sun every 365.25 days? Or am I allowed to ask if the earth is actually at the center of the universe? Occam’s Razor: the earth is the center of the universe. It explains all of the scientific observations. A real scientist would admit what the data show. The data disproves Copernicanism and iroves Geocentrism.❤
@@ochem123 uhh, it does not. Hour and day are made up units based on nature (the rotation of the earth), not the other way around. Also, how is Geocentricism gonna solve problems? It only creates more problem. Just look at the movement of the celestial bodies. Geocentricism just fucks all of that up. It's like rotating yourself and think the whole universe is rotating around you.
Every answer expands our awareness (context), e.g., an awareness of more to find out, e.g., of how little we knew, which implies how much more there is to know.
The more you know, the more you become aware of the things you don't know. Imagine our knowledge as a sphere inside the space of the unknown. If the sphere of our knowledge expands then so does its surface, the things we're aware we don't know. To quote Marcelo Gleiser: "As the island of Knowledge grows, so do the shores of our ignorance -the boundary between the known and the unknown. Learning more about the world doesn’t lead to a point closer to a final destination but to more questions and mysteries."
It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically.
A small remark for the graphics displaying the axis. The cosmic microwave background comes from all directions and is measured as a sphere around us. In 2D the sphere is displayed using the mollweide projection (the ellipse). The mollweide projection preserves the areas of parts of the sphere but it distorts their shapes and angles. This means that a straight line across the sky or on the sphere isn't straight when using this projection. The exact way to draw the axis is in form of a curved line or by just using a different projection.
Massive Missive (c) follows: (no TLDR - Lump it.) The same problem when plotting a shortest course, I.e. a great circle route, on any flat map of the spherical earth. Only a very restricted subset of true great circle routes show up as straight lines on any given flat mapping of the global surface. The rest are curved, even crossing “hyperspace” by leaping off one edge of the map and reappearing on another, like those video games where you can shoot at an opponent nearly the complete way across the screen from you by turning and firing from a very short distance at the proper angle to the edge near you and have the projectile/ray/whatever emerge from the edge very near them, doing them in promptly. Wraparound. You are never more than half a ‘screenshot’ away, in some direction. Another analog is in drawing threads on a bolt viewed at right angles. The simplistic way is diagonal straight lines across the axis of the bolt, but in reality the thread roots and crests are properly visualized as slight ‘s’ curves, with the extreme ends of the lines curved to a parallel with the bolt axis. You are mapping a cylindrical object onto a flat surface. A slight, but I think very germane, emendation to your ‘small remark’. Not only are we, as here, mapping the sky onto a flat two dimensional surface, but the sky is itself a spherical 2-D surface mapping of a 3-D volume to start with. That is the very concept of ‘the sky’. A straight line ‘on’ the 2-D, albeit curved, sky is not necessarily a straight line through either Newtonian or Einsteinian space. Planetary orbits appear straight along the ecliptic, but are elliptical in space. A lack of understanding of ‘mapping’ may be at the core of flat-earthers’ confusion, both on the ground and in space (for those who are truly confused, and not merely knot-headed contrarians). One of my brothers-in-law was impressed by my sister’s mention of some astronomical object as being ’out there’, rather than ‘up there’, showing that she understood the three-dimensionality of what was visible overhead at the moment, and earth’s inclusion in that volume. “or by just using a different projection”: This would require reorienting each projection’s axes to place the line in question along one of the small subsets of lines straight in both space and its mapping. A case of special pleading? What if, as here, you have multiple poles to draw lines for on the same map? This arbitrary reorientation tends to militate against the very point of mapping, which is to highlight relationships between multiple entities within a particular framework using an appropriate projection. I hope this has mapped the concepts, which I am trying to communicate to you, onto/into your mind - in full fidelity.
@@toomdog It's not, they're just saying that the visualization in the video is technically wrong because it's drawn as a straight line. You can actually sort of get an idea of what the curve looks like from the picture of the CMB dipole at ~ 7:20
This video is superb. I am more than a few years away from my time at Oxford. My nephew has recently taken a interest in cosmology/astrophysics and I find it hard hard to give cogent answers without bringing in specialized vocabulary and mathematics. This presentation is introductory without sacrificing accuracy as well as installing a sense of wonder. Thank you.
It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically..
As a mathematician, I'm really rooting for the "torus universe" solution. It would just be so cool if we could see the same object but at different times. That would tell us so much and give us so many cool new equations about the universe to mess around with.
We've already seen the same object at different times, when a supernova was observed in an Einstein Cross. One supernova, seen three times. No torii needed for that.
It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically...
Perhaps the axis of evil is a galactic version of the Goldilocks zone of possibly habitable planets. It could suggest any star system which aligns with the axis has a higher probability of containing habitable zones.
Amazing to me the sensitivity and homogenity of the data, we atr looking at fractions of degrees in temperature, so my feeling it is a tiny local effect maybe magnetic, or a distortion in heliosphere ar right angles to our motion. I dont know, maybe in a few years ... Anyway great video short, sweet and to the point.
@@christianlibertarian5488 I mean, you can extend the principle to any kind of observation. We know how bees work because we were there to see them work. It may sound a bit mystical, but humans being able to observe and record is what gives a meaning to things. Nature doesn't have inherent meaning. It applies to everything, and not just our existence. It's always why we think that life can only emerge on Earth-like planets. Until we either figure out how life can emerge under different conditions or until we meet other observers, it will remain an unsolvable principle. It's also possible that we are literally the only solution.
I find that I'm wishing my job wasn't completely digital so I'd have a reason to buy that pen. You don't need a reason to buy Lego. You just need a way to justify it to your spouse.
Yay! Thank you for making a video on this, been wanting to hear your perspective on the various unsolved universe mysteries (lithium-7 problem, axis of evil, dark matter) etc etc - if you did a vid on the lack of lithium-7 in our observations, that'd be like real cool
I don’t know what the lithium 7 thing is so I definitely wanna hear about that. Though I’m definitely also gonna look it up after I finish this video 😅
At 4:20ish thank you for actually explaining where the projection of this map comes from!! I’m a casual enjoyer of science and have watched so many videos on the CMB but no one has ever actually explained this simple idea and I’ve been SO curious!
I for one am always happy to hear a scientist say "and that's as much as we know, even if it's unsatisfying", rather than try fill in the blanks. Interesting video! Thank!
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality!
@@briandeschene8424 Science: Questions that can not be answered. Religion: Answers that can never be questioned. Take your religious rubbish and please leave. It's NEVER 'god did it'.
It doesn't make me happy to not get answers, but I don't turn to science for happyness or all the answers, but for the closest to truth answers that are humanly feasible. I value concious and honest perception of the Universe over happyness. Happyness will come and go on it's own, pursuing it for it's own sake seems to often not lead to success and compromise other qualities that are valued by many.
@@iainmc9859 Some might say that and they're welcome to do it, but reason and theology is apples and oranges. Those are the extreme ones. Go to any university and you'll find no shortage of scientists who have strong faith, and they seem to make it work quite well.
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality!
Hey doc; it would be great to see a video on Przybylski’s star! "It has a unique spectrum showing over-abundances of most rare-earth elements, including some short-lived radioactive isotopes, but under-abundances of more common elements such as iron."
astronomers run away from that star, you would imagine someone would have tried to observe it again after all these years with more refined spectra... well, guess again
Answer is simple: all stars synthesize all elements; fusion happens in the outer layers of stars, not in the cores, and fusion is not what powers stars, but is a powered process, powered through electrical energy from huge interstellar and intergalactic currents.
To me seems like a local bias. and its one we can't really fix either, every part of the microwave background WE CAN SEE probably has some local influence (most likely our solar system given the situation) and if somehow you looked at the overall picture, however big it is, you might not even notice what we call "everything", because I'm fairly certain its still debated if the universe is infinite or not. only way to confirm this isn't some sort of local bias would be to take cosmic background at a distance with no overlap (aka way too far for humans to probably ever reach) and see if the "axis of evil" exists there.
Using Occam's razor, it's most likely to be data artefacts from our solar system, probably microwave (heat) sources in the Oorth cloud, dust too small to detect but too bright in their totality to not affect the CMB. Our maths are not nearly as advanced as we often think. For instance, in most CMB images, when putting them side by side with pictures of our galaxy, we can see some artefacts which match, despite best efforts to eliminate them. Some methods are likely to be circular: remove potentially closer sources of microwaves until the distributions are correct. A very dangerous method which can lead to overlooking actual distortions in the CMB.
We think of north and south as up and down, but it's actually front and back. It's hard to imagine they'd omit our own system pushing it's way through the cmb in their models(?)
I thought it might also be a play of words for the two variables (b,l) that are mentioned in the paper summary. So it is the "axis of b l" repeated very fast until it sounds like "axis of evil".
That's what occurred to me, but I'm just a 17th literature specialist so what do I know about astrophysics? But it did strike me as an observation issue.
This is actually a contradiction that I see pop up regularly in physics explanations, For example: "The universe is 3.8 million years old. The visible universe (or often just Universe) is 90 billion light years across". So if the visible universe (past light cone) is 13.8 billion light years across. Where does 90 billion come from? OK, they estimate the expansion of where the furthest object may be "now", except there is no "now" in the past or visible light cone, and objects outside of the light cone are unknown to us. Unknown such as the actual size of the universe. > In relativity we are always the center of our visible light cone/sphere (knowable universe). You perceive a different visible universe so I can never have a direct knowledge of what you see :) > [Edit - correction] What we refer to as the observable universe was 84 *million* light years across at the actual time of the CMB, NOT 13.7 billion x 2. The 13.7 billion comes after adjustment for inflation.
This is what baffles me. We're not the center of the universe, we're the center of OUR universe. That being said, by what we know and observe, we'll be able to find the center of the universe? Since universe is expanding, where is the point it's expanding from? I know we can't (maybe) pinpoint that accurately like with an explosion, since the scale of universe at the moment of big bang would be incomprehensible since even if fully compacted and opaque it would, for sure, be bigger than the most massive star discovered (or even, in my opinion, the size of a BIG galaxy), after the big bang our area of where Milky way starts to exist would end up way off the "center" of "explosion", could we will ever find a "center" point? I know I didn't explained that too good, here's another easy way to understand what I think of/about: Imagine a balloon, slightly inflated, just so that is looks it has some air in it keeping it "stiff" (This is how imagine universe before big bang. Then big bang happens, everywhere, starting this expansion (now imagine you're filling up this balloon with air to it's almost max) If, let's say, where the Milky way exists now is 3/4r distance from the center of the balloon (1/4 away from the edge or the balloon itself) but our observable universe it's only as big as a soap bubble in that balloon that doesn't even come close to the edge of the balloon, can we find a starting point of our position? I find this idea a very tricky one and can't stop thinking of it, since I didn't find anything to answer me this question. Not even the question of how far out are we from the big bang origins? Or how far out are we from the center of the universe. Or even if we know where this center is/might be. Or even how much is our observable universe compared to the whole universe?
@@axle.student The universe is 14.3 Billion years old or some where there abouts. Yes the visible light cone amounts to about 90 Billion light years in diameter which is roughly 45 Billion light years in any direction. We do not see 45 billion light years away though. We just see light that was emitted from an object 14.3 billion years away when it was 14.3 billion light years away and due to the red shift we believe it to be 45 billion light years away now. 45 billion light years on both sides of us is 90 billion light years diameter. Does that help reduce the confusion?
You do an EXCELLENT job. Thank you so much for these videos. Your articulation and delivery are so very helpful in understanding these things. I’m personally struggling with the idea of the “universe being flat”. If you could ever help explain this I would be so grateful. Thank you again.
Good question. Using the same methodology, my guess would be "yes" since it's more likely to be an effect caused by the persistent mass distribution imbalance that comes with being in a solar system than it is to be one caused by a cosmic conspiracy.
I would imagine that the solar system's orientation somehow causes a bias in the data, because that is the only reasonable explanation beyond random chance, but I couldn't even begin to guess what could be causing such an effect. Something related to the Sun's rotation influencing our measurement devices?
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.
@@gamelairtim That is causing you concerns? Take a universe. Fill it with a plasma with (almost) exactly the same composition, temperature and pressure, then leave it expanding (at the same rate, in all places. Come back after it has been cooling for 3 minutes less than 300,000 years and measure the temperature here, there and over there (all pairs of them separated by more then 300,000 light years, so light, gravity etc could not have got from one point to another (this is the so-called "horizon problem") in the time you've been waiting. At that time, none of the gas will have dropped below the temperature at which hydrogen nuclei can hold onto an electron to become hydrogen atoms. Come back 5 minutes later. The universe, in these separate locations unable to communicate with each other will have cooled slightly, and the hydrogen ions are starting to combine for the first time to form hydrogen atoms. Photons are travelling further before encountering an electron (or proton) to scatter off (hence the CMB's alternative name of the "Last Scattering Surface" and variants). The same event has happened simultaneously throughout the universe, without any surprising coordination. How to get a universe "with (almost) exactly the same composition, temperature and pressure" is a good question - for which the standard answer is "inflation". What happened earlier is another good question (see Weinberg's excellent "The First Three Minutes"). But you make me wonder - shouldn't we also see a "scattering surface" from when the first electrons hooked up with He2+ nuclei to form He1+ ions? With He's double charge, that should have been at higher electron energy - so, temperature, so earlier. Can't we detect the light from that event? And similarly, the (red-shifted) gamma rays from the "freezing" of nucleosynthesis in the "first three minutes" at about six hydrogen nuclei to one helium nucleus?
There is a paper, "A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations" by Frode K. Hansen; on Arixiv server soon to be published in A & A Letters which argues for a local influence instead of global effects.
@@DeepeningTheListening Moses 1 25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God. 26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen. 27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God. 28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore. 29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. 30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them? 31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. 32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. 37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 39 For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. 41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men-among as many as shall believe. 42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.)
Cosmology is unequivocally experiencing a crisis, that crisis reached a fever pitch in 2005, but they cosmological establishment refuses to even acknowledge the AoE, so i respect the heck out of Dr. Becky for covering this!! Cosmologists are losing credibility by pretending this issue doesn't exist, when it is demonstrably legitimate.
It’s incredibly funny seeing someone every time there’s an unexplained phenomenon saying “The cosmological establishment refuses to acknowledge it!!” There’s thousands of scientists all across the planet with the goal of understanding the universe better. There’s new papers published daily like the one reraising this topic. It’s genuinely baffling how ignorant people are and just want to push some anti establishment narrative
Most “scientists” are like the immune system of the body, but for scientific information and “knowledge”. They protect what exists and neutralise any attacks against it. They are the skeptic function of the part of our mind that says “I know x”. The part that justifies why it knows It’s really nice to see people admit the holes and flaws in their knowledge. It shows humility which is the first step to real knowledge.
@@MevlinousI don’t think you get it; Scientists are constantly ATTACKING the very notions they made up. It is just hard to counter it. Just as a few hundred years ago it was hard to imagine earth NOT being the centre of everything, we have similar thoughts about things like the big bang. As we speed ever-faster into technological depths it’s only natural that these questions will will be solved. Just give it time (unfortunately, that ‘time’ may be longer than our lifespans ;-;)
Unfortunately she approached it as a scientism cultist . Until these materialists drop their assumptions, they will be living in fantasy land. The two assumptions forced into cosmology that have destroyed it are the Copernican principle and materialism.
@@thekaxmaxya might want to rewatch. 12:20 The cluster of galaxies worked because of gravitational lensing as stated in the paper by Vale. The only reference as to why it hasn’t solved the problem of the axis of evil is it caused 10’s of other problems that haven’t been solved. I’m asking for more details about the last part. Kinda spent 5 seconds on it at the end of the video.
It's not really discounted and seems to discount the "axis" theory as mere artifact but she clearly prefers there to be mysterious things to talk about rather than "nothing abnormal".
It sounded to me like it caused more problems than it solved. If you have one flat tire on a car, that corner sits lower then the other three. You can solve that problem by making the other three tires also flat, but then you have a bigger overall problem than when you started.
@@dzcav3except the concept of gravitational lensing is well known and intuitively makes sense in this case. There are issues caused by the paper, but we don’t know what those issues are in order to determine is all the tires were made flatter or not.
I've not watched yet, but she's likely referencing Occam's razor, a philosophical principle inherent in the scientific method which suggests that the best explanation is the one which makes the fewest assumptions. (i.e. the simpler the explanation, with fewer unproven premises, the better). You asked a good question so I, in turn, hope you find my answer beneficial & that hoped benefit finds you well.
Thanks. I'm not a fan of using Occam's razor like this since it isn't provable. Really, it just speaks to our desire for simple answers in a complex universe.
@@NickCombs I totally concur; notice how I called such, first and foremost, a philosophical principle.. granted, it's a great guideline within a dynamic framework (may seem prolix/redundant here yet I occasion such intensively-i.e. to reflect proper proportions of the scientific method as I see it-viz. 2/3 jelly-1/3 jam 😁) yet revered, extraneously adhered, & aspersively commandeered. All wizards considered, Occam's razor is an inert quirk within multi-bodied systems wherein any given body could harbor peculiarities (semantic seesaw: society or cosmology.. you decide 🙃).
Very troubling. If this is a real phenomenon, the two aligned axises would basically mean that Earth has a special position in the Universe for recording data AND that it possibly sits at the center of the entire universe. WILD. If this is a real phenomenon, this would be enough to break the Copernican Principle, a principle that has guided cosmology and astronomy for the past 500 years to make predictions about the Universe. We would essentially have to start all over again about Big Bang Theory, Dark Matter, General Relativity, etc. Scary scary stuff.
I wonder, if you placed an observer on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy (for example) and gave them the same instruments, whether they'd observe a similar axis in the quadropoles and octopoles only this time centered on Andromeda instead of our Solar system 🤔
Almost certainly. The main difference would be the orientation of the dipole, given that Andromeda and Milky way are approaching each other at non-negligible velocities.
Actually, if we could do it, that might be an excellent test. If the view from Andromeda is significantly different, the axis should be the result of local phenomena. If the view from Andromeda isn't significantly different, then the cause of the axis is probably far outside our local group. (IOW, the dipole isn't a result of our galaxy's motion, but of the motion of our entire local group through the universe.)
I really struggle with the Cosmic Background Radiation. It implies that when it was emitted, it was 14 billion light years away (give or take) in all directions, implying a minimum size for the universe at that time of 28 billion light years across, and yet this was emitted within the very early universe, so the universe expanded at a rate way more than the speed of light, and yet we know that things cannot travel faster than the speed of light. I know that the “answer” is that it is the cosmic inflation period in which spacetime itself expanded at a ridiculous rate, and then mysteriously stopped, but I just cannot get my head around it. It just seems like a theoretical “fix” which is divorced from reality. I’d love you to address this in a future video as your explanations generally have great clarity.
I agree with your concerns about inflation theory. I also have a serious unresolved issue with the explanation of the CMB which for me completely breaks any chance of useful information being derived from the CMB.
As a lay man, I tend to snigger at the memes "curves the space-time" and the Lorentzian transform acrobacy, and the "expansion of the universe" - no science youtuber has ever cared to explain the very basics: speaking of "curving the space-time" or "expansion of the universe" - do the theoreticians imply that A) the cartesian coordinate system itself, the foundational theoretical framework, becomes twisted, i.e. no longer orthogonal, or keeps "sliding under our feet" to make the universe expand or B) do we somehow switch to using an "effective space-time", twisted and bounded by the speed of light, which departs from the ideal coordinate system, while the ideal coordinate system obviously stays put (albeit with a relative origin), exactly because it's perfect / ideal by definition? Thus allowing us to "watch the effective space-time" twist and turn, and expand. The expansion means that objects are getting further apart, but e.g. their individual dimensions remain valid, scale of distance remains constant, speed of light can actually be fathomed as finite etc. And another mystery to me: so let's accept as a fact that the big bang happened. Initially, the space was filled with matter, condensed to some "unimaginably high" levels of pressure / temperature / density, and then, it expanded. The question to me is: *where to* did it start to expand? In an ideal coordinate system, ignorant of relativistic stuff, there would need to be a "difference of pressure" between different places. Inhomogeneity. Otherwise, the ultra-dense and ultra-hot and ultra-pressurized matter would just retain its state! It would just stay put. Also, if we can already infer the rate or gradient of expansion, and we probably know the density of matter, isn't that already enough data to calculate the "size of the ultra-dense blob that went bang" (in a space filled with less density), or the "approximate dimensions of the domain of inhomogeneity" that allowed for the bang to happen? Or, do we really believe that the twisty bendy relativistic spacetime is the only coordinate system that we have, and it could start out "infinitely folded unto itself" and is merely unraveling to this day, at the speed of light? (I'm not asking if that difference makes a difference :-) Also, if mass was extremely dense (at the start of the big bang), but ideally homogenously dense over infinite dimensions, it would not form any particular event horizon. Also, an event horizon needs to be centered around something. Yes it can be deformed by inhomogenous density of mass inside (if we permit anything other than a singularity at the center) or by rotation... Seems to me that if the big bang did happen, and a cartesian coordinate system is applicable at least in theory, it means that the bang started from a blob of matter of finite dimensions. "Unfathomably large" is a silly term. Having a floating decimal point at our disposal, it's either infinite, or fathomable :-) It's similar to the evolution of theories around electromagnetic field and waves. At school, you are initially taught that there is no "ether" for light to travel in. The EM field itself is the "medium", in which fluctuations travel, and somehow the speed of light is a constant, characteristic of the medium. So, no ether, but we already have a medium. And then you get an accepted theory of the "quantum fields" and "vacuum fluctuations" giving rise to subatomic particles... But nooo, no Ether, that's been disproved centuries ago :-) In my book, it's just word play...
the expansion means, the light didn't travel. The expansion also means it doesn't need to expand faster than light for example. Imagine everything stuck on the outside of a balloon and expending the balloon, what is on the balloon could be standing still and it would at the same time move away from each other.
@@axle.student I think their is a big difference between theory in science and theory in informal language. A theory in informal, every day language is more like a hypothesis. A theory in science is something which has lots of proof and calculations, etc. behind it which might it extremely likely to be true. So much so it's generally accepted to be the case.
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality!
Pigeon Crap. That microwave horn antenna (at 4:54) was built for Bell Labs as an experiment with satellite communications. My father was part of the team in NYC that was needed for calibration. It was well known that these horn antennae could be attenuated by bat guano and pigeon droppings. After extensive cleaning of the horn, the problem of noise continued and was later determined to be The Universe. Signal comparisons were made and it turns out that the static seen on TVs tuned to a channel without a carrier was caused by the same thing. So... When Carol-Ann looks away from the TV and says "They're Here" she might talking about Aliens instead of Poltergeist.
Most people are taught when they are young that there is a great big god who made us special. Every scientific find that challenges that specialness also challenges their whole perspective on existence in a really scary way.
@@ladyaj7784 my perspective on existence is that there is no purpose, only chance. I don’t think there is any afterlife, but this doesn’t make me want to live any less. If anything, it makes me want to live more.
Has anyone looked at this with regards to magnetic fields or charge differences? That's the easy thing we could be missing before we go into heavier things?
Yes , the actual physicists are aware that we are in an electric universe . They will not accept it in cosmology because it means that we are geocentric and there is an aether and atomic theory is wrong.
2 місяці тому
True, I may not be an expert but by the gods the amount of times I have done work on my PC, put it back together and it didn't work, trey different things, check all the stuff I messed with..... only for it to be the PSU power switch being off. Sometimes it really is the simple things that cause the biggest issues.
Does not being at the “center” mean that something is not special? The very fact that you are able to watch this video means that we are special. Maybe we are exactly where we are supposed to be.
Of course we're at the center of our observable universe, every point the universe is at the center of its observable universe. JADES-GS-z13-0 is the most distant galaxy we're currently aware of, and if there's anyone in that galaxy today looking around, they also see that they're at the center of their observable universe. You only need three statements to categorically conclude that we must be at the center of our observable universe: The age of the universe is finite. The speed of light is constant to all observers. Expansion does not differ between different parts of the universe. That's why "We're at the center of the universe we can observe" is just a different way to say "The universe has a beginning".
@@OhhCrapGuyhey I’m not trying to be rude to you but you have misunderstood the measurement of the speed of light. The speed of light is not constant in fact and it is not set in stone anywhere. There was an agreed upon average by the scientific community sometime before Einstein died because so many different measurements were being given by prominent experts and noted scholars and gentlemen and rogues who dared to stare. At goats. …I mean the sky at night and digitally rendered dots now. One naked photo of space from the JWT would fundamentally change everything we have been forced to swalllow but you can’t get one.
ACTUALLY, we are EXTREMELY special! It is the realization of how astonishingly, momentously, unbelievably RARE life like us is that fuels the supreme wonder of being alive!
The problem is we still have no clue how rare life actually is. So, even that's up for debate lol :( But, personally, I don't think rarity is required for any of those other beautiful things you said :)
The percentage of star systems with intelligent life (as we know it) in the universe is likely extremely small, but the sheer number of stars in the universe makes it almost a certainty that there’s a countless number of star systems with intelligent life. I think this is the best answer for “where are all of the aliens?” We simply haven’t discovered enough exoplanets yet to find the particularly unique ones like our own. Statistically, we’re quite special. But in the grand scale of the universe, we’re a mote of dust, and nothing out of the ordinary
From a person's perspective they are always the center because though you can imagine viewing anything from anywhere, when dealing with reality you are always viewing it relative to "your perspective" hence we can't in reality view anything where we are not the center!
Maybe is a heredity feature that more solar systems has from the universe like the spin of stars and planets. Maybe the gravity could also be explained by preons that forms quarks and fill the vacuum, having more density where there is more mass and looks like curving the space-time, and having less density between the galaxies where they create new space-time coming from the transformation of mass into gravitational energy in the merging of black holes.
This is actually the first time I've ever heard the early universe and CMB explained in a way that makes it obvious why the CMB is ubiquitous across the universe. Thank you for that eye opening insight finally.
The "observable universe" doesn't mean the actual size of the universe. Just the amount that we can see. The probability of objects beyond it is greater than zero, we just cant see it. The doplar effect could be an exemplification of that.
No need for apologies , this was Fascinating! Thanks for keeping us up to date on the subject DrBecky Would love to see a followup video on gravitational lensing (alsho more Shawn Connery Acshents pleash)
The simplest answer would be an artifact caused by our method of reception and processing. However, finding out if it is real or not would be a wonderful journey. As I understand it, that is the real joy of science.
Yeah from what I've read it seems that the way we originally derived the local momentum of the solar system was through use of the CMB dipole which if true would put this as an example of circular arguments. At the very least it has been well demonstrated in the last 3 years though a falsification test proposed in 1984 that compares the CMB dipole to a sufficiently large dipole built from cosmologically distant sources across the sky and checks to see if they both match as would be expected if the dipole is entirely or primarily kinematic in origin. The results from Nathan Secret et al seem to show that there is a 4.9 sigma discrepancy between these two dipoles which can not be rectified with the validity of a purely kinematic dipole falsifying the cosmological principal out to redshifts greater than 1if a single large statistical anomaly exists or the observable universe otherwise We need an independent test of the local frame of reference to verify that this is the case but to me it looks like a strong case for systematic bias as the culprit. This has the nice coincidence of simultaneously resolving the observations attributed to "dark energy", as an inevitable consequence of gravity in a inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe according to numerical modeling of the full unreduced Einstein field equations, the so called axis of evil discussed here, and the Hubble tension, not to mention the numerous and ever growing list of "impossibly large structures within the lambda CDM model" observed. The amount of problems which go away as a con sequence of systematic bias seems like Occam's razor points in this direction of faulty model assumptions.
considering every single component in the math comes from observations of light of things that are unfathomably away....I have been convinced for a while that we just aren't measuring all that stuff accurately enough. The shear number of assumptions involved is staggering. As Dragrath said, there are so many circular arguments involved with any understanding of anything outside of our solar system.
Aren't we overlooking the obvious answer, that the CMB is created by our solar system, not by some theoretical explosion that supposedly created the universe? See Occam.
@@williamschlosser You mean hypothetical not theoretical. Citing Occam does not fill in the gaps of your assertion. For instance, how does our system generate the BACKGROUND microwaves?
When I saw the thumbnail, I first thought you were going to speak about using those harmonics to narrow down the topology of the universe. (Yes, you alluded to this around 11:30).
Can a photon travel forever and never interact with anything? Consider a Feynman diagram that shows a photon being emitted from an interaction on the left and absorbed in an interaction on the right. Time vector to the right, as usual. In the photon's frame of reference, travelling at the speed of light, there is no actual time. And at the speed of light, space is Lorenz contracted to zero. It seems that the left and right of the diagram are actually converged and space-time doesn't exist in the frame of refence of the photon. If all that is essentially true, it seems plausible that the photon cannot actually be emitted unless there is something that will eventually interact with (in our frame of reference).
Since a photon ceases to be when it interacts with something, it never really exists from our perspective (we only observe what happens after it interacted with something and not in flight), and from it's perspective, the whole Universe does not exist, since there without passage of time it is isolated from everything.....
Because of the Lorentz contraction, photons (and all other zero-mass particles) don't experience time. Their origination and destruction happen at the exact same moment, in their frame of reference.
It may very well be that the Creator started with our locality and everything is proceduraly generated as we become capable of "seeing" or "detecting" it.
What are the chances of the Sun and the Moon to have equal apparent size in the sky and the Moon to perfectly obscure the Sun during Eclipse? Mathematicians are silent on the statistical probability.
@@michaelsommers2356 thanx, that's where I know it from. I just can't think of a reason why they would have used it here? I was thinking if it was an acronym or something? 🤔🤔🤔
@@mael1515The phrase caught on around 2003 and stayed prominent in American culture for a number of years afterward. I bet one of the researchers said it as a joke and it just stuck
We can't explain like 80% of the observable universe ("dark" energy, "dark" matter) and have no clue what the universe is altogether, so yeah, I think our models are far from perfect. 😂
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics! The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual. Dipoles or dual poles = Duality! Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3). Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Good is dual to bad. Divine is dual to evil. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic. Duality creates reality! Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.
I mean dark matter/energy is just a place holder name for the phenomenon we see gravitationally/what’s accelerating the universe’s expansion. It’s not that its wrong it’s just we lack the ability to observe/know what it is right now
@@paroxysm6437 We might never be able to fully explain the universe, as it may be imbedded into a higher dimensional structure we have no access to. It is just a hopefull assumption that the universe can be explained from within alone.
@@nuneke0 You can still observe higher dimensions although it’s limited. But I get your point, although with advances in technology who knows what might be possible in the future
If it is a feature of our solar system that's affecting the data, only something like the sun is powerful enough to make one hemisphere a bit different from the other. Perhaps there's a very organised polarization of some particles that causes light scattering/reflection from one side.
Well maybe "the axis of evil" isn't so evil after all. Maybe it's Fundamental to our existence, and maybe the creator had to align it that way for our solar system to remain stable for supporting life on earth. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts." Isa. 55 :9
I know there's no chance you'll read this with 3k comments to go through -- We call it the 'background' but most of what we see corresponds to something else that emits microwave radiation too, like a galaxy, nebulae or a whole lot of other things. Has anyone tried subtracting from this "background" all the things we can observe and model that would emit microwave radiation that *isn't* associated with a known object or phenomenon? Like when you walk up to a piece of glass on a sunny day and can see both your own reflection but also what's on display in the storefront. We know the approximate masses, distances, stellar gas densities, and all these other things that we can use to estimate what we'd be seeing if the CMB didn't exist and we just confined ourselves to what we know exists within the observable universe -- has anyone built that sort of "image" by using all that data and generating a rough model, and then subtracting the result from what we can observe? One of the main things in astrophysics as I understand it is that uniformity should exist in both the observable, and non-observable universe. Space is the same everywhere. Aren't we basing this though on what is effectively observations made *through* what's inside our bubble, rather than what's on the surface of that bubble, with these images? We have a pretty good idea of what's within our sphere of the observable universe, but I haven't seen any attempts to model it to correct that projection of the 'background' so that it represents what the 'true' background would be. Like a room with all the furniture removed so we only see the walls.
It’s obvious. We are special and there is something greater at play here. The fact 90% of scientist are atheist. I don’t really trust there bias. The fact they named this axis of evil tells you everything you need to know these groups of ppl and how they feel that there is a chance there is something greater.
Thanks for the video, Becky! Wonderful data. I have a very strong feeling that we are going full-circle: The ancients already went through all of this. We are relearning the reality of the universe; we just happen to use abstract numbers to explain everything rather than radian-based architecture and Flower of Life fractalism.
I always love these videos because I feel like I'm always learning something. This one admittedly has gone a bit over my head, a bit. One question I have that now has me interested further, is if we have determined that the doppler effect is something we have to correct for because of our movement through space, what about some other effect due to locomotion is a cause for the axis of evil? Is there a torque applied to an object as it moves through space? What angle is that at, and could that be a sort of hidden figure that could explain why the quadrupole seems to not match what was expected?
You are truly brilliant at breaking down science for the average none scientist. Love your videos. Question is, why haven't you done a colab with Brian Cox for a BBC documentary yet?
I think that many people assume that a light year is purely a measurement of time, with no actual proof, but it is actually a measurement of distance, the two being totally separate from each other. Assuming things causes many problems.
Can you please repeat your first statement again for the record!! It's amazing to know how much we don't know. So much to learn in such little time!👏🏻🔥💯
AD | Enjoy 10% OFF on all Hoverpens and free shipping to most countries with code DrBecky:
North America & other countries: bit.ly/drbecky_novium
UK & Europe: bit.ly/drbecky_noviumeu
Thx, bc the QRC don't work on my phone at least.
What is this in part yet another example of something we thought would be one way, but it ends up being the opposite a.k.a. we’re in a simulation 😂
The comment section is way too long. You’ll never read this unless I post it here but I have two questions one what are these polls really matter it feels like the scientist were given multiple sets of data and they kind of just chose which sets of data they wanted to use data line through some thing and that’s it. I see a bunch of lines but it’s really just scientific interpretation of data. It’s not real things second question is why in the world they call of the axis of Evil You went over in the video, but never bother to explain why such an outrageous name.
I ordered 2 Interstellar pen’s and got 10% off with the code DRBECKY… Thank you for the awesome gift idea and the great videos. Grts from Belgium 🇧🇪
I ordered my Hoverpen (from Australia) after watching this excellent video clip last night and it arrived less than 12 hours later! What amazing service.
Signs the petition for a follow-up video about those tens of little problems that seem to be in the way of gravitational lensing explanation.
I’ll sign! lol
And sign my petition that says we *are* special!
im guessing one of the problems is that it merely shifts the question of "why would the solar system be aligned with the axis of evil?" to "why would the solar system be aligned with the galaxy cluster precisely in a way that makes it look aligned with the axis of evil?"
Just past the 10 minute mark in the video she states that the dipole is “exactly” 90 degrees to the quadrupole and the octipole. My understanding was that the angle of the dipole is accounted for by the direction of travel of the Milky-way. It seems to me then that the mystery is really what possible reason could there be for these higher order poles to be at right angles to our galaxy’s direction of travel. 🤷🏻
@FLPhotoCatcher lol I just put basically the same thing we are special then I read yours.
"When the universe was younger it was much denser and much hotter."
The universe is me fr 😳
I refuse to accept that the bootes void is a middle-aged bald spot.
Yeah but unlike the universe we gain mass.
Welcome to enlightenment.
@@GwydionFrost So universe getting less hot with age and developing bald spot hahahaha
@@blacksage2375
So THAT’s where my energy is going!
Douglas Adams said it first: Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
@mnoxman
Hahaahhh!
Thanks for reminding me this morning.
And to the rest:
Thanks for all the Fish!
So long!!
until i see anything to prove it otherwise digital watches are fuckin neat and life here is the most important thing to exist. Adams was entertaining, but he was still a fool.
I mean, we are sorta really special. Take our star, G-Class, but unlike other G-Class stars, ours is freakishly calm (this is a very big thing not many mention). Then there's the Sun's position within the Milky Way galaxy, which places it in the galactic habitable zone. Then our actual solar system has not one but four gas giants acting as cosmic vacuum cleaners, protecting us. And then we've got our planet, which is positioned in the perfect spot for habitable life to form. And then our moon is perhaps one of the most bizarrely useful moons in the entire solar system. If our planet were a lottery winner, it would have won the jackpot multiple times. It's really quite improbable that we should even exist.
Well it had to happen somewhere
@@TheJuggtron No it didn't.
Or perhaps some intelligent, wise, powerful being figured this our ahead of time and made it just so.
That's my favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox. Space-faring life arises only once or twice per galaxy because the conditions for it to arise are so unlikely (but still possible).
I fear there's a lot of reaching going on here.
Our star is relatively stable - at present. It wasn't cooperative to life when it was young (although life managed anyway) and absolutely won't be cooperative in the future as it grows old. It's already well on its way to becoming too luminous and active for Earth's atmosphere to cope with and in about 250 million years the biosphere of the planet will begin to collapse as a result. A billion years from now and the surface of Earth will be sterile.
The sun's "galactic suburbs" position in the Milky Way is shared by about 100 billion other stars and probably a trillion planets so is hardly remarkable. Nobody would bother to look for life in the Galactic core for instance because conditions there are extremely hostile, both to life and to astronomical observations.
We have yet to determine the "standard" form a star system takes (if one exists at all). Exoplanet research has a rather skewed sample data built in due to it favouring systems conducive to current methods of discovery. Detection methods have extreme difficulty seeing small bodies and pretty much no ability to see distantly orbiting bodies, so these are massively under-represented. So whether the solar system's layout is atypical or not is currently unanswerable. Also the "vacuum cleaner" hypothesis is a bit old fashioned these days and the situation is a bit more nuanced. Some modelling suggests gas giants create more problems to terrestrial worlds than they solve.
I'll grant you the Moon is impressively useful in its current configuration (although it would have been an unholy menace in its early days when whipping around the Earth in 9 days). However there's no reason to believe the Earth would not be able to support life without it. Only that life has taken advantage of its presence.
Don't forget that you are Douglas Adams' "sentient puddle" marvelling at how the hole it fills up fits its body shape so perfectly. Meanwhile an objective observer understands the puddle can _only_ take the shape of the hole it fills. It has no choice in the matter.
Likewise we have the life cycles, morphologies and chemistry on Earth that this environment, time frame and locality in the cosmos makes possible. To assume this is the only form and only way in which a biosphere can manifest is at best only a guide for finding "Earth analogues" and at worst comically arrogant and near guaranteed to be wrong. For all we know life exists on hundreds of millions of worlds, many of which are likely to be far removed from the conditions here. But at present we do not know enough to answer the question one way or the other. All we can know is that life exists in the Milky Way, because we are a sample of it. A sample set of 1 tells us only that it _can_ happen and little else and a lottery with only 1 ticket isn't remarkable at all.
But I am at the center of my own observable universe.
Actually, you are on one side: you don't have 360 degree vision
@@MaGaO That assumes your sense of self comes from the eyes and not your brain(with is about as central in you as you get), witch is a philosophical question and not a Astrophysics question
Hi neighbor! I'm right there with you.
What are you all talking about? It's MY universe... you're just living in it. 😆
You're the centre of my universe mate. 💕
I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned
At least attribute the great late Richard Feynman if you're going to quote him.
Am I allowed to question if the earth actually rotates on its axis every 24 hours and revolves around the sun every 365.25 days? Or am I allowed to ask if the earth is actually at the center of the universe? Occam’s Razor: the earth is the center of the universe. It explains all of the scientific observations. A real scientist would admit what the data show. The data disproves Copernicanism and iroves Geocentrism.❤
@@ochem123 uhh, it does not. Hour and day are made up units based on nature (the rotation of the earth), not the other way around.
Also, how is Geocentricism gonna solve problems? It only creates more problem. Just look at the movement of the celestial bodies. Geocentricism just fucks all of that up. It's like rotating yourself and think the whole universe is rotating around you.
@@ochem123 Occam's Razor: if it seems like the entire universe is rotating, it's more likely that you are the one rotating
@@asdfoifhvjbkaos The actual scientific data support fixed Earth. Review the work of Dr. Robert Sungenis.
Science 101: an answer raises more questions than it solves.
So I’ve noticed. In my experience, the new, unanswered questions resulting from the first question are also bigger (more perplexing?) than the first.
Answer, the more questions suggest a healthy dose of curiosity 😂
Every answer expands our awareness (context), e.g., an awareness of more to find out, e.g., of how little we knew, which implies how much more there is to know.
The more you know, the more you become aware of the things you don't know. Imagine our knowledge as a sphere inside the space of the unknown. If the sphere of our knowledge expands then so does its surface, the things we're aware we don't know. To quote Marcelo Gleiser:
"As the island of Knowledge grows, so do the shores of our ignorance -the boundary between the known and the unknown. Learning more about the world doesn’t lead to a point closer to a final destination but to more questions and mysteries."
It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically.
A small remark for the graphics displaying the axis.
The cosmic microwave background comes from all directions and is measured as a sphere around us. In 2D the sphere is displayed using the mollweide projection (the ellipse).
The mollweide projection preserves the areas of parts of the sphere but it distorts their shapes and angles. This means that a straight line across the sky or on the sphere isn't straight when using this projection.
The exact way to draw the axis is in form of a curved line or by just using a different projection.
Surely it can't be as simple as the scientists drawing straight lines on paper between features that aren't really straight?
Massive Missive (c) follows: (no TLDR - Lump it.)
The same problem when plotting a shortest course, I.e. a great circle route, on any flat map of the spherical earth. Only a very restricted subset of true great circle routes show up as straight lines on any given flat mapping of the global surface. The rest are curved, even crossing “hyperspace” by leaping off one edge of the map and reappearing on another, like those video games where you can shoot at an opponent nearly the complete way across the screen from you by turning and firing from a very short distance at the proper angle to the edge near you and have the projectile/ray/whatever emerge from the edge very near them, doing them in promptly. Wraparound. You are never more than half a ‘screenshot’ away, in some direction.
Another analog is in drawing threads on a bolt viewed at right angles. The simplistic way is diagonal straight lines across the axis of the bolt, but in reality the thread roots and crests are properly visualized as slight ‘s’ curves, with the extreme ends of the lines curved to a parallel with the bolt axis. You are mapping a cylindrical object onto a flat surface.
A slight, but I think very germane, emendation to your ‘small remark’. Not only are we, as here, mapping the sky onto a flat two dimensional surface, but the sky is itself a spherical 2-D surface mapping of a 3-D volume to start with. That is the very concept of ‘the sky’. A straight line ‘on’ the 2-D, albeit curved, sky is not necessarily a straight line through either Newtonian or Einsteinian space. Planetary orbits appear straight along the ecliptic, but are elliptical in space. A lack of understanding of ‘mapping’ may be at the core of flat-earthers’ confusion, both on the ground and in space (for those who are truly confused, and not merely knot-headed contrarians).
One of my brothers-in-law was impressed by my sister’s mention of some astronomical object as being ’out there’, rather than ‘up there’, showing that she understood the three-dimensionality of what was visible overhead at the moment, and earth’s inclusion in that volume.
“or by just using a different projection”:
This would require reorienting each projection’s axes to place the line in question along one of the small subsets of lines straight in both space and its mapping. A case of special pleading?
What if, as here, you have multiple poles to draw lines for on the same map? This arbitrary reorientation tends to militate against the very point of mapping, which is to highlight relationships between multiple entities within a particular framework using an appropriate projection.
I hope this has mapped the concepts, which I am trying to communicate to you, onto/into your mind - in full fidelity.
@@toomdog It's not, they're just saying that the visualization in the video is technically wrong because it's drawn as a straight line. You can actually sort of get an idea of what the curve looks like from the picture of the CMB dipole at ~ 7:20
@@For_What_It-s_Worth And for some reason, space is somehow always toroidal when shooting of the sides...
If you drop the big bang and go with what the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfven says about the scalable universe this makes perfect sense?
This video is superb. I am more than a few years away from my time at Oxford. My nephew has recently taken a interest in cosmology/astrophysics and I find it hard hard to give cogent answers without bringing in specialized vocabulary and mathematics. This presentation is introductory without sacrificing accuracy as well as installing a sense of wonder. Thank you.
Really unsatisfying that you did not list some of the "tens of lots of little problems".
Yeah same! I feel like I missed something... Maybe I need to rewatch the video lol
yeah, especially since that explanation seemed to have fit the data fairly well going by the pictures
It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically..
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler oh, of course. I must have been distracted watching the video
... unemployment :D
As a mathematician, I'm really rooting for the "torus universe" solution. It would just be so cool if we could see the same object but at different times. That would tell us so much and give us so many cool new equations about the universe to mess around with.
Krispe Kream have a sale on.
We've already seen the same object at different times, when a supernova was observed in an Einstein Cross. One supernova, seen three times. No torii needed for that.
It was cool btw. Shame the mathematician missed it.
It's real simple if we are not the fundamental highest spatial dimension and the universe is not a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the shape of the universe be flat which is exactly what we observe so it aligns with the information and the experience of Mandela effects which also points towards higher spatial dimensional existence and crop circles which have genetic sites on the parts that are laid down which bend them up to 45° angle naturally without pressure but genetically...
The Present may not be the plane of Space/Time boundedness we think it is...
Perhaps the axis of evil is a galactic version of the Goldilocks zone of possibly habitable planets. It could suggest any star system which aligns with the axis has a higher probability of containing habitable zones.
Another Anthropic Principle point.
My problem with the Anthropic Principle is that it seems tautological; we’re here because we are here.
Amazing to me the sensitivity and homogenity of the data, we atr looking at fractions of degrees in temperature, so my feeling it is a tiny local effect maybe magnetic, or a distortion in heliosphere ar right angles to our motion. I dont know, maybe in a few years ...
Anyway great video short, sweet and to the point.
base on what?
@@christianlibertarian5488 I mean, you can extend the principle to any kind of observation. We know how bees work because we were there to see them work.
It may sound a bit mystical, but humans being able to observe and record is what gives a meaning to things. Nature doesn't have inherent meaning. It applies to everything, and not just our existence.
It's always why we think that life can only emerge on Earth-like planets. Until we either figure out how life can emerge under different conditions or until we meet other observers, it will remain an unsolvable principle. It's also possible that we are literally the only solution.
That could help identify its properties but not why it actually exists.
Obviously it's an easter egg inserted by a Magrathean.
Probably that fjord obsessed guy.
Magrathea made planets, not universes.
One might say he was a...Fjord Prefect 😎
...and tomorrow I intend to eat a heartybeakfaast.
@@thomasdjonesn One might, but then one would be condemned to eternal torment, so it isn't advisable.
@michaelsommers2356 yeah, the fjord guy would be too low in the ranks
Yeah, yeah, pens, whatever.
I want the Lego Peugeot that's on the shelf.
I'm sorry but how dare you discount such a beautiful pen? XD
I got it, truly an excellent build and display piece.
I find that I'm wishing my job wasn't completely digital so I'd have a reason to buy that pen.
You don't need a reason to buy Lego. You just need a way to justify it to your spouse.
@@jeffspaulding9834 tip: buy it first before getting a spouse.
Yay! Thank you for making a video on this, been wanting to hear your perspective on the various unsolved universe mysteries (lithium-7 problem, axis of evil, dark matter) etc etc - if you did a vid on the lack of lithium-7 in our observations, that'd be like real cool
I don’t know what the lithium 7 thing is so I definitely wanna hear about that. Though I’m definitely also gonna look it up after I finish this video 😅
i would like to humbly request you make a follow up video about the 10s of little problems that the 'big lensing' creates?
Happy 750K subs, Dr. Becky!
At 4:20ish thank you for actually explaining where the projection of this map comes from!! I’m a casual enjoyer of science and have watched so many videos on the CMB but no one has ever actually explained this simple idea and I’ve been SO curious!
I for one am always happy to hear a scientist say "and that's as much as we know, even if it's unsatisfying", rather than try fill in the blanks. Interesting video! Thank!
Because that’s the way (name of preferred creator) made it.
There!
Another question answered.
Next?
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics!
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual.
Dipoles or dual poles = Duality!
Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3).
Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Good is dual to bad.
Divine is dual to evil.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation).
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Duality creates reality!
@@briandeschene8424
Science: Questions that can not be answered.
Religion: Answers that can never be questioned.
Take your religious rubbish and please leave. It's NEVER 'god did it'.
It doesn't make me happy to not get answers, but I don't turn to science for happyness or all the answers, but for the closest to truth answers that are humanly feasible.
I value concious and honest perception of the Universe over happyness.
Happyness will come and go on it's own, pursuing it for it's own sake seems to often not lead to success and compromise other qualities that are valued by many.
@@jannikheidemann3805 Would you be happy if Christianity was true? ✝️
Seriously, who comes to science for the answers?! I came to it for the questions!!
hahahaha that is bloody smart 🙂
Exactly :)
I like that, I'll use it in the future. Unfortunately you know somebody's going to interpret that as you go to faith for the answers.
@@iainmc9859 Some might say that and they're welcome to do it, but reason and theology is apples and oranges. Those are the extreme ones. Go to any university and you'll find no shortage of scientists who have strong faith, and they seem to make it work quite well.
I’m gonna have tee shirts made, “Tale Chasing Lovers Club”
your icon for your name is really cool 💛✨
Words are hard. Tripods are harder. 😜
Yeah the triplo- tlidop- ... the thingie with the three legs.
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics!
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual.
Dipoles or dual poles = Duality!
Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3).
Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Good is dual to bad.
Divine is dual to evil.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation).
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Duality creates reality!
Hey doc; it would be great to see a video on Przybylski’s star!
"It has a unique spectrum showing over-abundances of most rare-earth elements, including some short-lived radioactive isotopes, but under-abundances of more common elements such as iron."
astronomers run away from that star, you would imagine someone would have tried to observe it again after all these years with more refined spectra... well, guess again
Answer is simple: all stars synthesize all elements; fusion happens in the outer layers of stars, not in the cores, and fusion is not what powers stars, but is a powered process, powered through electrical energy from huge interstellar and intergalactic currents.
To me seems like a local bias. and its one we can't really fix either, every part of the microwave background WE CAN SEE probably has some local influence (most likely our solar system given the situation) and if somehow you looked at the overall picture, however big it is, you might not even notice what we call "everything", because I'm fairly certain its still debated if the universe is infinite or not. only way to confirm this isn't some sort of local bias would be to take cosmic background at a distance with no overlap (aka way too far for humans to probably ever reach) and see if the "axis of evil" exists there.
I’m not sure which bloopers I like better, camera fiddling or when you slip in Sean Connery.
Your enthusiasm is amazing 😊
Using Occam's razor, it's most likely to be data artefacts from our solar system, probably microwave (heat) sources in the Oorth cloud, dust too small to detect but too bright in their totality to not affect the CMB.
Our maths are not nearly as advanced as we often think. For instance, in most CMB images, when putting them side by side with pictures of our galaxy, we can see some artefacts which match, despite best efforts to eliminate them.
Some methods are likely to be circular: remove potentially closer sources of microwaves until the distributions are correct. A very dangerous method which can lead to overlooking actual distortions in the CMB.
We think of north and south as up and down, but it's actually front and back.
It's hard to imagine they'd omit our own system pushing it's way through the cmb in their models(?)
I knew it. Homer Simpson told Steven hawking the universe was doughnut shaped.😅
Axis of evil? Perhaps a discussion could be had concerning the methods astrophysicists use to name scientific phenomena/obsevations/objects?
Well, we're the most evil planet known in the universe and we're on it.
History buffs think this name is sus
Not a great name. History of that name makes me uncomfortable.
@@bigfishoutofwater3135 The most evil *inhabited* planet, I would say. Venus is in fact much more evil than Earth.
I thought it might also be a play of words for the two variables (b,l) that are mentioned in the paper summary. So it is the "axis of b l" repeated very fast until it sounds like "axis of evil".
Great video, Congratulations on your New Office
We may not be the center of the universe but you are always the center of your observable universe.
If I fart then I am the centre of my smell. That says nothing about new York.
That's what occurred to me, but I'm just a 17th literature specialist so what do I know about astrophysics? But it did strike me as an observation issue.
This is actually a contradiction that I see pop up regularly in physics explanations, For example: "The universe is 3.8 million years old. The visible universe (or often just Universe) is 90 billion light years across".
So if the visible universe (past light cone) is 13.8 billion light years across. Where does 90 billion come from? OK, they estimate the expansion of where the furthest object may be "now", except there is no "now" in the past or visible light cone, and objects outside of the light cone are unknown to us. Unknown such as the actual size of the universe.
>
In relativity we are always the center of our visible light cone/sphere (knowable universe). You perceive a different visible universe so I can never have a direct knowledge of what you see :)
>
[Edit - correction]
What we refer to as the observable universe was 84 *million* light years across at the actual time of the CMB, NOT 13.7 billion x 2. The 13.7 billion comes after adjustment for inflation.
This is what baffles me. We're not the center of the universe, we're the center of OUR universe. That being said, by what we know and observe, we'll be able to find the center of the universe? Since universe is expanding, where is the point it's expanding from?
I know we can't (maybe) pinpoint that accurately like with an explosion, since the scale of universe at the moment of big bang would be incomprehensible since even if fully compacted and opaque it would, for sure, be bigger than the most massive star discovered (or even, in my opinion, the size of a BIG galaxy), after the big bang our area of where Milky way starts to exist would end up way off the "center" of "explosion", could we will ever find a "center" point?
I know I didn't explained that too good, here's another easy way to understand what I think of/about:
Imagine a balloon, slightly inflated, just so that is looks it has some air in it keeping it "stiff" (This is how imagine universe before big bang.
Then big bang happens, everywhere, starting this expansion (now imagine you're filling up this balloon with air to it's almost max)
If, let's say, where the Milky way exists now is 3/4r distance from the center of the balloon (1/4 away from the edge or the balloon itself) but our observable universe it's only as big as a soap bubble in that balloon that doesn't even come close to the edge of the balloon, can we find a starting point of our position?
I find this idea a very tricky one and can't stop thinking of it, since I didn't find anything to answer me this question. Not even the question of how far out are we from the big bang origins? Or how far out are we from the center of the universe. Or even if we know where this center is/might be. Or even how much is our observable universe compared to the whole universe?
@@axle.student The universe is 14.3 Billion years old or some where there abouts. Yes the visible light cone amounts to about 90 Billion light years in diameter which is roughly 45 Billion light years in any direction. We do not see 45 billion light years away though. We just see light that was emitted from an object 14.3 billion years away when it was 14.3 billion light years away and due to the red shift we believe it to be 45 billion light years away now. 45 billion light years on both sides of us is 90 billion light years diameter. Does that help reduce the confusion?
You do an EXCELLENT job.
Thank you so much for these videos. Your articulation and delivery are so very helpful in understanding these things.
I’m personally struggling with the idea of the “universe being flat”. If you could ever help explain this I would be so grateful. Thank you again.
14:00 POV Dr. Becky chokes you out while also ignoring your existence
The big question is if an alien in another solar system would observe a similar alignment with the axis of their solar system.
NO, this earth is the only earth in the universe with people evil enough to kill their own creator, Jesus the Christ.
@@Rudyard_Stripling More schizo babble about the imaginary zombie buddy.
Good question. Using the same methodology, my guess would be "yes" since it's more likely to be an effect caused by the persistent mass distribution imbalance that comes with being in a solar system than it is to be one caused by a cosmic conspiracy.
That's why we need to travel to other solar systems and galaxys to check and observe.
@@Rudyard_Striplingwtf are you on about?
Dr. Becky. First off....great content, especially latley. Can you do a video on the 1/137 constant soon?
I would imagine that the solar system's orientation somehow causes a bias in the data, because that is the only reasonable explanation beyond random chance, but I couldn't even begin to guess what could be causing such an effect. Something related to the Sun's rotation influencing our measurement devices?
When in doubt, blame Jupiter
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics!
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual.
Dipoles or dual poles = Duality!
Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3).
Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Good is dual to bad.
Divine is dual to evil.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation).
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Duality creates reality!
Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.
Ah yes, the good old days before the cosmic microwave background - when little kids dreamt of being plasmanauts and going up into Outer Plasma.
The crisis in cosmology is all due to people in Physics being unable to understand The CMB in the first place ... hence the tension.
@@alphalunamare What points about the CMB do you think are misunderstood?
“It happened everywhere at once.”
…wait, what!?
@@gamelairtim lol, where did that come from :P
@@gamelairtim That is causing you concerns?
Take a universe. Fill it with a plasma with (almost) exactly the same composition, temperature and pressure, then leave it expanding (at the same rate, in all places.
Come back after it has been cooling for 3 minutes less than 300,000 years and measure the temperature here, there and over there (all pairs of them separated by more then 300,000 light years, so light, gravity etc could not have got from one point to another (this is the so-called "horizon problem") in the time you've been waiting. At that time, none of the gas will have dropped below the temperature at which hydrogen nuclei can hold onto an electron to become hydrogen atoms.
Come back 5 minutes later. The universe, in these separate locations unable to communicate with each other will have cooled slightly, and the hydrogen ions are starting to combine for the first time to form hydrogen atoms. Photons are travelling further before encountering an electron (or proton) to scatter off (hence the CMB's alternative name of the "Last Scattering Surface" and variants). The same event has happened simultaneously throughout the universe, without any surprising coordination.
How to get a universe "with (almost) exactly the same composition, temperature and pressure" is a good question - for which the standard answer is "inflation". What happened earlier is another good question (see Weinberg's excellent "The First Three Minutes").
But you make me wonder - shouldn't we also see a "scattering surface" from when the first electrons hooked up with He2+ nuclei to form He1+ ions? With He's double charge, that should have been at higher electron energy - so, temperature, so earlier. Can't we detect the light from that event? And similarly, the (red-shifted) gamma rays from the "freezing" of nucleosynthesis in the "first three minutes" at about six hydrogen nuclei to one helium nucleus?
My mom says I'm special and she never lies to me.
Great video as always. Dr Becky, I never noticed that you are fan of WEC (just noticed LMP1 car on your shelf). Cool!
I noticed this too! only a few weeks until Le Mans
There is a paper, "A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations" by Frode K. Hansen; on Arixiv server soon to be published in A & A Letters which argues for a local influence instead of global effects.
NO, this earth is the only earth in the universe with people evil enough to kill their own creator, Jesus the Christ.
Thank you, that's really interesting.
@@Rudyard_Stripling More schyzo babble about the imaginary zombie buddy.
@@DeepeningTheListening Moses 1
25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God.
26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen.
27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.
28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.
29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.
30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?
31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.
41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men-among as many as shall believe.
42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.)
Umm ... Moving on
Cosmology is unequivocally experiencing a crisis, that crisis reached a fever pitch in 2005, but they cosmological establishment refuses to even acknowledge the AoE, so i respect the heck out of Dr. Becky for covering this!! Cosmologists are losing credibility by pretending this issue doesn't exist, when it is demonstrably legitimate.
You're quite right !
It’s incredibly funny seeing someone every time there’s an unexplained phenomenon saying “The cosmological establishment refuses to acknowledge it!!”
There’s thousands of scientists all across the planet with the goal of understanding the universe better. There’s new papers published daily like the one reraising this topic.
It’s genuinely baffling how ignorant people are and just want to push some anti establishment narrative
Most “scientists” are like the immune system of the body, but for scientific information and “knowledge”.
They protect what exists and neutralise any attacks against it.
They are the skeptic function of the part of our mind that says “I know x”. The part that justifies why it knows
It’s really nice to see people admit the holes and flaws in their knowledge. It shows humility which is the first step to real knowledge.
@@MevlinousI don’t think you get it; Scientists are constantly ATTACKING the very notions they made up. It is just hard to counter it. Just as a few hundred years ago it was hard to imagine earth NOT being the centre of everything, we have similar thoughts about things like the big bang.
As we speed ever-faster into technological depths it’s only natural that these questions will will be solved. Just give it time (unfortunately, that ‘time’ may be longer than our lifespans ;-;)
Unfortunately she approached it as a scientism cultist .
Until these materialists drop their assumptions, they will be living in fantasy land.
The two assumptions forced into cosmology that have destroyed it are the Copernican principle and materialism.
Why was the model with the cluster of galaxies discounted? You kinda yada yada’d that point.
because gravitational lensing messing up the data, as stated.
@@thekaxmaxya might want to rewatch. 12:20 The cluster of galaxies worked because of gravitational lensing as stated in the paper by Vale. The only reference as to why it hasn’t solved the problem of the axis of evil is it caused 10’s of other problems that haven’t been solved.
I’m asking for more details about the last part. Kinda spent 5 seconds on it at the end of the video.
It's not really discounted and seems to discount the "axis" theory as mere artifact but she clearly prefers there to be mysterious things to talk about rather than "nothing abnormal".
It sounded to me like it caused more problems than it solved. If you have one flat tire on a car, that corner sits lower then the other three. You can solve that problem by making the other three tires also flat, but then you have a bigger overall problem than when you started.
@@dzcav3except the concept of gravitational lensing is well known and intuitively makes sense in this case. There are issues caused by the paper, but we don’t know what those issues are in order to determine is all the tires were made flatter or not.
I felt like the video is missing a crucial part when you did not list some of the "tens of lots of little problems". other than that, great video
Love you, Becky, my favorite video so far....and this video explains far more than it seems
What do you mean the best answer gets shot down because it poses more questions? Like, so what?
I've not watched yet, but she's likely referencing Occam's razor, a philosophical principle inherent in the scientific method which suggests that the best explanation is the one which makes the fewest assumptions. (i.e. the simpler the explanation, with fewer unproven premises, the better).
You asked a good question so I, in turn, hope you find my answer beneficial & that hoped benefit finds you well.
Thanks. I'm not a fan of using Occam's razor like this since it isn't provable. Really, it just speaks to our desire for simple answers in a complex universe.
@@NickCombs I totally concur; notice how I called such, first and foremost, a philosophical principle.. granted, it's a great guideline within a dynamic framework (may seem prolix/redundant here yet I occasion such intensively-i.e. to reflect proper proportions of the scientific method as I see it-viz. 2/3 jelly-1/3 jam 😁) yet revered, extraneously adhered, & aspersively commandeered.
All wizards considered, Occam's razor is an inert quirk within multi-bodied systems wherein any given body could harbor peculiarities (semantic seesaw: society or cosmology.. you decide 🙃).
It's always satisfying to listen to Dr. Becky. :-)
The look of determination when you were attempting to adjust the tripod.. lol
Very troubling. If this is a real phenomenon, the two aligned axises would basically mean that Earth has a special position in the Universe for recording data AND that it possibly sits at the center of the entire universe. WILD. If this is a real phenomenon, this would be enough to break the Copernican Principle, a principle that has guided cosmology and astronomy for the past 500 years to make predictions about the Universe. We would essentially have to start all over again about Big Bang Theory, Dark Matter, General Relativity, etc. Scary scary stuff.
Love the technical difficulties in the 'Bloopers' section... good to know it effects all of us :) Great video
I wonder, if you placed an observer on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy (for example) and gave them the same instruments, whether they'd observe a similar axis in the quadropoles and octopoles only this time centered on Andromeda instead of our Solar system 🤔
Why not? Andromeda is practically next door, cosmologically speaking.
Andromeda is a galaxy, not a solar system. The axis of evil aligns with our solar system, not our galaxy.
Almost certainly. The main difference would be the orientation of the dipole, given that Andromeda and Milky way are approaching each other at non-negligible velocities.
Actually, if we could do it, that might be an excellent test. If the view from Andromeda is significantly different, the axis should be the result of local phenomena. If the view from Andromeda isn't significantly different, then the cause of the axis is probably far outside our local group. (IOW, the dipole isn't a result of our galaxy's motion, but of the motion of our entire local group through the universe.)
@@wj2036 a system in Andromeda, then. Or even on a different system in our galaxy - just curious what the results would be
Love your videos!
I really struggle with the Cosmic Background Radiation. It implies that when it was emitted, it was 14 billion light years away (give or take) in all directions, implying a minimum size for the universe at that time of 28 billion light years across, and yet this was emitted within the very early universe, so the universe expanded at a rate way more than the speed of light, and yet we know that things cannot travel faster than the speed of light. I know that the “answer” is that it is the cosmic inflation period in which spacetime itself expanded at a ridiculous rate, and then mysteriously stopped, but I just cannot get my head around it. It just seems like a theoretical “fix” which is divorced from reality. I’d love you to address this in a future video as your explanations generally have great clarity.
I agree with your concerns about inflation theory. I also have a serious unresolved issue with the explanation of the CMB which for me completely breaks any chance of useful information being derived from the CMB.
As a lay man, I tend to snigger at the memes "curves the space-time" and the Lorentzian transform acrobacy, and the "expansion of the universe" - no science youtuber has ever cared to explain the very basics: speaking of "curving the space-time" or "expansion of the universe" - do the theoreticians imply that
A) the cartesian coordinate system itself, the foundational theoretical framework, becomes twisted, i.e. no longer orthogonal, or keeps "sliding under our feet" to make the universe expand
or
B) do we somehow switch to using an "effective space-time", twisted and bounded by the speed of light, which departs from the ideal coordinate system, while the ideal coordinate system obviously stays put (albeit with a relative origin), exactly because it's perfect / ideal by definition? Thus allowing us to "watch the effective space-time" twist and turn, and expand. The expansion means that objects are getting further apart, but e.g. their individual dimensions remain valid, scale of distance remains constant, speed of light can actually be fathomed as finite etc.
And another mystery to me: so let's accept as a fact that the big bang happened. Initially, the space was filled with matter, condensed to some "unimaginably high" levels of pressure / temperature / density, and then, it expanded. The question to me is: *where to* did it start to expand? In an ideal coordinate system, ignorant of relativistic stuff, there would need to be a "difference of pressure" between different places. Inhomogeneity. Otherwise, the ultra-dense and ultra-hot and ultra-pressurized matter would just retain its state! It would just stay put. Also, if we can already infer the rate or gradient of expansion, and we probably know the density of matter, isn't that already enough data to calculate the "size of the ultra-dense blob that went bang" (in a space filled with less density), or the "approximate dimensions of the domain of inhomogeneity" that allowed for the bang to happen? Or, do we really believe that the twisty bendy relativistic spacetime is the only coordinate system that we have, and it could start out "infinitely folded unto itself" and is merely unraveling to this day, at the speed of light? (I'm not asking if that difference makes a difference :-)
Also, if mass was extremely dense (at the start of the big bang), but ideally homogenously dense over infinite dimensions, it would not form any particular event horizon. Also, an event horizon needs to be centered around something. Yes it can be deformed by inhomogenous density of mass inside (if we permit anything other than a singularity at the center) or by rotation...
Seems to me that if the big bang did happen, and a cartesian coordinate system is applicable at least in theory, it means that the bang started from a blob of matter of finite dimensions. "Unfathomably large" is a silly term. Having a floating decimal point at our disposal, it's either infinite, or fathomable :-)
It's similar to the evolution of theories around electromagnetic field and waves. At school, you are initially taught that there is no "ether" for light to travel in. The EM field itself is the "medium", in which fluctuations travel, and somehow the speed of light is a constant, characteristic of the medium. So, no ether, but we already have a medium. And then you get an accepted theory of the "quantum fields" and "vacuum fluctuations" giving rise to subatomic particles... But nooo, no Ether, that's been disproved centuries ago :-) In my book, it's just word play...
@@xrysf03 I feel your pain. Theories are just that, theories. And the ambiguous word salad is a nightmare to navigate.
the expansion means, the light didn't travel. The expansion also means it doesn't need to expand faster than light for example. Imagine everything stuck on the outside of a balloon and expending the balloon, what is on the balloon could be standing still and it would at the same time move away from each other.
@@axle.student I think their is a big difference between theory in science and theory in informal language. A theory in informal, every day language is more like a hypothesis. A theory in science is something which has lots of proof and calculations, etc. behind it which might it extremely likely to be true. So much so it's generally accepted to be the case.
Thank you for making a video on the axis of evil. This “coincidence” has kept me up more than once in the past couple of years.
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics!
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual.
Dipoles or dual poles = Duality!
Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3).
Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Good is dual to bad.
Divine is dual to evil.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation).
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Duality creates reality!
Pigeon Crap. That microwave horn antenna (at 4:54) was built for Bell Labs as an experiment with satellite communications. My father was part of the team in NYC that was needed for calibration. It was well known that these horn antennae could be attenuated by bat guano and pigeon droppings. After extensive cleaning of the horn, the problem of noise continued and was later determined to be The Universe. Signal comparisons were made and it turns out that the static seen on TVs tuned to a channel without a carrier was caused by the same thing. So... When Carol-Ann looks away from the TV and says "They're Here" she might talking about Aliens instead of Poltergeist.
People are really bothered over being told they’re not special
Most people are taught when they are young that there is a great big god who made us special. Every scientific find that challenges that specialness also challenges their whole perspective on existence in a really scary way.
@@ladyaj7784 my perspective on existence is that there is no purpose, only chance. I don’t think there is any afterlife, but this doesn’t make me want to live any less. If anything, it makes me want to live more.
But each person is at the exact centre of the observable universe, regardless of where in the universe they are. I love that :)
NO, this earth is the only earth in the universe with people evil enough to kill their own creator, Jesus the Christ.
true, but we're all at basically the same spot in cosmic scales
Has anyone looked at this with regards to magnetic fields or charge differences? That's the easy thing we could be missing before we go into heavier things?
Yes , the actual physicists are aware that we are in an electric universe . They will not accept it in cosmology because it means that we are geocentric and there is an aether and atomic theory is wrong.
True, I may not be an expert but by the gods the amount of times I have done work on my PC, put it back together and it didn't work, trey different things, check all the stuff I messed with..... only for it to be the PSU power switch being off.
Sometimes it really is the simple things that cause the biggest issues.
Does not being at the “center” mean that something is not special? The very fact that you are able to watch this video means that we are special. Maybe we are exactly where we are supposed to be.
Of course we're at the center of our observable universe, every point the universe is at the center of its observable universe.
JADES-GS-z13-0 is the most distant galaxy we're currently aware of, and if there's anyone in that galaxy today looking around, they also see that they're at the center of their observable universe.
You only need three statements to categorically conclude that we must be at the center of our observable universe:
The age of the universe is finite.
The speed of light is constant to all observers.
Expansion does not differ between different parts of the universe.
That's why "We're at the center of the universe we can observe" is just a different way to say "The universe has a beginning".
Everything is relative. Her use of special was a relative term to location in that case. She didn’t say YOU weren’t special.
@@OhhCrapGuyhey I’m not trying to be rude to you but you have misunderstood the measurement of the speed of light. The speed of light is not constant in fact and it is not set in stone anywhere. There was an agreed upon average by the scientific community sometime before Einstein died because so many different measurements were being given by prominent experts and noted scholars and gentlemen and rogues who dared to stare. At goats. …I mean the sky at night and digitally rendered dots now. One naked photo of space from the JWT would fundamentally change everything we have been forced to swalllow but you can’t get one.
ACTUALLY, we are EXTREMELY special! It is the realization of how astonishingly, momentously, unbelievably RARE life like us is that fuels the supreme wonder of being alive!
The problem is we still have no clue how rare life actually is. So, even that's up for debate lol :( But, personally, I don't think rarity is required for any of those other beautiful things you said :)
The percentage of star systems with intelligent life (as we know it) in the universe is likely extremely small, but the sheer number of stars in the universe makes it almost a certainty that there’s a countless number of star systems with intelligent life.
I think this is the best answer for “where are all of the aliens?” We simply haven’t discovered enough exoplanets yet to find the particularly unique ones like our own.
Statistically, we’re quite special. But in the grand scale of the universe, we’re a mote of dust, and nothing out of the ordinary
From a person's perspective they are always the center because though you can imagine viewing anything from anywhere, when dealing with reality you are always viewing it relative to "your perspective" hence we can't in reality view anything where we are not the center!
How is a pen that can float in a tiny, specific, area the best invention of ANY year?
I am so confused...
Because it’s an ad read and has to hit certain buzz words to be acceptable by the company that purchased said ad. Welcome to capitalism
@@LeeryMuscrat Well I will take Capitalism over the hell that is Communism.
I wish someone would explain why it's "evil" LOL
Because it proves , once again , geocentrism.
Maybe is a heredity feature that more solar systems has from the universe like the spin of stars and planets. Maybe the gravity could also be explained by preons that forms quarks and fill the vacuum, having more density where there is more mass and looks like curving the space-time, and having less density between the galaxies where they create new space-time coming from the transformation of mass into gravitational energy in the merging of black holes.
This is actually the first time I've ever heard the early universe and CMB explained in a way that makes it obvious why the CMB is ubiquitous across the universe. Thank you for that eye opening insight finally.
The "observable universe" doesn't mean the actual size of the universe. Just the amount that we can see. The probability of objects beyond it is greater than zero, we just cant see it. The doplar effect could be an exemplification of that.
No need for apologies , this was Fascinating!
Thanks for keeping us up to date on the subject DrBecky
Would love to see a followup video on gravitational lensing
(alsho more Shawn Connery Acshents pleash)
we are suffering from parallax error on a galactic scale!
The simplest answer would be an artifact caused by our method of reception and processing. However, finding out if it is real or not would be a wonderful journey. As I understand it, that is the real joy of science.
Or something about our solar system that we don't know yet
Yeah from what I've read it seems that the way we originally derived the local momentum of the solar system was through use of the CMB dipole which if true would put this as an example of circular arguments. At the very least it has been well demonstrated in the last 3 years though a falsification test proposed in 1984 that compares the CMB dipole to a sufficiently large dipole built from cosmologically distant sources across the sky and checks to see if they both match as would be expected if the dipole is entirely or primarily kinematic in origin. The results from Nathan Secret et al seem to show that there is a 4.9 sigma discrepancy between these two dipoles which can not be rectified with the validity of a purely kinematic dipole falsifying the cosmological principal out to redshifts greater than 1if a single large statistical anomaly exists or the observable universe otherwise
We need an independent test of the local frame of reference to verify that this is the case but to me it looks like a strong case for systematic bias as the culprit.
This has the nice coincidence of simultaneously resolving the observations attributed to "dark energy", as an inevitable consequence of gravity in a inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe according to numerical modeling of the full unreduced Einstein field equations, the so called axis of evil discussed here, and the Hubble tension, not to mention the numerous and ever growing list of "impossibly large structures within the lambda CDM model" observed.
The amount of problems which go away as a con sequence of systematic bias seems like Occam's razor points in this direction of faulty model assumptions.
considering every single component in the math comes from observations of light of things that are unfathomably away....I have been convinced for a while that we just aren't measuring all that stuff accurately enough.
The shear number of assumptions involved is staggering. As Dragrath said, there are so many circular arguments involved with any understanding of anything outside of our solar system.
Aren't we overlooking the obvious answer, that the CMB is created by our solar system, not by some theoretical explosion that supposedly created the universe? See Occam.
@@williamschlosser You mean hypothetical not theoretical. Citing Occam does not fill in the gaps of your assertion. For instance, how does our system generate the BACKGROUND microwaves?
When I saw the thumbnail, I first thought you were going to speak about using those harmonics to narrow down the topology of the universe. (Yes, you alluded to this around 11:30).
Can a photon travel forever and never interact with anything? Consider a Feynman diagram that shows a photon being emitted from an interaction on the left and absorbed in an interaction on the right. Time vector to the right, as usual. In the photon's frame of reference, travelling at the speed of light, there is no actual time. And at the speed of light, space is Lorenz contracted to zero. It seems that the left and right of the diagram are actually converged and space-time doesn't exist in the frame of refence of the photon. If all that is essentially true, it seems plausible that the photon cannot actually be emitted unless there is something that will eventually interact with (in our frame of reference).
The photon paradox (for me) is a serious problem in physics. I suspect we have the speed of the photon measured incorrectly.
Since a photon ceases to be when it interacts with something, it never really exists from our perspective (we only observe what happens after it interacted with something and not in flight), and from it's perspective, the whole Universe does not exist, since there without passage of time it is isolated from everything.....
Because of the Lorentz contraction, photons (and all other zero-mass particles) don't experience time. Their origination and destruction happen at the exact same moment, in their frame of reference.
@@a.karley4672 A photon has no frame of reference according to GR :/
@@a.karley4672 Nothing can "happen" if time isn't passing; there are no events; there are no changes, no transitions, whatever is, is, and that's it.
the god axis
It may very well be that the Creator started with our locality and everything is proceduraly generated as we become capable of "seeing" or "detecting" it.
What are the chances of the Sun and the Moon to have equal apparent size in the sky and the Moon to perfectly obscure the Sun during Eclipse?
Mathematicians are silent on the statistical probability.
@@LyubomirIkothe moon is literally moving away and soon enough it won’t be possible for to happen anymore
Cool! But why "evil"?!? 🤔🤔🤔
It was a phrase coined by G.W. Bush to refer to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
@@michaelsommers2356 thanx, that's where I know it from. I just can't think of a reason why they would have used it here? I was thinking if it was an acronym or something? 🤔🤔🤔
Because it's trolling scientist. ;O)-
@@mael1515The phrase caught on around 2003 and stayed prominent in American culture for a number of years afterward. I bet one of the researchers said it as a joke and it just stuck
the thread is correct. It was W troll. A little know fact: Bush was also the reason Pluto got demoted.
It seems easy to argue the counter, that Earth is in fact quite special.
It's at least the no.1 in "life carrying" as far as we can observe.
Loved the ending
We can't explain like 80% of the observable universe ("dark" energy, "dark" matter) and have no clue what the universe is altogether, so yeah, I think our models are far from perfect. 😂
666 -- 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 force carriers -- the standard model of physics!
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark matter is dual to dark energy -- singularities are dual.
Dipoles or dual poles = Duality!
Antipodal points identify for the rotation group SO(3).
Sintropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Good is dual to bad.
Divine is dual to evil.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space (inflation).
The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- singularities are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic.
Duality creates reality!
Positive is dual to negative -- numbers, charge and curvature.
I mean dark matter/energy is just a place holder name for the phenomenon we see gravitationally/what’s accelerating the universe’s expansion.
It’s not that its wrong it’s just we lack the ability to observe/know what it is right now
@@paroxysm6437 We might never be able to fully explain the universe, as it may be imbedded into a higher dimensional structure we have no access to. It is just a hopefull assumption that the universe can be explained from within alone.
@@nuneke0 You can still observe higher dimensions although it’s limited.
But I get your point, although with advances in technology who knows what might be possible in the future
I'm not special ? 🥺
You are special, for me🥺
@@dominikjoestar9842 😁
Honestly… no.. not at all
@@Josecannoli1209 Ooh 🥺
Well.... you are.
But not more then anyone.
If it is a feature of our solar system that's affecting the data, only something like the sun is powerful enough to make one hemisphere a bit different from the other. Perhaps there's a very organised polarization of some particles that causes light scattering/reflection from one side.
Well maybe "the axis of evil" isn't so evil after all. Maybe it's Fundamental to our existence, and maybe the creator had to align it that way for our solar system to remain stable for supporting life on earth.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts."
Isa. 55 :9
You may find Creation science interesting. It all fits with the Creation model. Fundamental problems exist because of your paradigms.
*9:00** The "Systematic Error" is people. They are using the same analysis method.*
Weird… it’s almost like there’s some kinda grand cosmic designer…
Not weird at all. Actually just as plausible an explanation as saying "it's a mystery we can't yet explain ".
How does this imply any designer? Actual question.
@@pauliexcluded1it doesn’t. Not everyone can get their head around it.
Why are humans so desperate for a designer it's obsessive
It is fun to have such a puzzle to work on. I mean for astrophysicists to work on. I don't even have an idea on where to place my bets.
first off, love your channel, second i dont see this as an unsatisfying end to the video, i see it as a fascinating step to what we may yet learn
I know there's no chance you'll read this with 3k comments to go through -- We call it the 'background' but most of what we see corresponds to something else that emits microwave radiation too, like a galaxy, nebulae or a whole lot of other things. Has anyone tried subtracting from this "background" all the things we can observe and model that would emit microwave radiation that *isn't* associated with a known object or phenomenon? Like when you walk up to a piece of glass on a sunny day and can see both your own reflection but also what's on display in the storefront. We know the approximate masses, distances, stellar gas densities, and all these other things that we can use to estimate what we'd be seeing if the CMB didn't exist and we just confined ourselves to what we know exists within the observable universe -- has anyone built that sort of "image" by using all that data and generating a rough model, and then subtracting the result from what we can observe?
One of the main things in astrophysics as I understand it is that uniformity should exist in both the observable, and non-observable universe. Space is the same everywhere. Aren't we basing this though on what is effectively observations made *through* what's inside our bubble, rather than what's on the surface of that bubble, with these images? We have a pretty good idea of what's within our sphere of the observable universe, but I haven't seen any attempts to model it to correct that projection of the 'background' so that it represents what the 'true' background would be. Like a room with all the furniture removed so we only see the walls.
It’s obvious. We are special and there is something greater at play here. The fact 90% of scientist are atheist. I don’t really trust there bias. The fact they named this axis of evil tells you everything you need to know these groups of ppl and how they feel that there is a chance there is something greater.
Unsolved problems are the best. Thanks Dr. Becky
The Galilean principle is an attractive assumption. It is not a fundamental principle.
Thank you for a great explanation and helping us get to know you
Thanks for the video, Becky! Wonderful data.
I have a very strong feeling that we are going full-circle: The ancients already went through all of this. We are relearning the reality of the universe; we just happen to use abstract numbers to explain everything rather than radian-based architecture and Flower of Life fractalism.
It seems, as if the person who created the universe wanted to make sure, that we would always be able to navigate our way back home…
I love that we still have tantalizingly mysterious questions to answer. This is the kind of thing that drives people to study physics.
I always love these videos because I feel like I'm always learning something. This one admittedly has gone a bit over my head, a bit.
One question I have that now has me interested further, is if we have determined that the doppler effect is something we have to correct for because of our movement through space, what about some other effect due to locomotion is a cause for the axis of evil? Is there a torque applied to an object as it moves through space? What angle is that at, and could that be a sort of hidden figure that could explain why the quadrupole seems to not match what was expected?
I did not understand why did they put “evil” in it?
You are truly brilliant at breaking down science for the average none scientist. Love your videos. Question is, why haven't you done a colab with Brian Cox for a BBC documentary yet?
I think that many people assume that a light year is purely a measurement of time, with no actual proof, but it is actually a measurement of distance, the two being totally separate from each other. Assuming things causes many problems.
Each new Revux partnership announcement amps up the excitement!
Could the solar system itself be affecting the data somehow?
Can you please repeat your first statement again for the record!!
It's amazing to know how much we don't know. So much to learn in such little time!👏🏻🔥💯
I would have loved to hear in short what kind of little problems the lensing theory spawned