This would make a great series. How are the observations done for each of the parameters, Tully Fisher, Mira, SN, tip of the red giants etc etc. ? Bring it on please! You did say to ask ...
As well as your superb presentation (even though the science is usually beyond my capability) the production quality of your videos is simply stunning. I can’t understand why science channels aren’t queueing up to ask you to make a series for them.
A delay in gravitational lensing . 🧐 Coincidentally , this also happens when glass bend light and slow it down, maybe they are related. I don't really understand the CMB , however you said that the early universe was dense enough to create sound waves . Sooooo 🙄 , If it is that dense shouldn't light waves move slower than in the later universe. Making the light take longer to travel than expected thus making the universe seem older .
I would really appreciate an episode on "baryon acoustic oscillations". Is this one of the key drivers in how "isotropic" the universe is? (i.e. The Cosmological Principal). Or am I wrong on that? Is there any relation between "BOA" and the 100-300 Mparces size to make the universe isotropic? Do the following put those assumptions at risk? a) Clowes Campusano Quasar Group b) The Great Wall group of galaxies c) The Huge Quasar group d) The Giant Arc group of galaxies that spans 3 billion light-years. Also a discussion of the CMB dipole would be great!!
Question on the issue with Hubble constant. CMB is old. Wouldn’t the measure of expansion via CMB simply be the expansion rate from an earlier time in the universe? And the expansion rates from local universe are the current/more recent expansion rates? Hence the slower rate from CMB and faster rate from observing local universe? This would make sense if we believe the universe is expanding faster today. Ergo, I don’t understand the problem or tension. Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about
Hi Paul, we know that time for light traveling near gravity expands, and that objects near a black hole appear to slow down for an outside observer. Do we know if time speeds up when something like light or the CMB are traveling absent any strong gravity? Would this have any impact on the hubble measurements?
Assuming that this isn't just instrumental error, then this is quite literally the most exciting thing in Science. These kinds of discrepancies are often indications that our models need to be radically changed to more closely fit nature, like what happened with quantum mechanics and relativity. Maybe this discrepancy will prove to be the key for the next 'quantum leap' or maybe it's just something that won't be understood until well after that theory is discovered.
If the early universe measurements are giving a different result for the Hubble constant, maybe it isn't constant after all. There is some jerk (the rate of change of acceleration) out there causing this crisis.
Hey hi there Paul and, too you Nancy if you're there really appreciate this Xtrabonus installment returning to this question! Some I can answer in a somewhat unusual sense & then this occurred2me? Something smashed over and over yet does knot break only minor+superficial evidential damage is perhaps atad puzzling to replicate Practical\Theory so my question would be, what would cause a collision knot2collide or a particle knot2cease? Apologies if abit of a mindwarp! Have a smashin' week! y
So awakened in early hrs Thursday, intriguingly 303am, with a somewhat curious answer to my own question? Sorry, I can knot say more! Space rocks tho' it really does ; !V
The last video you talked about somebody having to massage the data if they wanna use a supernova…. I’ve heard some rumours that the universe was so filled with EM radiation that you guys had to really massage the data to get anything that closely Resembles the CMv the background background
Obviously you know the strengths of the early universe estimates. Can you, or an invited guest, talk to the weaknesses of the early universe estimates? If my understanding of your work being in that area is correct.
Space gremlin poop! It's been accumulating since the big bang, and smells so bad that matter tries to flee it... even in a vacuum, and it's very dark! 8-)
OK so: lambda = dark energy CDM = cold dark matter The Lambda-CDM model assumes: 1) GR's correct 2) the universe's flat 3) the universe's Isotrophic & homogenous i.e. it's the same no matter where you look/go 4) dark energy's constant 5) there's CDM which doesn't interact with light & a long time ago it was very slow
"I should do a whole video about this, cause it's so cool" The enthousiasm in that makes me want to watch that video already. "Crisis: Something interesting happening in our data, that we don't fully understand"...Are you British?
I get the feeling that you’re trying to explain things that total understanding would be very involved in a fashion simple and short. More info in stages would be cool, but still keep it simple for us simple minded.
Here is the solution: The antigravity theory of the universe According to the theory, the force of gravity has an opposite, because almost everything has an opposite. The repulsive force is 0 at distance 0 and infinite at infinite distance. In other cases, its force depends on the distance and the mass of the materials, and the repulsive force has yet to be calculated from the accelerating expansion of the universe. This theory also helps to understand the beginning, the end, and the rebirth of the universe.
Did you really have to remove a lot of stronger em radiation from the original date set…? Let’s say you didn’t massage the original microwave image…. What could you have gotten out of that original image…? That is without removing half of the Galaxy’s EM radiation…?
How can the Universe be flat if it’s expanding in all directions? Wouldn’t that mean that it’s more of a spherical shape, instead of flat? Please help me understand.
Flat in this sense means it follows typical Euclidean geometry. If you tried doing geometry on a curved surface things would act weird, sum of angles in a triangle would be off, etc. Flat in this sense has a bit more abstract meaning than usual.
I thought dark energy did evolve. Didn't it turn on 5 billion years ago? Dark energy turning on made space expand. Could this explain the difference between the early universe measurements and the local universe measurements?
Thats the good thing about dark energy and dark matter, they are invisible fairies that do whatever the scientist wants them to do to make their sums work. This also explains why there is a crisis in cosmology, one lot believe in gravity effecting things a long way away such as galaxies, the others believe in the science of Harry Potter.
No because from my understanding, although dark energy increases with the expansion of space time it does so at a constant rate. The differences between local measurements and the early universe measurements show that the behavior of dark energy has not remained constant through the life of the universe. Why would the vacuum energy behave differently in the early universe?
@@standardoperationsop9467 So dark energy didn't turn on 5 billion years ago but rather the cumulative expansion affects became noticeable five billion years ago?
On what basis is dark energy and dark matter assumed to be ingredients? I get the other assumptions but not this one. It seems it was just force fitted in to prop up a failing theory.
I think the Cosmologists are oversimplifying and over complicating the universe at the same time…. You can’t really calculate anything with a couple of fixed variables and 6 free once can you…. I mean we’re taking it about the universe…. This is What i Mean Bay oversimplify
I think I have an answer. If your looking far away that is the past. Local is present. The difference in the numbers is the expansion rate. It was a lower rate in the past and faster in the present. If I’m correct and u win the Nobel prize I don’t mind being in the shadows
Huahuahua all in the microwave...you just build the antenna, point and booom you just know the entire universe by doing this.... guys do you even have any ideia how this is fantasy and marketing?
At 6:31 -- 6:41, Jonathan. You can't just lie by pretending Dr. Sutter said something other than what he actually said -- because the video is right there to reveal your lie. Dr. Sutter's actual words: "It's all in the microwave. So you build your microwave antenna, you put it in space, you take some microwave pictures, you get your CMB, and boom, you learn a lot about the universe." There is a vast difference between what Dr. Sutter said and what you claim he said. Learn to listen Jonathan.
Wooowww always humans want to use models , always, in order to describe the universe....we re just creating more fantasy ans stories. Black holes, dark energy, whatever...multiverse, spiderman, doctor strange...
The information is great but the use of ludicrously obvious and unrelated stock video footage makes it easy to listen to but agonizing to watch. Drop the stupid stock footage!
This would make a great series. How are the observations done for each of the parameters, Tully Fisher, Mira, SN, tip of the red giants etc etc. ? Bring it on please! You did say to ask ...
"We don't know" may be the most exciting thing to hear. Thank you for these explanations!
As well as your superb presentation (even though the science is usually beyond my capability) the production quality of your videos is simply stunning. I can’t understand why science channels aren’t queueing up to ask you to make a series for them.
OMG I only ever see you on Discovery channel....A belated warm welcome too you, and thanks for your input!
Please do a video on Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations! It's one of my favorite topics in science! I'd love to hear you talk about it.
Please do like 10 episodes on this
Why is the hubble constant measured in loss of speed over distance and not loss of frequency over distance?
That clip going from rotating M&Ms to the rotating galaxy is worth a Kubrick movie!
A delay in gravitational lensing . 🧐
Coincidentally , this also happens when glass bend light and slow it down, maybe they are related.
I don't really understand the CMB , however you said that the early universe was dense enough to create sound waves . Sooooo 🙄 , If it is that dense shouldn't light waves move slower than in the later universe. Making the light take longer to travel than expected thus making the universe seem older .
10 episodes please 👍
I would really appreciate an episode on "baryon acoustic oscillations". Is this one of the key drivers in how "isotropic" the universe is? (i.e. The Cosmological Principal). Or am I wrong on that? Is there any relation between "BOA" and the 100-300 Mparces size to make the universe isotropic?
Do the following put those assumptions at risk?
a) Clowes Campusano Quasar Group
b) The Great Wall group of galaxies
c) The Huge Quasar group
d) The Giant Arc group of galaxies that spans 3 billion light-years.
Also a discussion of the CMB dipole would be great!!
Question on the issue with Hubble constant. CMB is old. Wouldn’t the measure of expansion via CMB simply be the expansion rate from an earlier time in the universe? And the expansion rates from local universe are the current/more recent expansion rates? Hence the slower rate from CMB and faster rate from observing local universe? This would make sense if we believe the universe is expanding faster today. Ergo, I don’t understand the problem or tension. Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about
Hi Paul, we know that time for light traveling near gravity expands, and that objects near a black hole appear to slow down for an outside observer. Do we know if time speeds up when something like light or the CMB are traveling absent any strong gravity? Would this have any impact on the hubble measurements?
I live this. I have always never understood how we can come up with theories when our models are standardized.
Assuming that this isn't just instrumental error, then this is quite literally the most exciting thing in Science. These kinds of discrepancies are often indications that our models need to be radically changed to more closely fit nature, like what happened with quantum mechanics and relativity.
Maybe this discrepancy will prove to be the key for the next 'quantum leap' or maybe it's just something that won't be understood until well after that theory is discovered.
I miss the blackboard.
Stock footage is on point. Every, single, time.
If the early universe measurements are giving a different result for the Hubble constant, maybe it isn't constant after all. There is some jerk (the rate of change of acceleration) out there causing this crisis.
Hey hi there Paul and, too you Nancy if you're there really appreciate this Xtrabonus installment returning to this question! Some I can answer in a somewhat unusual sense & then this occurred2me?
Something smashed over and over yet does knot break only minor+superficial evidential damage is perhaps atad puzzling to replicate Practical\Theory so my question would be, what would cause a collision knot2collide or a particle knot2cease?
Apologies if abit of a mindwarp!
Have a smashin' week! y
Spooky!X
So awakened in early hrs Thursday, intriguingly 303am, with a somewhat curious answer to my own question?
Sorry, I can knot say more!
Space rocks tho' it really does ; !V
The last video you talked about somebody having to massage the data if they wanna use a supernova…. I’ve heard some rumours that the universe was so filled with EM radiation that you guys had to really massage the data to get anything that closely Resembles the CMv the background background
Obviously you know the strengths of the early universe estimates. Can you, or an invited guest, talk to the weaknesses of the early universe estimates? If my understanding of your work being in that area is correct.
Yes a good new potential series
Space gremlin poop! It's been accumulating since the big bang, and smells so bad that matter tries to flee it... even in a vacuum, and it's very dark! 8-)
the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, so why are we surprised to see that it was expanding slower in the past?
Please more! :)
OK so: lambda = dark energy
CDM = cold dark matter
The Lambda-CDM model assumes:
1) GR's correct
2) the universe's flat
3) the universe's Isotrophic & homogenous i.e. it's the same no matter where you look/go
4) dark energy's constant
5) there's CDM which doesn't interact with light & a long time ago it was very slow
"I should do a whole video about this, cause it's so cool"
The enthousiasm in that makes me want to watch that video already.
"Crisis: Something interesting happening in our data, that we don't fully understand"...Are you British?
Can the temperature of white dwarf stars solve the crisis in cosmology if we correlate their temperatures with their distances from us?
I get the feeling that you’re trying to explain things that total understanding would be very involved in a fashion simple and short. More info in stages would be cool, but still keep it simple for us simple minded.
Can't it just be as simple that the universe was expanding at a faster rate early on, and is slower today?
But, the local measurement says the expansion is faster vs the global measurement
Thats what i understand. it is slowing and not accelerating"
Furthest = older = faster
closer = more recent = slower
It's easy to reconcile the discrepancy if you recognize the expansion of the universe is speeding up.
Here is the solution:
The antigravity theory of the universe
According to the theory, the force of gravity has an opposite, because almost everything has an opposite.
The repulsive force is 0 at distance 0 and infinite at infinite distance.
In other cases, its force depends on the distance and the mass of the materials, and the repulsive force has yet to be calculated from the accelerating expansion of the universe.
This theory also helps to understand the beginning, the end, and the rebirth of the universe.
Did you really have to remove a lot of stronger em radiation from the original date set…? Let’s say you didn’t massage the original microwave image…. What could you have gotten out of that original image…? That is without removing half of the Galaxy’s EM radiation…?
Cool video
How can the Universe be flat if it’s expanding in all directions? Wouldn’t that mean that it’s more of a spherical shape, instead of flat? Please help me understand.
Flat in this sense means it follows typical Euclidean geometry. If you tried doing geometry on a curved surface things would act weird, sum of angles in a triangle would be off, etc. Flat in this sense has a bit more abstract meaning than usual.
@@natalyawoop4263 Thanks for this explanation. This then does mean that indeed it is spherical.
Nope, the professional physicist in the vid is right, absolutely no doubt about that.
The real problem is when 95% of the of the model is made of free parameters such as lambda and cdm.
To whoever the dude is editing these videos there are a few too many Lord privy seals doing the rounds.
I thought dark energy did evolve. Didn't it turn on 5 billion years ago? Dark energy turning on made space expand. Could this explain the difference between the early universe measurements and the local universe measurements?
Thats the good thing about dark energy and dark matter, they are invisible fairies that do whatever the scientist wants them to do to make their sums work. This also explains why there is a crisis in cosmology, one lot believe in gravity effecting things a long way away such as galaxies, the others believe in the science of Harry Potter.
@@imperatorvespasian3125 Could the energy of dark energy be the disparity between the measurements?
No because from my understanding, although dark energy increases with the expansion of space time it does so at a constant rate. The differences between local measurements and the early universe measurements show that the behavior of dark energy has not remained constant through the life of the universe. Why would the vacuum energy behave differently in the early universe?
@@standardoperationsop9467 So dark energy didn't turn on 5 billion years ago but rather the cumulative expansion affects became noticeable five billion years ago?
On what basis is dark energy and dark matter assumed to be ingredients? I get the other assumptions but not this one. It seems it was just force fitted in to prop up a failing theory.
Assumption begins with "ass". ... What is time?
👽We need multiple probes to make this thing work!👽
I think the Cosmologists are oversimplifying and over complicating the universe at the same time…. You can’t really calculate anything with a couple of fixed variables and 6 free once can you…. I mean we’re taking it about the universe…. This is What i Mean Bay oversimplify
👍
The conscious galaxy
Does dark matter get factored in to the question?
I think I have an answer. If your looking far away that is the past. Local is present. The difference in the numbers is the expansion rate. It was a lower rate in the past and faster in the present. If I’m correct and u win the Nobel prize I don’t mind being in the shadows
Love this.
Also, this kind of sounds like my marriage.
🤔
👌
Obviously paul M sutter will be the last to know. Start your education: sky scholar, thunderbolts project.
Ah yes, the idea that doesn't even meet theory status and ignores all evidence that debunks it's own ideas. Yup, that's the answer.
you really really think that we resumo the universe to a model?? What insanity is this? Can I resumo you to a model?
Psycho physics
Huahuahua all in the microwave...you just build the antenna, point and booom you just know the entire universe by doing this.... guys do you even have any ideia how this is fantasy and marketing?
At 6:31 -- 6:41, Jonathan. You can't just lie by pretending Dr. Sutter said something other than what he actually said -- because the video is right there to reveal your lie. Dr. Sutter's actual words: "It's all in the microwave. So you build your microwave antenna, you put it in space, you take some microwave pictures, you get your CMB, and boom, you learn a lot about the universe."
There is a vast difference between what Dr. Sutter said and what you claim he said. Learn to listen Jonathan.
Wooowww always humans want to use models , always, in order to describe the universe....we re just creating more fantasy ans stories. Black holes, dark energy, whatever...multiverse, spiderman, doctor strange...
So, we're flat universers now....
Always have been....
The information is great but the use of ludicrously obvious and unrelated stock video footage makes it easy to listen to but agonizing to watch. Drop the stupid stock footage!