Perhaps our definition of "constants" is similar to what one of my maths teachers referred to, when he said "any curve looks like a straight line to a microbe."
Being serious though, in Real Analysis and Calculus such approximations make sense in that general results can be obtained with the accumulation of 'many'. A constant however is solitary. In any epoch a constant might seem in fact be a constant but between epochs such may be different and no Science known to Man can prove otherwise.
There aren't constants in nature because material motion is unstopped. For that reason, every time we will perform one experiment for measuring one constant, and even if we use the same apparatus for the experiment and even if the same measurement's conditions exists, every time we are doing the experiment, we will have a little different result. For that reason we make a graphic with the results and after that we are using logarithms to take the value of the constant. Which in this case, it is something middle. But the differences as so small, (not like the differences in the Hubble's constant), so then we take the logarithmic value as constant, and we accept the math's expression like to be a law. For the same reason, Hubble's "law" is wrong and cannot be a law of physics because it has an unstable constant!
Got to love the idea that many "universal constants" may not actually be constants across time and space, merely relatively constant in our area of the universe and to the extent of our scientific knowledge so far.
Its just a word brother. If Hubble himself had discovered the variability, he might have called it the variability. Then you have to wonder, is the variability itself a constant, or does it also vary?
I'm pretty sure there *are* no true universal constant, right? Time is relative, speed is relative, Mass can be eliminated in specific scenarios, space can become so warped and compressed as to cease to exist... Math itself is the closest thing I can think of to a true constant, but Quantum Physics creates a pretty good argument against it, too.
Since we are limited in our human knowledge base, we are prone to errors and measuring designs. Basically, everything is theory and fake. The simulation requires your attention, or rather your attention requires the simulation.
@@donwilson4934 That's one way of looking at it. I think if you replace simulation with 'X', I'd agree. We know that observation is a very powerful and important force in the Universe, even if we don't know why. But in this case you can't say the power of observation is constant, either. I mean, it's inconstant by its very definition.
As always, Anton is the GOAT of explaining complex scientific concepts in language that non-scientists (like me) can understand --- without dumbing it down. Truly is the most wonderful person! Thank you, Anton!
The music never stopped, it's just super slow, at extremely low frequencies. The sun is resonating right now, creating the sunspots and it's very own 'cluster' of planets and asteroids. Magnetism. Not dark energy.
@accelerationquanta5816the human mind can't comprehend the size of our solar system. The size of our universe is completely unfathomable. I don't think anything gets more abstract than that.
@@140theguy deep time and any big number screw with our heads - the fact that cleopatra's birth is closer to today than the creation of the sphinx would blow most peoples mind. The fact that Jupiter is so far away form the sun and us, but the next planet Saturn is twice as far as that, also tends to blow people's mind. big numbers sort of mush our brains. We have zero relation from our lived experiences to them.
if the universe were to slow down, it wouldn't slow down uniformly, but in the bubbles you describe as exhibiting the growth at the beginning of the universe. And is it possible that the bubbles would exhibit DIFFERENT Hubble values in different parts of each bubble?
@@MrStevos Yes, this is the one possibility and vise versa, only that mass isn't material, but it is e property of the material like it is the energy, the field the space the time the polarity the charge and all, but here we are talking about the whole Universe, and they say that it is open and expanding and for that you need more and more enormous amount of energy. Where is coming the supply for the increased need? If this whole energy was from the B,B, then you have an equilibrium before many years and everything has to be stopped. The whole theory is a joke!
No need to be mad about it, the truth is nobody knows what happened. These are just our observations so far, we kinda know what happened but we don’t know why or what led to these conditions. Yours are valid questions everyone’s hoping to answer one day.
it's pretty cool how at a macro scale we're more or less just the deterministic result of stuff that happened in the first moments of the universe but on the micro scale we're all individuals with a will of our own and individual behavior is not perfectly predictable and deterministic. there's a whole self-similarity thing going on there where much like classic and quantium physics, the human will has a societal/individual gap that we have yet to explain.
I think we have a really bad habit of not remaining sufficiently humble and conscious of our own ignorance when we talk about our understanding of physics and the nature of reality. Not all scientific theories are equal in terms of how tested and reliable they are, and we're too quick to casually present the most widely accepted theories as fact simply because they're the best theories we have on offer at the moment.
It's such a fallacy to accept the most accepted theory because the other ones aren't as "good", that might not even be the case, the other ones could be better, but like you said, arrogance won't let us look at these other models with care, we just dismiss them. Why did we take the dark matter theory as complete fact? we're still talking about like it exists, as if we've found it, yet observational data is lacking.
I somtimes wonder if the expansion of the universe is the lingering effect of a giant compression wave (a wave with a lenght several times larger than the size of the observable universe. The big bang would be when the peak of the wave was passing through our portion of space time, but as it passed then the pressure fell and space expanded. Changes to the rate of a expansion would reflect these giant oscilations.
Offtopic: Seriously, we are browsing science channels and people keep commenting on bots' comments, they just copypaste but their fake profiles are so easy to detect. Commenters aren't sciencing their comments enough.
well that's the thing, they aren't trying to hide the fact that they are bots. in all likelihood whoever is spamming all these bots is using ai learning to make the bots have more and more realistic with their comments and then when they are almost indistinguishable from real people hauling out the accounts that look legitimate. bad moon on the rise up in here
Another problem is that whenever someone disagrees with you they call you a bot. It is so egotistical. "Everyone in the world agrees with me and anyone who disagrees with me must be an evil robot". It's such a paranoid delusion.
If only we could bring Newton in a time machine to see this. The fact such a scientific milestone can even be reached really blows my mind. It's a special time to be alive (they all are, of course, but I'm particularly favorable towards this time 😉)
@@BriarLeaf00 Newton couldn't accept light also behaving as a wave to such an extent that he banned Huygens' books from Cambridge. What do you think he'd make of quantum mechanics and relativity?
@@CockatooDude I think I was using Newton as a stand-in for a scientist of his time and you missed my point entirely. I really wasn't trying to stan for Newton. Not really my style.
73 kps/Mpc is significant enough to break everything. Take the speed of light and divide it by the distance to the CMB. The result is 70.9 kps/Mpc. If the average value of the Hubble parameter is greater than this, you would be unable to see the CMB. So either the Hubble parameter changed with time or the model is broken.
i tried using the equations once, what my spirit guides told me is that time density is not regular. I kinda played around using different equations and they seemed to my ignorant brain that they were missing some value, this stabilized once i added {( matter time decay )- gravity - time density} = comprehension/sanity
You can't avoid seeing CMB regardless of H value. In this very spot where our Galaxy is, "CMB" (then just light) existed 13 billion years ago (370k years after BB). As time went by, this light flew away but the light from farther away reached us instead. The sphere where this light comes from gets larger and larger (and less energetic - redshift) with time. There is never a point when this light stops coming. Even if the sphere this light was initially emitted from now recedes faster than light (due to accelerating expansion) , the light still comes to us.
That was an impressive downplay of the difference in values demonstrated by the hubble tension. No one would begin to guess that the values estimated to be considered the greatest flop in scientific history
you know the game "red light, green light", in france, we call that "1, 2, 3, soleil". So BAO is the first observed event of the universe playing "1, 2, 3, soleil" in my book.
I agree, still we know so incredibly much more than 150 years ago. After all, not too long ago we kinda thought the Milky Way was the universe. And I am still blown away by the fact we actually detected and recorded black holes. Astronomy-wise it is a great time to be alive.
remoteviewing baby the one conciousness we are all connected the cia went into deph into this listen to david morehouse on i think the danny powers podcast almost 8 hours between the 2 shows so much crazy info and it has classifed information that still hasnt been decalssified
Exactly, which is why people who think we know everything or make Declarations about things being impossible because we've figured out almost everything drive me crazy.
This is farther proof that everything in the universe from the smallest atomic structures, up to the entire universe itself, all function the same way, but at different speeds. 😊
can heat exist without dimensions? that seems an intuitive assumption based on dimensional space, but maybe not possible where the essential physics are different
I like how you explain what data they used for these insights. Would be nice to know the quantification scheme as well. Both are critical for passing along scientific understanding.
Well that was one of the more fascinating videos of yours I've seen. Very nice, very informative, and full of stuff I've actually never heard before. ❤
They view it as relevant as we find caveman religion relevant. We vs caveman art: "oh God, cute stickfigures and lions and negative handprints, even some that seem to be counting lmao". Aliens vs human tech: "Oh Zoltan, that's square root and there's the 'constant' of the 'speed' of light! **curls proboscis in excitement**. **points with middle appendage digit like an alien** There! A tally system, how cute"
Probably view it like we view older models, like say the geocentric model- wildly incorrect but they were doing what they could to explain what they saw
Wrong. Knowledge is fluid and progressive - a river that opens up to lakes, seas and maybe to the ocean. Knowledge we possess now will be compounded with more knowledge, so the river flows out to larger bodies of knowing.
@@kban77-- they don't even have their math squared away yet, so it might not be so easy to refute them. Most people know that mathematics can be manipulated in many ways, and it gets more tangled if erroneous assumptions are involved. Hopefully the astrophysics gang will agree on enough to set down some calculations and equations, and smarter people than us can either confirm or correct them then.
Hubble "constant" is indeed variable (the Universe used to expand at the rate of about 10 light years per second in the first second after BB, for example). This is not news, and that's why *today's" Hubble constant is denoted H0, not just H. What they are saying in their work that from their data it looks like the decrease of H with time does not match a simple expansion model - there was an unexpected additional decrease in the last few billions of years.
Every now and again I pop up as a random YT guy and say I found a derivation of g and G a long time ago. The model I used also suggests: a) rate of expansion not flat - i) by distance, ii) by era (faster in past) b) speed of time not flat (faster to edges of Universe, expect older things there as more entropy / t-ticks allowed to happen) c) a shock-wave of accelerated expansion from the outer edge, coming in towards centre, coincident with the precipitation of mass from spacetime in early Universe d) as expansion slower now and speed-of-time slower also, when looking at the past we need correct for these differences else we are silently subject to a sort of parallax error. What we think represents "a year" in past eras will have experienced more ticks than in a recent observed year; this gets worse the further back we look. Our anticipated temporal ruler holds more ticks ie more time then expected (there was "more time in the past"); e) gaps between galaxies are special and expand faster, always. Perhaps I'll write it up sometime. Or go do a doctorate in this stuff :( so much work that is. At least it'll be another idea / wrong stuff to cross off the list.
there is no way except for faulty reasoning, for universe to be flat. I was always confused by that as a kid now as an adult I am confused by how some people are scientists. As for the other things you wrote about, I am not qualified to evaluate but they don't make me think that they break anything we have proved without a shadow of a doubt. I'd just add that the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light. Something Einstein didn't know back then.
I like that A, B, C list. I have to ask How fast was light yesterday? When I woke up the stars were there except they are not seen. When it gets darker I see them again. Instantaneously. Even if the particles are spinning around the Earth's sun's particles to get here that travel is faster than 360to the power of ten multiplied by a factor of 8 planets. I see that star almost instantly. The star isn't a dim light reaching me ever so slowly, then suddenly it is the bright star that it is. The bright star is constant. And that speed is if not instantaneous then it is still faster than 764kiloneutronhours per spectrum. I just can't stop. I will always dispute time and the false concept of spacetime.
@@Ludak021Well, curvature is indiscernible. Still could be a sphere on some grander scale, but with how flat they’re seeing the horizon, figure quoted a few years back was like 500 million+ times the observable 😅. That was just a minimum, no one knows the true size lol
What we think we know such as the beginning and end is just cosmic mythology in the making. Nothing better illustrates this as a constant that is just a misunderstood variable. Great vids and content :)
Can we please stop pretending we’re surprised when we find out we’re wrong about physics and space? We have been wrong about literally everything so far.
Electric cosmology fills in the gaps, but gatekeeping acadamia and its fans treat it like a flat earth theory. The DUMBEST thing going right now is mainstream cosmology. Its wronger than religion.
@@disgruntledwookie369 the rubbish is the establishment academia insisting they are correct and other ideas are rubbish, then for us to find out the “rubbish” was true and academia had too much hubris to realize that they’re working with hypothesis, calling it theory, and treating it as fact.
These videos are good and I've been watching for a while, but i mean he literally just reads published papers on video, most of the papers he reads are statistically insignificant (this one was only 2.6 sigma) so they aren't really proof. Therefore, sometimes they come off as misleading, because Anton sometimes insinuates "this breaks science", when that's just false: in reality its insufficient proof. Carl Sagan literally was a doctor in astronomy who has done actual research, and created his own science communication programs, he didn't just read off papers on video. They aren't even in the same ball park.
cooling down and expansion. Started out dense and hot. Almost like the same way a high pressure gas cools when it expands. like a can of compressed air as it leaves the can cools down?
its kinda a shot in the dark, but it almost reminds me of the principle of vacuum decay but for inflation. Is it possible it all seems similar but different because the value is constant but the observations have been slight interferences as the universe ages like a ball rolling down an uneven hill
Thats an interesting analogy. At least this time they can see both acceleration and deceleration, as if both throttled and limited by some unknown factor. Much better than the earlier notions of perpetual acceleration, into “cosmic rip”.
My professor was one of the DESI team leads! He was the first one to see the data not matching the lambda CDM prediction. I think you should have highlighted the plot of w_0 and w_a values, in my opinion that was the most groundbreaking part of the DESI release because you can see the prediction from lambda CDM is in a totally different quadrant than the DESI data for the equation of state for dark energy. Also, you should probably say ‘radiation’ instead of “pure energy”
there's something that need to be adressed here. Hubble's constant is spacially constant, and it Does changes with time. the change in constant is nothing new.
Why is it that every single time new data comes out, it supports my hypothesis? And why is it that no one else is talking about my hypothesis because they came up with the exact same hypothesis? One day.
There probably isn't a "constant" at play: but a pressure valve'esque mechanism to the expansion. When pressure reaches X range: expansion occurs and then slows over time until the process repeats. That would explain why expansion both increases and now we find it also decreases. When someone plugs all the data into a single simulation and we'll probably discover a predictable pattern.
If energy can't be created or destroyed what happens our energy when we die? I like to think we all end up in an energy state like the beginning of the universe until theres enough to create a new big bang
Don’t know about the universe, but if children would stop saying things that they couldn’t have known in their current lifetime 😂. Hope we can find a better means and controlled conditions for verification of whatever some of this is. It could all be strays picked up by their subconscious unwittingly, but if we are all being reborn, hope the human race doesn’t go extinct any time soon.
@@MarsStarcruiser Ha yeah that's fair, I've just always been curious about my consciousness since I developed epilepsy. It makes me wonder if it's a physical tangible thing shared by many creatures, or just millions of neurons firing giving us what we call our senses. And then with death I've lost so many people and never could convince myself of the religious beliefs, so I just hoped we might end up as a cosmic soup of energy. Not re-incarnation, more like when enough consciousness re-emerge into the "energy soup" it reacts as a big bang creating another universe to play out. Sorry I just ramble a lot cos I think about it a lot now, I had a seizure a month ago and it made me think I was dead. I spent 4 days in hospital thinking I was dead and everyone around me was too but didn't realise it. So I've been thinking a lot about what comes after lately.
@@MarsStarcruiser Sorry for dropping all that on you. Just a lot on my mind lately and it all sorta flowed out of me there. So I apologise for how mad I might have come across
@@himynameis3664 4 days in hospital, thats terrible. But your Big Bang scenario does kind of remind me of the game Outer Wilds for some reason. Energy Soup does sound nice. Almost sounds very Isekai. I mean who knows what fully happens to the quantum information of our minds🤔 I’m also not religious either, and my considerations on whatever happens after… are only because I witnessed such a child event directly. Hope enough occurrence can be discerned and it formalized more scientifically one day, instead of being left to just some others religious ideals.
Summary, BAO clustering (bubbles of galaxies with concentrations of galaxies) Hubble constant is not so constant (it may be a new particle) Constants in the universe may be relative and not constant in time The universe is oscillating so accelerating and decelerating?
Can we consider the radius of every BAO circle... essentially another Cosmological Constant? At least, relative to a certain resolution for our observations and the characteristics of the area where is happening?
Once matter forms and starts pulling together, could momentum and gravitational effects cause increased size of the "bubbles"? In other words, ae we seeing increases in bubble size with increased density of matter between them.
BAO started before expansion and ended 370K years later. That kind of simulation is actually possible, using massively parallel processing (MPP). It will still take a while, but at some point, the patterns should tell us a lot about how flat our universe was.
I wonder if the constant is neither a constant nor a particle, but instead some kind of derived value influenced by other factors, like the unstable acceleration of a kids bike. Maybe there are fundemental conditions which we dont know that generate the hubble constant, and if we could quantify them, we could better understand its fluctuating rate.
Perhaps our definition of "constants" is similar to what one of my maths teachers referred to, when he said "any curve looks like a straight line to a microbe."
that's only true for critters in the delta quadrant.
Im of the same opinion.
Being serious though, in Real Analysis and Calculus such approximations make sense in that general results can be obtained with the accumulation of 'many'. A constant however is solitary. In any epoch a constant might seem in fact be a constant but between epochs such may be different and no Science known to Man can prove otherwise.
Or if you look at it from the side and don't see the curve. All about perspective.
There aren't constants in nature because material motion is unstopped. For that reason, every time we will perform one experiment for measuring one constant, and even if we use the same apparatus for the experiment and even if the same measurement's conditions exists, every time we are doing the experiment, we will have a little different result. For that reason we make a graphic with the results and after that we are using logarithms to take the value of the constant. Which in this case, it is something middle. But the differences as so small, (not like the differences in the Hubble's constant), so then we take the logarithmic value as constant, and we accept the math's expression like to be a law. For the same reason, Hubble's "law" is wrong and cannot be a law of physics because it has an unstable constant!
Got to love the idea that many "universal constants" may not actually be constants across time and space, merely relatively constant in our area of the universe and to the extent of our scientific knowledge so far.
The assumption they are the same for all time everywhere would be a good shortcut to throw out and see how data might fit better
Its just a word brother. If Hubble himself had discovered the variability, he might have called it the variability. Then you have to wonder, is the variability itself a constant, or does it also vary?
I'm pretty sure there *are* no true universal constant, right? Time is relative, speed is relative, Mass can be eliminated in specific scenarios, space can become so warped and compressed as to cease to exist...
Math itself is the closest thing I can think of to a true constant, but Quantum Physics creates a pretty good argument against it, too.
Since we are limited in our human knowledge base, we are prone to errors and measuring designs. Basically, everything is theory and fake. The simulation requires your attention, or rather your attention requires the simulation.
@@donwilson4934 That's one way of looking at it. I think if you replace simulation with 'X', I'd agree. We know that observation is a very powerful and important force in the Universe, even if we don't know why.
But in this case you can't say the power of observation is constant, either. I mean, it's inconstant by its very definition.
As always, Anton is the GOAT of explaining complex scientific concepts in language that non-scientists (like me) can understand --- without dumbing it down. Truly is the most wonderful person! Thank you, Anton!
You're the GOAT.
Anton is not the goat but the lion.
Thanks!
I call this theory of acoustic pressure waves the Big Bong Theory, since the Universe rang like a bell.
Perfect term for 4/20.
The music never stopped, it's just super slow, at extremely low frequencies.
The sun is resonating right now, creating the sunspots and it's very own 'cluster' of planets and asteroids.
Magnetism. Not dark energy.
@@JordanMayjor3p7 That's 5 :P
A full bong is what you had before writing this.
@@thhseeking That is reductive humor I can appreciate LOL!
Love to see how far your channel has grown! Been watching for years. Proud of you.
the expansion of the universe is something so abstract that I have really just profound admiration of scientists working on these problems.
How did you post so fast, it was only up for 30 seconds
@@badass-d4k he's had this thought for a while before this video
@@badass-d4khe borrowed the Tardis? 😂😂😂
@accelerationquanta5816the human mind can't comprehend the size of our solar system. The size of our universe is completely unfathomable. I don't think anything gets more abstract than that.
@@140theguy deep time and any big number screw with our heads - the fact that cleopatra's birth is closer to today than the creation of the sphinx would blow most peoples mind. The fact that Jupiter is so far away form the sun and us, but the next planet Saturn is twice as far as that, also tends to blow people's mind. big numbers sort of mush our brains. We have zero relation from our lived experiences to them.
As someone who just joined the DESI collaboration recently, these are truly exciting times. Can't wait to see how it'll all pan out.
if the universe were to slow down, it wouldn't slow down uniformly, but in the bubbles you describe as exhibiting the growth at the beginning of the universe. And is it possible that the bubbles would exhibit DIFFERENT Hubble values in different parts of each bubble?
So . . . Bubble-Hubble and Non-Bubble-Hubble produce the ranges seen? An interesting concept.
If they did it badly they would be obliterated by the peer review and those people would know a lot more things which could be measured erroneously.
Yes since dark energy only works in region with low gravity matter and dark matter distribution can make a huge difference
Thanks a lot Anton for another great video and hope you and your wife are well 👍
As soon as the weather got cooler, the clouds (densities) rained galaxies ! Very Cool
The weather to got cooler mast give the warm somewhere else. Nobody of these B.B. boys don't give answer to this question.
@@user-dialectic-scietist1 I'm no Physicist, but the "warm" (energy) Precipitates (changes) into matter (mass) E=MC squared...
@@MrStevos Yes, this is the one possibility and vise versa, only that mass isn't material, but it is e property of the material like it is the energy, the field the space the time the polarity the charge and all, but here we are talking about the whole Universe, and they say that it is open and expanding and for that you need more and more enormous amount of energy. Where is coming the supply for the increased need? If this whole energy was from the B,B, then you have an equilibrium before many years and everything has to be stopped. The whole theory is a joke!
@@MrStevos And do not forget Entropia and that warm is the last transformation in a closed system like the first explosion in the B.B. theory.
No need to be mad about it, the truth is nobody knows what happened. These are just our observations so far, we kinda know what happened but we don’t know why or what led to these conditions. Yours are valid questions everyone’s hoping to answer one day.
Anton has the voice of a genius. Love these videos.
this was fascinating. I learned a lot today about BAO movements.
Maybe it’s the same phenomena that you see with galaxy rotation curves with speeds of orbiting stars, but on an intergalactic scale.
5:55 glad to hear Anton is a Silmarillion fan 👌 such a difficult but amazing book
Yes, the music of the universe!
@@101DanO Wait Marillion is the music of the universe?
I believe Tolkien got the idea from the Finnish Kalevala
@darth_hylian : Yes.
@101DanO : Yes.
@TheD4VR0S : Yes.
@dububro : and Yes.
Same. I already loved Anton, but he also knows about the Music of the Ainur?? Bruhhhhh 😎👌🏻
it's pretty cool how at a macro scale we're more or less just the deterministic result of stuff that happened in the first moments of the universe but on the micro scale we're all individuals with a will of our own and individual behavior is not perfectly predictable and deterministic. there's a whole self-similarity thing going on there where much like classic and quantium physics, the human will has a societal/individual gap that we have yet to explain.
I think we have a really bad habit of not remaining sufficiently humble and conscious of our own ignorance when we talk about our understanding of physics and the nature of reality. Not all scientific theories are equal in terms of how tested and reliable they are, and we're too quick to casually present the most widely accepted theories as fact simply because they're the best theories we have on offer at the moment.
It's such a fallacy to accept the most accepted theory because the other ones aren't as "good", that might not even be the case, the other ones could be better, but like you said, arrogance won't let us look at these other models with care, we just dismiss them. Why did we take the dark matter theory as complete fact? we're still talking about like it exists, as if we've found it, yet observational data is lacking.
Absolutely fascinating. This channel is top tier
Loved the reference to Tolkein
that was lovely visuals to go with the explanation... understood perfectly
The 'Silmarillion' was one of his bests works! Great episode!
Still on my list. Slowly but surely working my way through all his books.
This subject is just AMAZING !!!
The complexity of these studies are mindblowing!!!
Thank you for the awesome information, love your channel!
I somtimes wonder if the expansion of the universe is the lingering effect of a giant compression wave (a wave with a lenght several times larger than the size of the observable universe. The big bang would be when the peak of the wave was passing through our portion of space time, but as it passed then the pressure fell and space expanded. Changes to the rate of a expansion would reflect these giant oscilations.
Offtopic:
Seriously, we are browsing science channels and people keep commenting on bots' comments, they just copypaste but their fake profiles are so easy to detect.
Commenters aren't sciencing their comments enough.
Who cares if the comment is a bot copypasta or the original, the people reading yours/bot's/original comment later are real.
@@thearpox7873 NPC mentality. I would say off yourself, but there is no self behind your eyes to be offed.
well that's the thing, they aren't trying to hide the fact that they are bots.
in all likelihood whoever is spamming all these bots is using ai learning to make the bots have more and more realistic with their comments and then when they are almost indistinguishable from real people hauling out the accounts that look legitimate.
bad moon on the rise up in here
sciencing is NOT a word.
Another problem is that whenever someone disagrees with you they call you a bot. It is so egotistical. "Everyone in the world agrees with me and anyone who disagrees with me must be an evil robot". It's such a paranoid delusion.
Anton, your channel is now one of the most interesting UA-cam channels on the subject of space. Thank you for your effort!
❤ another awesome, informative video. 😊
This makes me think of the bubble universe idea you made somewhat recently! Even if that isnt the truth of the universe its SO intriguing.
"If things don't add up, start subtracting." CGA
Lol I made a similar comment, but I think yours is better
Most likely, someone is "cooking" the books.
Don't forget to add in the fudge factor, which is defined as the answer you want minus the answer you get.
calm your tits, its one study/etc - not some new consensus.
Don't stress. There is a variable constant we can make up to get it to balance :)
Was wonderful to hear you compare this to J.R.R. Tolkien's writings :) Thank you for the incredible information you keep sharing
5:23 "Practically on our doorsteps"
I'll just put on my slippers and take the next spacebus there.
We could take my Chevy Astrovan lol
@@AndromedatheBasshead We were going to take the Nova, but, well…
Lol I read this comment at 5:23 😂
@@AndromedatheBasshead Imma take my new _Jupiter 8_ car.
@@AndromedatheBasshead i would join! i am bringing books!
Very interesting Anton. Thanks.
0:30 "Your five-year mission: To boldly 3-D map the entire Universe."
If only we could bring Newton in a time machine to see this. The fact such a scientific milestone can even be reached really blows my mind. It's a special time to be alive (they all are, of course, but I'm particularly favorable towards this time 😉)
4D Map.. Good luck with that lol
@@BriarLeaf00 Newton couldn't accept light also behaving as a wave to such an extent that he banned Huygens' books from Cambridge. What do you think he'd make of quantum mechanics and relativity?
@@CockatooDude I think I was using Newton as a stand-in for a scientist of his time and you missed my point entirely. I really wasn't trying to stan for Newton. Not really my style.
@@BriarLeaf00 Ahh ok fair enough. That's my bad.
An absolutely fascinating video, Anton. Cosmological investigations are proceeding at an amazing rate. Thanks so much for keeping us up to date
I'm polarized by this.
No, you are just lost in the dark, and it doesn't really matter.
@@Rudyard_Stripling What if I measured the effects of its gravity?
@@Codefan321 What if you assumed wrong and it doesn't exist and therefore has no gravity lol.
@@Rudyard_Stripling Electrostatics.
@@darylbrown8834 It very well could be dark black holes all over the place just like the one they found close to us recently.
Well done explaining this.
73 kps/Mpc is significant enough to break everything. Take the speed of light and divide it by the distance to the CMB. The result is 70.9 kps/Mpc. If the average value of the Hubble parameter is greater than this, you would be unable to see the CMB. So either the Hubble parameter changed with time or the model is broken.
i tried using the equations once, what my spirit guides told me is that time density is not regular. I kinda played around using different equations and they seemed to my ignorant brain that they were missing some value, this stabilized once i added {( matter time decay )- gravity - time density} = comprehension/sanity
You can't avoid seeing CMB regardless of H value. In this very spot where our Galaxy is, "CMB" (then just light) existed 13 billion years ago (370k years after BB). As time went by, this light flew away but the light from farther away reached us instead. The sphere where this light comes from gets larger and larger (and less energetic - redshift) with time. There is never a point when this light stops coming. Even if the sphere this light was initially emitted from now recedes faster than light (due to accelerating expansion) , the light still comes to us.
Broken. Like all of modern science and theory since scientist mostly sold their souls for funding.
The CMB is everywhere, so this gives a reciprocal time (not sure why you're interested in reciprocal time) that is undefined or zero for the "time."
What is the "distance to the CMB" exactly?
I completely agree with you, Anton.
"Ok, universe. It's time we check your BAOs."
"TF did you just say!?"
SUPER INTERESTING exciting for the continuation of the study!
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. ✌️☺️
That was an impressive downplay of the difference in values demonstrated by the hubble tension. No one would begin to guess that the values estimated to be considered the greatest flop in scientific history
Anton is a gift to the world. He must be protected at all costs
Shields to full power, arm the photon torpedoes!
Good video Anton, really enjoyed this one! Thank you
you know the game "red light, green light", in france, we call that "1, 2, 3, soleil". So BAO is the first observed event of the universe playing "1, 2, 3, soleil" in my book.
Exciting times. Thanks for the breakdown, Anton!
The more I understand, the more I realize we know nothing
That is the very definition of a wise person.
I agree, still we know so incredibly much more than 150 years ago. After all, not too long ago we kinda thought the Milky Way was the universe. And I am still blown away by the fact we actually detected and recorded black holes. Astronomy-wise it is a great time to be alive.
remoteviewing baby the one conciousness we are all connected the cia went into deph into this listen to david morehouse on i think the danny powers podcast almost 8 hours between the 2 shows so much crazy info and it has classifed information that still hasnt been decalssified
Exactly, which is why people who think we know everything or make Declarations about things being impossible because we've figured out almost everything drive me crazy.
The more we understand, the more we want to understand..the question is why 😂
very interesting topic and a concise and clear explanation, thank you for this
This might make sense if there were several big bangs a few billion years apart. They may be traveling together at this point.
Interesting idea. Kind of like Penrose's twisters?
I’ve speculated something to this effect for awhile but based off other things. Didn’t see a good representation of BAO until now, wow 😮
This is farther proof that everything in the universe from the smallest atomic structures, up to the entire universe itself, all function the same way, but at different speeds. 😊
The universe is growing like an organism.
Reminds me of “As above so below”.
The universe is expanding more like bread tbh
can heat exist without dimensions? that seems an intuitive assumption based on dimensional space, but maybe not possible where the essential physics are different
Good job as always Anton 👍👍👍
I like how you explain what data they used for these insights. Would be nice to know the quantification scheme as well. Both are critical for passing along scientific understanding.
Have they accounted for false redshifts. It'd be sort of like sailors mapping out mirages in the sea.
Well that was one of the more fascinating videos of yours I've seen. Very nice, very informative, and full of stuff I've actually never heard before. ❤
Aliens probably view our science as a comedy act.
More like fables, I think.
Yo what ever this is its smack bang on more then you realise
They view it as relevant as we find caveman religion relevant. We vs caveman art: "oh God, cute stickfigures and lions and negative handprints, even some that seem to be counting lmao".
Aliens vs human tech: "Oh Zoltan, that's square root and there's the 'constant' of the 'speed' of light! **curls proboscis in excitement**. **points with middle appendage digit like an alien** There! A tally system, how cute"
Probably view it like we view older models, like say the geocentric model- wildly incorrect but they were doing what they could to explain what they saw
Check what Stephen Wolfram has to say about how different civilizations may interpret physical law.
Another great vid Anton!
Philosophy 101: Certainty is variable.
102- nothing can be certain when the government makes all the decisions and dictates fact.
the music idea at the beginning of universe is new...
that thing just reminds me with the interaction of music on sand
I have the phone on full blast and can barely hear you compared to everyone else. Started with new Mic a few months back
Do yourself a favour and at least get some earphones/headphones.
HellOOO wonderful Anton! 💜
I truly believe they know very little and just make it up as we go along.
Show us your math to refute their claims
Wrong. Knowledge is fluid and progressive - a river that opens up to lakes, seas and maybe to the ocean. Knowledge we possess now will be compounded with more knowledge, so the river flows out to larger bodies of knowing.
@@kban77-- they don't even have their math squared away yet, so it might not be so easy to refute them. Most people know that mathematics can be manipulated in many ways, and it gets more tangled if erroneous assumptions are involved. Hopefully the astrophysics gang will agree on enough to set down some calculations and equations, and smarter people than us can either confirm or correct them then.
Speed of light is instant for everyone 1=1
Yep. TBBT is Bull sh!t, and makes literally no sense.
Thanks for always adressing me as "wonderful person." It makes me smile every time.
So, maybe a hint that quintessence might actually be a thing?
Or yeah, most likely, it's sounds the constant is actually variable after all
Hubble "constant" is indeed variable (the Universe used to expand at the rate of about 10 light years per second in the first second after BB, for example). This is not news, and that's why *today's" Hubble constant is denoted H0, not just H.
What they are saying in their work that from their data it looks like the decrease of H with time does not match a simple expansion model - there was an unexpected additional decrease in the last few billions of years.
It is also possible that the constant still exists as a mathematical constant, but is acted on by other variables. Much like the speed of light.
If a photon acts both as a particle and a wave what happens to the wave if a photon is absorbed?
Sorry I know that this is not what this video is about, and I also apologize that the wording is probably not correct or confusing!
mUh dArK eNerGy
I always loved Tolkiens version of the creation of the universe. Glad you mentioned it!
Every now and again I pop up as a random YT guy and say I found a derivation of g and G a long time ago. The model I used also suggests:
a) rate of expansion not flat - i) by distance, ii) by era (faster in past)
b) speed of time not flat (faster to edges of Universe, expect older things there as more entropy / t-ticks allowed to happen)
c) a shock-wave of accelerated expansion from the outer edge, coming in towards centre, coincident with the precipitation of mass from spacetime in early Universe
d) as expansion slower now and speed-of-time slower also, when looking at the past we need correct for these differences else we are silently subject to a sort of parallax error. What we think represents "a year" in past eras will have experienced more ticks than in a recent observed year; this gets worse the further back we look. Our anticipated temporal ruler holds more ticks ie more time then expected (there was "more time in the past");
e) gaps between galaxies are special and expand faster, always.
Perhaps I'll write it up sometime. Or go do a doctorate in this stuff :( so much work that is. At least it'll be another idea / wrong stuff to cross off the list.
there is no way except for faulty reasoning, for universe to be flat. I was always confused by that as a kid now as an adult I am confused by how some people are scientists. As for the other things you wrote about, I am not qualified to evaluate but they don't make me think that they break anything we have proved without a shadow of a doubt. I'd just add that the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light. Something Einstein didn't know back then.
I like that A, B, C list. I have to ask How fast was light yesterday? When I woke up the stars were there except they are not seen. When it gets darker I see them again. Instantaneously. Even if the particles are spinning around the Earth's sun's particles to get here that travel is faster than 360to the power of ten multiplied by a factor of 8 planets. I see that star almost instantly. The star isn't a dim light reaching me ever so slowly, then suddenly it is the bright star that it is. The bright star is constant. And that speed is if not instantaneous then it is still faster than 764kiloneutronhours per spectrum. I just can't stop. I will always dispute time and the false concept of spacetime.
Good luck with your mission. I am down my own rabbit hole and understand to some degree where you are coming from :)
@@Ludak021Well, curvature is indiscernible. Still could be a sphere on some grander scale, but with how flat they’re seeing the horizon, figure quoted a few years back was like 500 million+ times the observable 😅. That was just a minimum, no one knows the true size lol
What we think we know such as the beginning and end is just cosmic mythology in the making. Nothing better illustrates this as a constant that is just a misunderstood variable. Great vids and content :)
Can we please stop pretending we’re surprised when we find out we’re wrong about physics and space? We have been wrong about literally everything so far.
Electric cosmology fills in the gaps, but gatekeeping acadamia and its fans treat it like a flat earth theory.
The DUMBEST thing going right now is mainstream cosmology. Its wronger than religion.
Utter rubbish.
@@disgruntledwookie369 the rubbish is the establishment academia insisting they are correct and other ideas are rubbish, then for us to find out the “rubbish” was true and academia had too much hubris to realize that they’re working with hypothesis, calling it theory, and treating it as fact.
Immagine a science teacher playing a video per day from Anton to their students 😊
A new Carl Sagan!
🎉🎉Anton has a broader scope than Carl Sagan I believe
@@m.pearce3273,
Certainly so, and Anton's apparent humility greatly overshadows Sagan's apparently inflated ego!
These videos are good and I've been watching for a while, but i mean he literally just reads published papers on video, most of the papers he reads are statistically insignificant (this one was only 2.6 sigma) so they aren't really proof. Therefore, sometimes they come off as misleading, because Anton sometimes insinuates "this breaks science", when that's just false: in reality its insufficient proof.
Carl Sagan literally was a doctor in astronomy who has done actual research, and created his own science communication programs, he didn't just read off papers on video. They aren't even in the same ball park.
When they make the map of the universe I hope they take into account that where a galaxy is now is different that where we see it now.
It’s slowing down? Uh oh. Doesn’t that mean collapse?
Dude, dont tell me this before i go to sleep...
@@iconofsin1043 oops sorry! :/
It's already collapsed.
@@Ta2dwitetrash don’t tell him that! Shhhh :)
cooling down and expansion. Started out dense and hot. Almost like the same way a high pressure gas cools when it expands. like a can of compressed air as it leaves the can cools down?
Science is honest or it is not science. We are the universe too and we are doing our best to understand. ✋🖖
thanks for the information anton
We're all in a turtle's dream in space
We are multidimensional!
its kinda a shot in the dark, but it almost reminds me of the principle of vacuum decay but for inflation. Is it possible it all seems similar but different because the value is constant but the observations have been slight interferences as the universe ages like a ball rolling down an uneven hill
Thats an interesting analogy. At least this time they can see both acceleration and deceleration, as if both throttled and limited by some unknown factor. Much better than the earlier notions of perpetual acceleration, into “cosmic rip”.
For fuck sakes UA-cam, do something about the bots. This shit is beyond ridiculous..
They did. They monetized them.
Could you please explain what you’re talking about? what are the bots?
@@bowzerthedog1130 I think those flat-earthers or similar scripts.
Thank you Wonderful Person!
Anton, come teach in Texas! I can hire you! Love your videos!
Definitely accelerating but recently slowed down,,. which is it?
My professor was one of the DESI team leads! He was the first one to see the data not matching the lambda CDM prediction. I think you should have highlighted the plot of w_0 and w_a values, in my opinion that was the most groundbreaking part of the DESI release because you can see the prediction from lambda CDM is in a totally different quadrant than the DESI data for the equation of state for dark energy.
Also, you should probably say ‘radiation’ instead of “pure energy”
there's something that need to be adressed here. Hubble's constant is spacially constant, and it Does changes with time. the change in constant is nothing new.
Very true
Very well done. One reason I watch Anton.
“We still don’t have the exact answer for what is going on.” May be the best assessment of Human Understanding!😅
Why is it that every single time new data comes out, it supports my hypothesis? And why is it that no one else is talking about my hypothesis because they came up with the exact same hypothesis? One day.
In physics it is necessary to earn a doctorate to have cache.
LOL might be in same boat maybe 😅
There probably isn't a "constant" at play: but a pressure valve'esque mechanism to the expansion. When pressure reaches X range: expansion occurs and then slows over time until the process repeats. That would explain why expansion both increases and now we find it also decreases. When someone plugs all the data into a single simulation and we'll probably discover a predictable pattern.
If energy can't be created or destroyed what happens our energy when we die? I like to think we all end up in an energy state like the beginning of the universe until theres enough to create a new big bang
Don’t know about the universe, but if children would stop saying things that they couldn’t have known in their current lifetime 😂. Hope we can find a better means and controlled conditions for verification of whatever some of this is.
It could all be strays picked up by their subconscious unwittingly, but if we are all being reborn, hope the human race doesn’t go extinct any time soon.
@@MarsStarcruiser Ha yeah that's fair, I've just always been curious about my consciousness since I developed epilepsy. It makes me wonder if it's a physical tangible thing shared by many creatures, or just millions of neurons firing giving us what we call our senses.
And then with death I've lost so many people and never could convince myself of the religious beliefs, so I just hoped we might end up as a cosmic soup of energy. Not re-incarnation, more like when enough consciousness re-emerge into the "energy soup" it reacts as a big bang creating another universe to play out.
Sorry I just ramble a lot cos I think about it a lot now, I had a seizure a month ago and it made me think I was dead. I spent 4 days in hospital thinking I was dead and everyone around me was too but didn't realise it. So I've been thinking a lot about what comes after lately.
@@MarsStarcruiser Sorry for dropping all that on you. Just a lot on my mind lately and it all sorta flowed out of me there. So I apologise for how mad I might have come across
@@himynameis3664 4 days in hospital, thats terrible. But your Big Bang scenario does kind of remind me of the game Outer Wilds for some reason. Energy Soup does sound nice. Almost sounds very Isekai. I mean who knows what fully happens to the quantum information of our minds🤔
I’m also not religious either, and my considerations on whatever happens after… are only because I witnessed such a child event directly. Hope enough occurrence can be discerned and it formalized more scientifically one day, instead of being left to just some others religious ideals.
@@himynameis3664 It’s no bother. I hope things get better for you so you don’t have to find yourself in the hospital like that in the future.
Summary,
BAO clustering (bubbles of galaxies with concentrations of galaxies)
Hubble constant is not so constant (it may be a new particle)
Constants in the universe may be relative and not constant in time
The universe is oscillating so accelerating and decelerating?
Can we consider the radius of every BAO circle... essentially another Cosmological Constant? At least, relative to a certain resolution for our observations and the characteristics of the area where is happening?
Hey bubby what's the relationship between superclusters and these bubbles? Not to forget there are empty spaces where nothing can be seen.
Once matter forms and starts pulling together, could momentum and gravitational effects cause increased size of the "bubbles"? In other words, ae we seeing increases in bubble size with increased density of matter between them.
just absolutely fascinating. thank you
Does it ever feel like we are characters in a book trying to figure out what the pages are made of?
BAO started before expansion and ended 370K years later. That kind of simulation is actually possible, using massively parallel processing (MPP). It will still take a while, but at some point, the patterns should tell us a lot about how flat our universe was.
I wonder if the constant is neither a constant nor a particle, but instead some kind of derived value influenced by other factors, like the unstable acceleration of a kids bike. Maybe there are fundemental conditions which we dont know that generate the hubble constant, and if we could quantify them, we could better understand its fluctuating rate.