AD - Go to ground.news/drbecky to stay fully informed on Space and Science News. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off the Vantage plan for unlimited access this month only.
This is hilarious, I just recommended DrBecky's channel to a bunch of friends solely because she is very cautious with citing information that isn't peer reviewed. This was handled masterfully, the disclaimer is very much appreciated.
Maybe people mix up time and distance wrong? The explanation I always hear is that objects far away go faster so they must speed up. But you can also see the distance as back in time, so in that case, the logic will be. Objects we see 10bil years back in time appear to go faster than objects only tousands year back in time, so their speed was faster short after tbb and has now slowed down. How do we know the ratio of those different ways to think about the problem? It must be tricky to calculate speed on objects that may not still exist but left a snapshot billions year ago.
Random question: what is your lighting set up like? You are incredibly well lit. You don't get lighting like that without it being intentional. Do you get eye-strain after recording?
@DrBecky group think is a powerful tool. Because I know that my main area reply will be hidden, I thought I’d try here to see if you will tell me where I’m wrong. Actually, American astronomer, Halton Arp solved the crisis in cosmology decades ago when he proved, and you and your peers refused to even consider that the universe is not expanding. Your models, apart from another “Higgs moment,” meaning, we need a win moment, can never achieve a common value because there is no expansion to calculate. Simply stated, the universe is NOT expanding via the separation of objects within it, and it is not homogeneous, a central pillar of this tale. We may never know, however, if it is growing, which is entirely different because we cannot observe the entire universe. Look up the unmodified version of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and you will clearly see what is actually there, an image of the central glow of the Milky Way Galaxy and background stars. But that central glow, the signature of our position in our galaxy, underwent the science version of Photoshopped, removing the pesky signature glow, replacing it with a homogeneous background. Speaking of homogeneous, we are told that the cosmic microwave background radiation depicts the homogeneous glow of the Big Bang, yet we know that space is filled with many giant voids. For instance, what about the Boötes Void, also called the Great Nothing? It is a massive near-empty area of space, meaning containing very few galaxies, that covers an area so massive that it would take around 330 million light-years to cross. This is the opposite of homogeneous, but astrophysicists simply pretend that it, and many others like it, massive areas of near nothing, do not exist. We are living in an epoch of the self-imposed scientific dark ages. Speak their theories out-loud and see how they sound. Here are a few of my favorites: There are universes in multiple dimensions. Gravity is the weakest of all ''accepted'' forces, yet so powerful that it can take over a single area in space that they call a black hole, attract anything, including light inside it, and compress it to an infinite point. Stars and planets form from gravity, but no one has bothered to ask, ''What was the source of the gravity that caused the first particles of matter to clump together, and why does it no longer work in our solar systems asteroid belts where no new clumping is happening?'' Particles passing through earth indicates that time may travel backwards in other dimensions. Einstein's theories don't describe gravity at the galactic scale, so they blame the theory's failure on dark energy and dark matter because, well, they gave themselves a dark energy and dark matter mathematical fudge-factor that makes the math work again. The entire universe sprang from a primordial point of nothing, called a singularity. And one of my favorite WTFs, the universe is expanding; everything is moving away from everything else, it is not spreading from a single point, yet the closest galaxy to the Milky Way, the Andromeda Galaxy, is speeding toward our Milky Way Galaxy at a speed of 290,800 MPH. I know, it’s the raisins in bun analogy, everything is expanding at once, even if they are getting closer together. But, how far does that go? Then there’s the Great attractor. Everything in the region of the Norma Cluster, including our Milky way are moving toward it. But wait, there’s more. Astrophysicists then estimated that the mass of the Great Attractor isn’t large enough to attract the massive bodies around it, and then they find that a larger region of galaxies, and the Great Attractor are all moving toward an area of space that is even larger, known as the Shapley Super cluster. So much for everything moving away from everything else, but just ignore those pesky facts. You can't make this stuff up. From a historical perspective, however, there are plenty of parallels. They burned Giordano Bruno alive at the stake for refusing to retract his absurd notion that the earth was NOT the center of the universe. Bruno's scientific statements were absurd because it was settled science that the earth indeed was the center of the universe. Fast-forward 424 years, and we are back where we started. In order to calculate the size of the observable universe, astrophysicists determine how far light could have traveled in 13.8 billion years. They then double that number because they say that light travels in all directions at once. That means that, from our vantage point in the observable universe, the universe is a minimum of 27.6 billion light years across, or double the 13.8 billion years with Earth at the center of the calculation (I won’t mention their expansion add-on). Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake to change the special notion that earth is the center of the universe, yet hundreds of years later, his fellow Cosmologist and astrophysicists put Earth back at the center of the universe, AGAIN, and gave the universe a new creation story, called the Big Bang. You cannot make this stuff up. The crisis in cosmology is absolute because the very foundation of cosmology is based on singularities, which cannot be calculated or measured, and thus exists only in the minds of those who “believe” that they exist.
At this point, I feel like JWST is the driver of a family sedan and the scientific community is a pile of kids in the back asking "Are we there yet?!?" =)
Dude, JSWT is easily that ultra premium Benz minivan they only sell in China if not an all-option Land Rover. Show some respect, please...but yes, can JWST please just have all the data already. I need to binge my content. Can't do these intermittent micro-discoveries.
I personally think that it's not a family sedan, it's much more basic than that. Assuming we survive, what we will be able to send up in 100 years will way outstrip this. I'm looking at the near future as well.
18:52 "this isn't just cutting-edge science; this is like standing on the knife edge and staring into the void of confusion" I am going to reuse this in my line of work at the first chance I get
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
Your caveats and comments about peer review and paper status during the intro was amazing. It is how all reporting like this should be done, but in this age of hype you are a welcome exception. THANK YOU!
Hey, It's Laura. It was so amazing getting to meet you. I really want to be a teacher, and I wanted to say you're going to be a massive inspiration teaching me all about expansive galaxies above. 😊
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
Okay, I'm going to invoke Ian Hinchliffe's Rule, which technically only applies to particle physics, but can be extended to research papers of all types and now UA-cam videos, _"if a research paper's title is in the form of a yes-no question, the answer to that question will be 'no'"_ But you may ask _"Is Hinchliffe's rule correct?"_ and cause a universe-rending paradox.
Yes, but seeing as the universe is still intact and not rended, we can safely conclude that no on has written a research paper titled with that question in mind. Personally, I feel it may be possible to write and publish that paper, but it would become illegible somehow The universe would prevent this by hiding all published copies behind an event horizon of some sort as there are no naked singularities.
I agree with your assessment that the universe will hide such a paper behind an event horizon. Most Net denizens would call that a "paywall." Scientific journals are performing an important public service by guarding the masses from naked facts by putting them behind an impenetrable curtain* BTW, the past tense of "rend" is "rent." *The impenetrability of a paywall, strangely enough, depends on the psychology of observers. Similar to the observer effect in physics, the reluctance to comply with a publishers' paywall renders it impenetrable to humans.
@@hansisbrucker813 Absolutely! I think it's a near universal law of titles, wherever they may appear. Not that it's always correct, but it is fun to cite.
JWST is expanding our knowledge and already proving itself, much like Hubble did when it finally got it's spectacles. Hubble showed the way, JWST is taking the ball and running with it. It's a phenomenal bit of engineering and it will inspire another generation to design better instruments to answer the questions JWST now has us asking. You will have to come back to this after peer review, doesn't matter if this is right or wrong, just take another look in a years time.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
From watching the first Mercury launches on a black and white tv to seeing new JWST images and data is just incredible. Looking forward to new discoveries, especially those that blow the doors off of our current theories. Thanks Dr. Becky!
I remember (as a VERY little kid) seeing seemingly slow-motion footage sent from one of the Ranger spacecraft as it got closer and closer to the lunar surface until it finally crashed. So many craters! I assume it was a kinescope film made from a live video feed. Hell…maybe I can even find it here on UA-cam!
As weird as that will sound, this is the best explanation of how all this was calculated all along. I mean, not like I was explicitly looking for a better explanation, but I never stumbled across one so clear. Thank you!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
I agree. For example, I've been aware of the distance ladder for decades, and have seen a number of YT videos on it, but usually get a little bit lost in the amount of technical detail. In this case, the whole ladder is very nicely laid out, so I finally think I actually get it. I'm still pretty fuzzy on how the CMB prediction is reached, but that might just be beyond my reach without serious study.
This was actually never calculated and, in point of fact, CANNOT be calculated using the standard model. This is a massive bit of confusion by the media and by UA-cam science influencers who don't know what they are talking about. If what Dr. Becky said were true it would have ruled out the standard model of particle physics, the most successful and well proven theory that has never disagreed with any experiment ever. Why didn't that happen? Because this is not true. It's not a real prediction, although people who have tried to end this incorrect meme have done calculations showing exactly what that real value would be if someone had made it. And spoiler alert, it is closer to 10 orders of magnitude off, not 120, but, that is moot, because this is not a theory of gravity.
OMG, first time viewer, and I subscribed two minutes into the video because of your disclaimer regarding the preliminary nature of this research. What a breath of fresh air compared to the majority of hyped science content on UA-cam. Thank you so much!
What I admire about science is that it is an applied methodology, based on what do we know, how do we know it and how certain are we about it? Being able to self-question and refine theory based on evolving data is great!
Isn’t it amazing. That ability would be amazing in every part of life. Regardless of your view point the new best known truth is what your new view. So much in the world is based on out of date view points and don’t reflect our current world view
The 'Cosmic Microwave Background' is based on the flawed argument stating it arose due to the hot gas and plasma existing after the Big Bang. Gas/Plasma do not make a Black Body or Black Body radiation. Only condensed matter can transmit a continuous spectrum of radiation. Gas/Plasma will always give only those wavelengths possible by a limited set of energy levels. The same goes for the Sun which is condensed matter -- not plasma . The so-called 'near perfect' black body spectrum in the 'CMB' comes from some other source, likely water on the Earth. See Sky Scholar -- Pierre Marie Robateille or Unzicker's Real Physics on UA-cam. The expansion of space based upon a Doppler Red Shift is also questionable as there are other means by which light is red shifted, namely by passing through plasma.
What I find Amazing, is that our society is mature enough to afford to have these people work on all that stuff! Although WE could pay thème a bit more...
@vailpcs4040, I agree! My favorite 3 Epistemological questions: 1. What do we know? 2. How did we come to know? 3. Do we "really" know what we "think" we know? Number 3 opens the door to discovery... The root-cause of all this "Crisis in Cosmology", "Dark Matter", & "Dark Energy" enigmas is that we failed to question the fundamental precepts and basic assumptions of "previous generations" of scientists! The FLRW-metric only gave scientists 3 options: 1. Flat, 2. FIXED positive curvature (spherical), 3. FIXED negative curvature (hyperbolic) -- they left out the most important one -- continually decreasing positive curvature. In short, the Hubble's Constant is NOT constant and its units [km/s/Megaparsec] which simplify to [1/second]. Guys & gals, is Hubble's parameter is simply the reciprocal of the age of the universe. Seek "Cosmic Onion Model" and "John Wsol" and you shall find these answers and a treasure trove of scientific breakthroughs!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
not sure why youtube didnt recommend your channel after watching all the free Stanford lectures on cosmology online, or the hundreds (im sure by now) of hours ive watched on black holes, but the moment you said "im and expert in black holes" i hit that sub button. i have a feeling ill be binging your content for a few days/weeks
Thank you for helping me appreciate how small we are and how very little time we have here. It helps me feel grateful for every breath I take. Thank you for the clear and thorough explanations with scientific transparency!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
I find this pretty interesting. Its the astronomy analogue of debugging code or trying to design a dataset after a garbage-in-garbage-out problem. Cosmological bug hunting.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
Dr. B. is so fricking good at explaining stuff. I wish that she had been given the job of writing the assembly instructions for the CNC machine I'm trying to put together right now.
For some context before tonight's premiere this was me last Friday when I thought we might have some evidence for new physics: ua-cam.com/users/shortsu0aU14mFsx8?si=zY-eNOanHrGTmp2N And this was me on Monday reacting to the fact that the actual news is a claim for a solution to the Hubble tension, aka the "crisis in cosmology": ua-cam.com/users/shortse29x3WsQPJg?si=5uz4OTYVkLjEQ_k_
Hi Dr Becky, I'm the dude who bumped into you in Geneva the other week. 🤓 Physics teacher, musician and amateur audio engineer. Great video, the new audio set up though sounds very top frequency heavy and delay interference. Just a suggestion to add some sound deadening and EQ. Hope this helps and doesn't sound arsey! I've been deriving the equation for the critical mass of the universe with year 13 today... Love this stuff 😁
RE: sound-deadening to lessen room reverb. Sonex (foam rubber sound-deadening panels) for walls & ceiling would do the trick…but IMO, a cardioid lapel mic would be maybe 1/15th as expensive, a LOT less hassle, and would achieve the same results!
The culprit frequency is around 8.9 maybe 9kHZ, it's harsh/sibilant indeed. A Q4 shelf EQ reducing frequencies around that (-8dB) should suffice, or a de-esser effect.
Thank you. I am just a regular lay person interested and fascinated with Science and Cosmology. But I always eagerly look forward to your videos. Your explanations does give me an understanding about cosmology.. not that I claim to understand every little quanta of explanation, but sufficient enough to grasp the concept of what you take pains to explain. And you never disappoint. How grateful and thankful can I and others like me can be for your absolutely marvelous explanation. This video is a marvelous example of your explanation. Going back to how calculatoiins are being validated by validating calculations within our Solar system, to the galaxies and supernovas within them and them to the outer bodies in the far universe. Thanks so much again. Coming to this puzzle, yes there’s still a lot of “Noise”.. but as time goes these “noises” get filtered with better understanding or maybe new clues or discoveries, hopefully it all ends up with a “consistent” truth of our universe at some point in the future. But thank you Dr. Becky once again for the updates , clarifications and truthfulness the most important of all for all this knowledge. People like you is what science and cosmology so exciting and intriguing for the mere mortals like us 🙏.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
I just want to say, I love how Dr Becky always goes over the background information that's been covered in other videos before getting to the main topic. Instead of assuming that anyone watching already knows these things. As someone who has a lot of trouble with memory and understanding, it's insanely helpful and valuable. It was even more valuable the first time I watched one of her videos as someone who had little to no knowledge of the topic she was discussing. Also I consider the dot points for what's going to be covered as a key feature of these videos and immensely valuable. Value, value everywhere... Please keep it up
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
JWST might just be rewriting the cosmic rulebook, and I'm here for every pixel of it! Thanks Dr. Becky for guiding us through the cosmic conundrums with such clarity & enthusiasm🚀🌠
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
the farther we are able to look, the more we discover the wonders of an infinite universe. no beginning, no end - it just goes on, and on, and on forever.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
Interesting remark at the end, “do we know?” Maybe the question should be “can we know?” Aside from all the variables about stellar brightness and distance, the underlying question is whether or not the universe a billion ly away is the same as in our own galaxy.
The "we are not special" axiom is practically fundamental. Mostly because it shuts up superstitious people, but also because we have to assume that because that's what all evidence so far points to..... and we have no way of going there and check it locally.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
Is there any indication at all that the expansion rate MUST be uniform, rather than bubbles and ripples burbling along? Is there any indication at all that the rate of time MUST be uniform, rather than bubbles and ripples burbling along?
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
I don't see this as hypocritical. You called attention to the initial "spark" and invited knowledgeable people to watch this to see if a fire, in the form of peer-reviewed papers, erupts. Someone needs to say, "This bears watching." You're in a good spot precisely because you have urged for caution.
I have a metaphor that I use to help me understand the cosmic distance ladder: a multi-stage analog amplifier. This was an exercise / lab I had to do in my analog electronics class, as an electrical engineering student (undergrad). It's not a super-complicated beast - each stage is a transistor, which is connected to ground and to high through a resistor for each, with input to the "base" terminal, and output from the "collector" or the "emitter" terminal, chained onto the next stage (sorry about the jargon). _Anyway,_ the point is that it's _much_ more sensitive to the parameters you choose in the earlier stages than in the later stages. The early stages of your amplifier can make or break the entire circuit.
I'm both exhilarated and terrified by how fast technology and science is continuing to accelerate in development. I'm just crossing my fingers we don't end our world before I die in my own time. There's no certainty about where we'll be in the next 10 or 20 years and it's amazing. I'd love to see all the scientific discoveries and new tech and solutions to some of our greatest problems we can cram into the next 50 years.
This is the best discussion of the cosmological distance ladder and the Hubble Constant I've experienced. Thank you for your detailed explanations and also thanks to your graphics team (or whoever helps with the graphics) - super good effort!
When two teams produce opposite results from the same data, that suggests that there are so many assumptions and subjective choices in the analyses as to call into question whether their conclusions have any real meaning at all.
That seems to be the exact point of the “blind” analysis method, to remove any possibility of your methodology being influenced by what you (consciously or unconsciously) want the answer to be. However per the caveats Dr. Becky mentioned, the analysis itself involves so many steps that it needs to be subjected to rigorous peer review to make absolutely certain that it doesn’t introduce other unintentional biases. We shall see, eventually.
@@markfergerson2145 Well, that's the problem... any model you use is going to depend on previous assumptions and measurements which may be wrong, which are out of the team's direct control. This far out on the ledge, there are too many variables to allow a firm footing to stand on. Especially when there are still fundamental questions about how gravity works over long distances, I don't see how anyone can pretend to make accurate conclusions about the expansion rate of the universe.
@@ariochiv Blind analysis is not a model, it is a methodology. And models do have assumptions, yes, but it is not as if we leave those assumptions untested.
@@ariochiv Also, the divergent results were not caused by the blind analysis. The divergent results are the thing the blind analysis is aiming to resolve.
I hate to admit, but it takes a rare kind of personality that gets excited to find out they’re wrong and have been wrong about something - I’m still surprised about that
They aren't doing that. They're patching a model that's failed for 70 years. There has been really good evidence for over 40 years they were wrong about cosmological redshift. There's no excuse whatsoever after JWST.
Viewers should know Freedman has long been pushing for the lower Ho value, see her ApJ paper from 2021, “Measurements of the Hubble Constant, Tensions in Perspective.” Blind analysis techniques are somewhat gimmicky, not necessarily reducing bias. In fact, it can be more difficult to determine the source of systematic errors with such approaches, which can be misused as cover to propagate bias. The real problem in astrophysics is an influential group of people who want to double down on Lambda-CDM rather than admit there are flaws and look at alternatives/new physics.
18:56 "standing on the knife edge and just staring into the void of confusion" I think I'll steal this amazing sentence to title my biography... Thank you 😂
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
My only issue with hyping the "crisis in cosmology" is that is used by lay people to cast aspersions on science as being "wrong." "Hey look, they were wrong about the age of the universe! What else did they get wrong!" These kinds of "crises" are important because it motivates scientists to find the true answers. At least for now, until we found out we were wrong again, learn more, correct the theories. Science isn't static nor absolute. However, there are people who want to politicize science.
Adding disclaimer at the beginning: This is not a “statement of what this is” - this is a question to Becky asking if I understand correctly. To be clear, it’s not that this magically causes the two disparate data sets to suddenly agree with each other - the “CMB” data and the previous “distance” data still disagree with each other, with error bars that don’t even come close to overlapping. JWST is just a “new distance data” point that happens to have overlap with the “CMB” data? Is the JWST data confirmed more “accurate” than previous “distance” data? Because previous data certainly pointed to being very accurate, and very accurately *DISAGREEING* with the “CMB” data? This is just JWST fixing the the previous distance data that we thought was accurate, right?
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
A fascinating field, and also one that has been very active for several years now, dear Doctor Becky. And seeing the two duelers, Reese and Freedman still in controversy about their results is even more fascinating, as "old-timers" 😆 as me have witnessed their long debate developing. Thank you so much for this excellent video, and this enlightening approach to the subject. Your channel puts things into perspective for all of us, unprepared general public
There is still *a* crisis in cosmology no mater what happens: If this work passes review, then the "new crisis in cosmology" is how the heck the old data was so far off without anyone identify that before now; how were we so confident and still wrong? If it doesn't pass review, then we are back to where we were last year.
@@DeaconBlues117 maybe, maybe not. It will very likely tell what was missed, but why it was missed isn't properly a scientific question. The why might be blatantly clear once the what is known, but it might also be entirely unrevealing.
the Hubble data wasn't precise enough is my guess. Let's remember that wendy was also very much involved with Hubble, so she would know how they calculated it at the time.
@@pitthepig you have to remember in these kinds of calculations, a small change compounds in effect. So yeah, they calculation of the errors might have been wrong.
First time viewer, and I'm floored at how well I understand this concept when I was unaware of it before watching your video -- you're truly a fantastic teacher! Excited to watch many more of your videos and learn even more. You rock, Dr. Becky! 🤘🏻
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
from what you are telling us, it seems to me that regardless of these new findings, it won't actually resolve the CIC, but just create a new crisis within the crisis. I love the ROYGBIV nail varnish... :)
@7:59 editing blip threw me off so bad. Sorry to point it out. Thank you for all of your insight and for walking us through this information as you come across it! Your channel is a regular stop for me in my nerdy journeys.
"...The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.” (H.P. Lovecraft)
What I find interesting is that their value is still larger than the CMB data. All of this new data closes the gap but the gap remains nonetheless. Still all very exciting, new science is going to pop up no matter how all of this ends up landing.
Hay @DrBecky, I think you did a realy good job of resoliviing the tention of presinting new and excithing resolts and telling everyone to keep their breth held for the time being
CTV was the centre of that ad for Groundnews and CBC was also there. Cool and thank you for this item. You do so much for all of us fans. I am on the last 15 pages of your book. YEAH
Not really. Space telescopes at Mars are designed to look at Mars, and are very different than outward-facing observatories. Their sensors are “pushbroom” style line sensors rather than 2d imagers. They’re also not overly concerned where exactly they’re looking, with MRO having only 1/200th the pointing accuracy as JWST.
I have questions about the blind analysis and unblinding. 1) how can you be sure that your code is bug-free prior to unblinding? 2) what happens if you discover a bug in your code after unblinding? You can't go back and pretend you did it right the first time, now the cat's out of the bag. 3) what can someone else do to verify a research group really did it blindly?
Can we stop calling it the “crisis in cosmology“? As science moves forward, we often have to resolve apparently conflicting data and hypotheses. It’s not a crisis, it’s an opportunity to deepen our understanding. 😎
The word crisis means literally a situation that can resolve one of two ways. It's a very fitting word for the subject and there's no drama involved. 😊
- Is it only limited to either? Could it be both? - Is the rate of expansion the same everywhere in the universe? - Would taking measurements farther apart (ie: Pluto at diffent points in it's orbit) help resolve the problem by improving measurement precision?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 If we allocate ressources to this research enough times, it eventually will. But is it really the way you wish future humans will think ?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 My comment started as a joke too, but was hard to interpret sorry. By letting ourselves joke about such numbers, we're slowly letting our brains take them seriously, to the point that it already affects people's behaviour (confirmation bias, superstitions,...). It's just a harmless joke but what if it influences the way you think, and others after you ?
I agree with your sentiment about avoiding covering things that aren't at least preprint, as well as your reasoning for covering this particular finding. My two cents is that coverage of non-written reporting is only an issue if that becomes a majority of the output because, at that point, it starts to feel like the pop-sci press releases where a 1-sigma result is "earth shattering and rewrites everything we know about the universe." While it's a sign of integrity that you avoid covering things that may have potentially spurious claims (i.e., where one can't really sink their teeth into the claims, math, and supporting citations), I hope it didn't cause too much angst. From what I've seen, you're passionate, knowledgeable, and not gullible, so I see no reason to question your instincts on what is worthwhile to cover.
18:53 In computing, we have the term "bleeding edge", for when something's even newer than "cutting edge", but I love your "standing on the edge of the knife and just staring into the void of confusion"! 😻
I was hoping to see Freedman et al. result soon! Very nice recap for the time being, and a nice follow up to the DESI data that also includes supernova observations. The criticism I heard so far on DESI is that the supernova results could be statistically weak near the Milky Way, but then it condemns the ladder as well. It was good to hear Freedman et al. kept their analysis blinded, reducing (but not removing) the opportunity for mistakes. By the way, Planck's Efstatiou has an old conference video out there were he claims to identify the region where the ladder method is too weak to suggest new physics (i.e. can go sufficiently wrong). From the looks of it the new work straddles that region.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
I just realized, Michelson experiment was looking for light traveling through a medium, so if there was no medium - ether - in the ‘vacuum’, the light wouldn’t slow. The null result meant there was no ether in the vacuum. Actually, the first split light experiment had interference pattern, and was stationary, so Michelson moving frame should also produce interference, if no effect of earth motion -weather on ether! In fact Michelson was measuring frequency, not wavelength. That fool wrongstein thought this was about a vacuum, not a medium like water or a prism. In this case, once light leaves the influence of moving object away from earth direction, or gravity slowing it down, it returns to c, the speed of light, and no red shift! Neither does passing through a lens or polarized change its direction. Tired light will red shift
Call me goofy, but wouldn't the brightness of distance stars change a lot depending on the clouds of dust that vary all over the place? How can we possibly use brightness to indicate their distance? Somebody hepp me out?
Pop science news will communicate it misleadingly anyway, and having the voice of actual physicists communicating it with the appropriate evidentiary caveats is the best compromise here.
Dr. Becky, your intro disclaimer was well done. I think this video helps keep the background of the debate fresh in our minds. I certainly appreciated the recap so well done. This makes me even more excited for the studies’ conclusions and reviews. I’d certainly like to know where the heck we are in relation to everything else in the observable universe!
This is why I love science! I’m excited at the possibility they have solved the crisis in cosmology. But I’m also excited to see if it doesn’t and where that may lead.
@@davidhoward4715 The anti-science are best just ignoring completely. No need to account for what they might say or do because they will always find a way to trash anything real scientists do
But there’s no reason you can’t quit using it and just call it the Hubble tension. It’s very misleading, especially when it gets into main stream media reporting.
Let me preface this by saying a have no physics background, but the direct observation vs. modeling is an interesting dilemma. The natural tendency, I think, is to favour the direct observation because those are the ones we've "seen' first-hand as well as that a model can "smooth over' some very important nuances in the data. Obviously that isn't always the case but it's unusual to see it reversed so starkly.
A great episode. Please keep giving us new research results even when they are preliminary, from only a conference presentation and with a bit of a sensationalist and misleading title. That was a very clear explanation of the cosmic ladder and much appreciated.
Imagine you're standing in a field at night. In the distance there are several people with flashlights. You need to know how far away they are and you can figure that out if you know how bright a specific flashlight is. But the other flashlights are really close to it, so the light all blends together and you can't tell how bright the one flashlight is.
As a keen photographer who has used neutral density filters to dim an image and get slower shutter speeds, I wonder how scientists can factor in the many small objects in the millions of light-years between us and the 'standard candles', which would have the same effect as a neutral density filter and dim the observed light. I'd imagine the amount of 'stuff' would vary depending on direction and could make it very difficult estimate distances.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity. Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature! "Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
I'm really glad that this is the kind of breaking news that gets me excited. Of all the crises that are going on, the one in cosmology is probably the most fun.
You’re a great teacher Becky. I am starting from absolute ignorance. Still I think I understand the question. But I do not know what the answer will tell us.
Outstanding. Freedman et al. should be able to pinpoint where Riess et al. differs to give another several sigma difference. Apparently it is missing from the talk.
AD - Go to ground.news/drbecky to stay fully informed on Space and Science News. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off the Vantage plan for unlimited access this month only.
This is hilarious, I just recommended DrBecky's channel to a bunch of friends solely because she is very cautious with citing information that isn't peer reviewed. This was handled masterfully, the disclaimer is very much appreciated.
Do this affect Cosmological coupling? Black hole growth and its relation to the expansion?
Maybe people mix up time and distance wrong?
The explanation I always hear is that objects far away go faster so they must speed up.
But you can also see the distance as back in time, so in that case, the logic will be.
Objects we see 10bil years back in time appear to go faster than objects only tousands year back in time, so their speed was faster short after tbb and has now slowed down.
How do we know the ratio of those different ways to think about the problem?
It must be tricky to calculate speed on objects that may not still exist but left a snapshot billions year ago.
Random question: what is your lighting set up like?
You are incredibly well lit.
You don't get lighting like that without it being intentional.
Do you get eye-strain after recording?
@DrBecky group think is a powerful tool. Because I know that my main area reply will be hidden, I thought I’d try here to see if you will tell me where I’m wrong. Actually, American astronomer, Halton Arp solved the crisis in cosmology decades ago when he proved, and you and your peers refused to even consider that the universe is not expanding. Your models, apart from another “Higgs moment,” meaning, we need a win moment, can never achieve a common value because there is no expansion to calculate. Simply stated, the universe is NOT expanding via the separation of objects within it, and it is not homogeneous, a central pillar of this tale. We may never know, however, if it is growing, which is entirely different because we cannot observe the entire universe. Look up the unmodified version of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and you will clearly see what is actually there, an image of the central glow of the Milky Way Galaxy and background stars. But that central glow, the signature of our position in our galaxy, underwent the science version of Photoshopped, removing the pesky signature glow, replacing it with a homogeneous background.
Speaking of homogeneous, we are told that the cosmic microwave background radiation depicts the homogeneous glow of the Big Bang, yet we know that space is filled with many giant voids. For instance, what about the Boötes Void, also called the Great Nothing? It is a massive near-empty area of space, meaning containing very few galaxies, that covers an area so massive that it would take around 330 million light-years to cross. This is the opposite of homogeneous, but astrophysicists simply pretend that it, and many others like it, massive areas of near nothing, do not exist.
We are living in an epoch of the self-imposed scientific dark ages. Speak their theories out-loud and see how they sound. Here are a few of my favorites:
There are universes in multiple dimensions. Gravity is the weakest of all ''accepted'' forces, yet so powerful that it can take over a single area in space that they call a black hole, attract anything, including light inside it, and compress it to an infinite point. Stars and planets form from gravity, but no one has bothered to ask, ''What was the source of the gravity that caused the first particles of matter to clump together, and why does it no longer work in our solar systems asteroid belts where no new clumping is happening?'' Particles passing through earth indicates that time may travel backwards in other dimensions. Einstein's theories don't describe gravity at the galactic scale, so they blame the theory's failure on dark energy and dark matter because, well, they gave themselves a dark energy and dark matter mathematical fudge-factor that makes the math work again. The entire universe sprang from a primordial point of nothing, called a singularity. And one of my favorite WTFs, the universe is expanding; everything is moving away from everything else, it is not spreading from a single point, yet the closest galaxy to the Milky Way, the Andromeda Galaxy, is speeding toward our Milky Way Galaxy at a speed of 290,800 MPH.
I know, it’s the raisins in bun analogy, everything is expanding at once, even if they are getting closer together. But, how far does that go? Then there’s the Great attractor. Everything in the region of the Norma Cluster, including our Milky way are moving toward it. But wait, there’s more. Astrophysicists then estimated that the mass of the Great Attractor isn’t large enough to attract the massive bodies around it, and then they find that a larger region of galaxies, and the Great Attractor are all moving toward an area of space that is even larger, known as the Shapley Super cluster. So much for everything moving away from everything else, but just ignore those pesky facts.
You can't make this stuff up. From a historical perspective, however, there are plenty of parallels. They burned Giordano Bruno alive at the stake for refusing to retract his absurd notion that the earth was NOT the center of the universe. Bruno's scientific statements were absurd because it was settled science that the earth indeed was the center of the universe. Fast-forward 424 years, and we are back where we started. In order to calculate the size of the observable universe, astrophysicists determine how far light could have traveled in 13.8 billion years. They then double that number because they say that light travels in all directions at once. That means that, from our vantage point in the observable universe, the universe is a minimum of 27.6 billion light years across, or double the 13.8 billion years with Earth at the center of the calculation (I won’t mention their expansion add-on). Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake to change the special notion that earth is the center of the universe, yet hundreds of years later, his fellow Cosmologist and astrophysicists put Earth back at the center of the universe, AGAIN, and gave the universe a new creation story, called the Big Bang. You cannot make this stuff up. The crisis in cosmology is absolute because the very foundation of cosmology is based on singularities, which cannot be calculated or measured, and thus exists only in the minds of those who “believe” that they exist.
At this point, I feel like JWST is the driver of a family sedan and the scientific community is a pile of kids in the back asking "Are we there yet?!?" =)
Dude, JSWT is easily that ultra premium Benz minivan they only sell in China if not an all-option Land Rover. Show some respect, please...but yes, can JWST please just have all the data already. I need to binge my content. Can't do these intermittent micro-discoveries.
🤣🤣🤣
Ha ha. Love it!
"I am turning this telescope around RIGHT NOW, if you kids don't quieten down!"
I personally think that it's not a family sedan, it's much more basic than that. Assuming we survive, what we will be able to send up in 100 years will way outstrip this. I'm looking at the near future as well.
Unseen University :)
18:52 "this isn't just cutting-edge science; this is like standing on the knife edge and staring into the void of confusion"
I am going to reuse this in my line of work at the first chance I get
Sounds like what our politicians would say off camera.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
My new quip when customers cant decide which pasta they want.
This new idiom is truly cutting-edge.
But that is exactly what "cutting edge" means.
I LOVE the disclaimer. Thank you for being transparent and responsible when giving us non peer reviewed information. You rock Dr. B
Your caveats and comments about peer review and paper status during the intro was amazing. It is how all reporting like this should be done, but in this age of hype you are a welcome exception.
THANK YOU!
Hey, It's Laura. It was so amazing getting to meet you. I really want to be a teacher, and I wanted to say you're going to be a massive inspiration teaching me all about expansive galaxies above. 😊
Hey Laura 👋 was lovely to meet you too!
"standing on the knife edge and just staring into the void of confusion" is my new favourite sentence
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
I (also) love how the camera dramatically zoomed in during the quote.
It's also a great way to ruin good shoes
Could the 'Knife Edge' actually be Occam's Razor?
Okay, I'm going to invoke Ian Hinchliffe's Rule, which technically only applies to particle physics, but can be extended to research papers of all types and now UA-cam videos, _"if a research paper's title is in the form of a yes-no question, the answer to that question will be 'no'"_ But you may ask _"Is Hinchliffe's rule correct?"_ and cause a universe-rending paradox.
Yes, but seeing as the universe is still intact and not rended, we can safely conclude that no on has written a research paper titled with that question in mind.
Personally, I feel it may be possible to write and publish that paper, but it would become illegible somehow
The universe would prevent this by hiding all published copies behind an event horizon of some sort as there are no naked singularities.
So it is the academic version of Betteridge's law of headlines? See: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
I agree with your assessment that the universe will hide such a paper behind an event horizon. Most Net denizens would call that a "paywall." Scientific journals are performing an important public service by guarding the masses from naked facts by putting them behind an impenetrable curtain*
BTW, the past tense of "rend" is "rent."
*The impenetrability of a paywall, strangely enough, depends on the psychology of observers. Similar to the observer effect in physics, the reluctance to comply with a publishers' paywall renders it impenetrable to humans.
Yes, but there are nuances...
@@hansisbrucker813 Absolutely! I think it's a near universal law of titles, wherever they may appear. Not that it's always correct, but it is fun to cite.
JWST is expanding our knowledge and already proving itself, much like Hubble did when it finally got it's spectacles. Hubble showed the way, JWST is taking the ball and running with it. It's a phenomenal bit of engineering and it will inspire another generation to design better instruments to answer the questions JWST now has us asking. You will have to come back to this after peer review, doesn't matter if this is right or wrong, just take another look in a years time.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
From watching the first Mercury launches on a black and white tv to seeing new JWST images and data is just incredible. Looking forward to new discoveries, especially those that blow the doors off of our current theories. Thanks Dr. Becky!
may you be around for many more, sir!
I remember (as a VERY little kid) seeing seemingly slow-motion footage sent from one of the Ranger spacecraft as it got closer and closer to the lunar surface until it finally crashed. So many craters! I assume it was a kinescope film made from a live video feed. Hell…maybe I can even find it here on UA-cam!
Now this is an awesome span to be alive and watching for space progress. 😁
I remember as a kid seeing a black and white TV 😂
The question is not one of reworking old data. The question is really about rethinking dogmatic assumptions on which those calculations are based.
As weird as that will sound, this is the best explanation of how all this was calculated all along. I mean, not like I was explicitly looking for a better explanation, but I never stumbled across one so clear. Thank you!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
I agree. For example, I've been aware of the distance ladder for decades, and have seen a number of YT videos on it, but usually get a little bit lost in the amount of technical detail. In this case, the whole ladder is very nicely laid out, so I finally think I actually get it. I'm still pretty fuzzy on how the CMB prediction is reached, but that might just be beyond my reach without serious study.
This was actually never calculated and, in point of fact, CANNOT be calculated using the standard model. This is a massive bit of confusion by the media and by UA-cam science influencers who don't know what they are talking about. If what Dr. Becky said were true it would have ruled out the standard model of particle physics, the most successful and well proven theory that has never disagreed with any experiment ever. Why didn't that happen? Because this is not true. It's not a real prediction, although people who have tried to end this incorrect meme have done calculations showing exactly what that real value would be if someone had made it. And spoiler alert, it is closer to 10 orders of magnitude off, not 120, but, that is moot, because this is not a theory of gravity.
I remember the whole ladder being a week or two of class time.
Tuition & books seems like such a waste of money now.
OMG, first time viewer, and I subscribed two minutes into the video because of your disclaimer regarding the preliminary nature of this research. What a breath of fresh air compared to the majority of hyped science content on UA-cam. Thank you so much!
What I admire about science is that it is an applied methodology, based on what do we know, how do we know it and how certain are we about it? Being able to self-question and refine theory based on evolving data is great!
Isn’t it amazing. That ability would be amazing in every part of life. Regardless of your view point the new best known truth is what your new view.
So much in the world is based on out of date view points and don’t reflect our current world view
The 'Cosmic Microwave Background' is based on the flawed argument stating it arose due to the hot gas and plasma existing after the Big Bang. Gas/Plasma do not make a Black Body or Black Body radiation. Only condensed matter can transmit a continuous spectrum of radiation. Gas/Plasma will always give only those wavelengths possible by a limited set of energy levels. The same goes for the Sun which is condensed matter -- not plasma . The so-called 'near perfect' black body spectrum in the 'CMB' comes from some other source, likely water on the Earth. See Sky Scholar -- Pierre Marie Robateille or Unzicker's Real Physics on UA-cam. The expansion of space based upon a Doppler Red Shift is also questionable as there are other means by which light is red shifted, namely by passing through plasma.
What I find Amazing, is that our society is mature enough to afford to have these people work on all that stuff! Although WE could pay thème a bit more...
@vailpcs4040, I agree! My favorite 3 Epistemological questions:
1. What do we know? 2. How did we come to know? 3. Do we "really" know what we "think" we know?
Number 3 opens the door to discovery...
The root-cause of all this "Crisis in Cosmology", "Dark Matter", & "Dark Energy" enigmas is that we failed to question the fundamental precepts and basic assumptions of "previous generations" of scientists!
The FLRW-metric only gave scientists 3 options: 1. Flat, 2. FIXED positive curvature (spherical), 3. FIXED negative curvature (hyperbolic) -- they left out the most important one -- continually decreasing positive curvature.
In short, the Hubble's Constant is NOT constant and its units [km/s/Megaparsec] which simplify to [1/second].
Guys & gals, is Hubble's parameter is simply the reciprocal of the age of the universe.
Seek "Cosmic Onion Model" and "John Wsol" and you shall find these answers and a treasure trove of scientific breakthroughs!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
not sure why youtube didnt recommend your channel after watching all the free Stanford lectures on cosmology online, or the hundreds (im sure by now) of hours ive watched on black holes, but the moment you said "im and expert in black holes" i hit that sub button. i have a feeling ill be binging your content for a few days/weeks
Thank you for helping me appreciate how small we are and how very little time we have here. It helps me feel grateful for every breath I take. Thank you for the clear and thorough explanations with scientific transparency!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
Love the enthusiasm for the subject as well as the clarity of explanations.
I find this pretty interesting. Its the astronomy analogue of debugging code or trying to design a dataset after a garbage-in-garbage-out problem. Cosmological bug hunting.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
Dr. B. is so fricking good at explaining stuff. I wish that she had been given the job of writing the assembly instructions for the CNC machine I'm trying to put together right now.
For some context before tonight's premiere this was me last Friday when I thought we might have some evidence for new physics: ua-cam.com/users/shortsu0aU14mFsx8?si=zY-eNOanHrGTmp2N
And this was me on Monday reacting to the fact that the actual news is a claim for a solution to the Hubble tension, aka the "crisis in cosmology": ua-cam.com/users/shortse29x3WsQPJg?si=5uz4OTYVkLjEQ_k_
Please don't do pre-announcements again, none of us like them. It's the wrong platform for that.
You're coming out of my radio just now!! :-D x 10^9
Ground News doesn't say anything about climate models from 2005 saying island will be out of ice by 2020
@@osmosisjones4912Quit spamming your nonsense everywhere.
I wonder what Dr. Krauss has to say about cosmology?
Not hypocritical, just preliminary. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
I love how you explain everything about what you're saying
Hi Dr Becky, I'm the dude who bumped into you in Geneva the other week. 🤓 Physics teacher, musician and amateur audio engineer.
Great video, the new audio set up though sounds very top frequency heavy and delay interference.
Just a suggestion to add some sound deadening and EQ.
Hope this helps and doesn't sound arsey!
I've been deriving the equation for the critical mass of the universe with year 13 today... Love this stuff 😁
Agree the new audio setup is harsher on the ear than before. My ears hurt after listening to this using earbuds. 😱
RE: sound-deadening to lessen room reverb. Sonex (foam rubber sound-deadening panels) for walls & ceiling would do the trick…but IMO, a cardioid lapel mic would be maybe 1/15th as expensive, a LOT less hassle, and would achieve the same results!
The culprit frequency is around 8.9 maybe 9kHZ, it's harsh/sibilant indeed. A Q4 shelf EQ reducing frequencies around that (-8dB) should suffice, or a de-esser effect.
"Standing on the knife-edge staring into the void of confusion" would make a great album title.
Thank you. I am just a regular lay person interested and fascinated with Science and Cosmology. But I always eagerly look forward to your videos. Your explanations does give me an understanding about cosmology.. not that I claim to understand every little quanta of explanation, but sufficient enough to grasp the concept of what you take pains to explain. And you never disappoint. How grateful and thankful can I and others like me can be for your absolutely marvelous explanation. This video is a marvelous example of your explanation. Going back to how calculatoiins are being validated by validating calculations within our Solar system, to the galaxies and supernovas within them and them to the outer bodies in the far universe. Thanks so much again.
Coming to this puzzle, yes there’s still a lot of “Noise”.. but as time goes these “noises” get filtered with better understanding or maybe new clues or discoveries, hopefully it all ends up with a “consistent” truth of our universe at some point in the future. But thank you Dr. Becky once again for the updates , clarifications and truthfulness the most important of all for all this knowledge. People like you is what science and cosmology so exciting and intriguing for the mere mortals like us 🙏.
Thanks for the clarification information on the conference. Love your insight ❤
"Standing on the knife-edge and staring into the void of confusion" on a t-shirt please.
This is the best description of the Hubble tension I've come across. Thank you Dr. Becky!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
And it's bullshit.
I just want to say, I love how Dr Becky always goes over the background information that's been covered in other videos before getting to the main topic.
Instead of assuming that anyone watching already knows these things.
As someone who has a lot of trouble with memory and understanding, it's insanely helpful and valuable.
It was even more valuable the first time I watched one of her videos as someone who had little to no knowledge of the topic she was discussing.
Also I consider the dot points for what's going to be covered as a key feature of these videos and immensely valuable.
Value, value everywhere...
Please keep it up
Can't wait, always learn new things from you, keep up the amazing work ❤😊
It does feel like cosmologists desperately wanted a fix, and threw together something questionable.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
JWST might just be rewriting the cosmic rulebook, and I'm here for every pixel of it!
Thanks Dr. Becky for guiding us through the cosmic conundrums with such clarity & enthusiasm🚀🌠
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
This was the best explanation of the cosmic distance ladder i have ever seen!!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
How? Why?
the farther we are able to look, the more we discover the wonders of an infinite universe. no beginning, no end - it just goes on, and on, and on forever.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
9:33 FLOOF
Need to vacuum the new space to get fid of the floof floating around.
It was the high light of my day.
scrolled down just to find someone else for FLOOF :D
@@SuccySuccuba same here =))))
I noticed that too.... Does it have meaning or just for fun? Was there a piece of fluff falling through the shot that was being covered?
Interesting remark at the end, “do we know?” Maybe the question should be “can we know?” Aside from all the variables about stellar brightness and distance, the underlying question is whether or not the universe a billion ly away is the same as in our own galaxy.
The "we are not special" axiom is practically fundamental. Mostly because it shuts up superstitious people, but also because we have to assume that because that's what all evidence so far points to..... and we have no way of going there and check it locally.
"In a galaxy far away ... there's a git with a really bright signal lamp, giggling to himself!" 😁
Is it a Grail-shaped signal lamp?
Anyway, Becky now has three answers that don't agree.
That's exactly the sort of thing Zoot would do.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
@@hyperduality2838 found the physics crackpot
@@mikespangler98 Bad, bad, _naughty_ Zoot.
@@thezipcreator What a fool, it's turtles all the way down and he doesn't even _mention_ ponds.
Is there any indication at all that the expansion rate MUST be uniform, rather than bubbles and ripples burbling along?
Is there any indication at all that the rate of time MUST be uniform, rather than bubbles and ripples burbling along?
Every time I hear somebody mention the crisis in Cosmology”I’m reminded of Weird Al’s “Everything You Know Is Wrong”😂
“standing on the knife edge and staring into the void of confusion” this is very good. I’m using this today with my team.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
I don't see this as hypocritical. You called attention to the initial "spark" and invited knowledgeable people to watch this to see if a fire, in the form of peer-reviewed papers, erupts. Someone needs to say, "This bears watching." You're in a good spot precisely because you have urged for caution.
I have a metaphor that I use to help me understand the cosmic distance ladder: a multi-stage analog amplifier. This was an exercise / lab I had to do in my analog electronics class, as an electrical engineering student (undergrad).
It's not a super-complicated beast - each stage is a transistor, which is connected to ground and to high through a resistor for each, with input to the "base" terminal, and output from the "collector" or the "emitter" terminal, chained onto the next stage (sorry about the jargon).
_Anyway,_ the point is that it's _much_ more sensitive to the parameters you choose in the earlier stages than in the later stages. The early stages of your amplifier can make or break the entire circuit.
I might not be able to watch it when it premieres but super interested to check the video out cuz watching Dr. Becky makes me feel smart 😹
I'm both exhilarated and terrified by how fast technology and science is continuing to accelerate in development.
I'm just crossing my fingers we don't end our world before I die in my own time.
There's no certainty about where we'll be in the next 10 or 20 years and it's amazing.
I'd love to see all the scientific discoveries and new tech and solutions to some of our greatest problems we can cram into the next 50 years.
It's never new physics. Except when it is new physics.
This is the best discussion of the cosmological distance ladder and the Hubble Constant I've experienced. Thank you for your detailed explanations and also thanks to your graphics team (or whoever helps with the graphics) - super good effort!
When two teams produce opposite results from the same data, that suggests that there are so many assumptions and subjective choices in the analyses as to call into question whether their conclusions have any real meaning at all.
That seems to be the exact point of the “blind” analysis method, to remove any possibility of your methodology being influenced by what you (consciously or unconsciously) want the answer to be.
However per the caveats Dr. Becky mentioned, the analysis itself involves so many steps that it needs to be subjected to rigorous peer review to make absolutely certain that it doesn’t introduce other unintentional biases.
We shall see, eventually.
@@markfergerson2145 Well, that's the problem... any model you use is going to depend on previous assumptions and measurements which may be wrong, which are out of the team's direct control. This far out on the ledge, there are too many variables to allow a firm footing to stand on. Especially when there are still fundamental questions about how gravity works over long distances, I don't see how anyone can pretend to make accurate conclusions about the expansion rate of the universe.
@@ariochiv do you want people to just stop doing science until we're 100% sure about every single theory? (which is impossible)
@@ariochiv Blind analysis is not a model, it is a methodology. And models do have assumptions, yes, but it is not as if we leave those assumptions untested.
@@ariochiv Also, the divergent results were not caused by the blind analysis. The divergent results are the thing the blind analysis is aiming to resolve.
I hate to admit, but it takes a rare kind of personality that gets excited to find out they’re wrong and have been wrong about something - I’m still surprised about that
They aren't doing that. They're patching a model that's failed for 70 years. There has been really good evidence for over 40 years they were wrong about cosmological redshift. There's no excuse whatsoever after JWST.
Thank you for keeping physics in focus.
Viewers should know Freedman has long been pushing for the lower Ho value, see her ApJ paper from 2021, “Measurements of the Hubble Constant, Tensions in Perspective.” Blind analysis techniques are somewhat gimmicky, not necessarily reducing bias. In fact, it can be more difficult to determine the source of systematic errors with such approaches, which can be misused as cover to propagate bias. The real problem in astrophysics is an influential group of people who want to double down on Lambda-CDM rather than admit there are flaws and look at alternatives/new physics.
Exactly. This is not honest, and it's not science.
18:56 "standing on the knife edge and just staring into the void of confusion"
I think I'll steal this amazing sentence to title my biography... Thank you 😂
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
My only issue with hyping the "crisis in cosmology" is that is used by lay people to cast aspersions on science as being "wrong." "Hey look, they were wrong about the age of the universe! What else did they get wrong!" These kinds of "crises" are important because it motivates scientists to find the true answers. At least for now, until we found out we were wrong again, learn more, correct the theories. Science isn't static nor absolute. However, there are people who want to politicize science.
Adding disclaimer at the beginning: This is not a “statement of what this is” - this is a question to Becky asking if I understand correctly.
To be clear, it’s not that this magically causes the two disparate data sets to suddenly agree with each other - the “CMB” data and the previous “distance” data still disagree with each other, with error bars that don’t even come close to overlapping.
JWST is just a “new distance data” point that happens to have overlap with the “CMB” data? Is the JWST data confirmed more “accurate” than previous “distance” data? Because previous data certainly pointed to being very accurate, and very accurately *DISAGREEING* with the “CMB” data? This is just JWST fixing the the previous distance data that we thought was accurate, right?
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
No this is panicked scientists trying to patch a failed model. There is no good reason to believe the so-called CMB is cosmological anymore either.
A fascinating field, and also one that has been very active for several years now, dear Doctor Becky.
And seeing the two duelers, Reese and Freedman still in controversy about their results is even more fascinating, as "old-timers" 😆 as me have witnessed their long debate developing.
Thank you so much for this excellent video, and this enlightening approach to the subject. Your channel puts things into perspective for all of us, unprepared general public
There is still *a* crisis in cosmology no mater what happens: If this work passes review, then the "new crisis in cosmology" is how the heck the old data was so far off without anyone identify that before now; how were we so confident and still wrong? If it doesn't pass review, then we are back to where we were last year.
If it passes peer review, it will also explain why we missed this interpretation.
@@DeaconBlues117 maybe, maybe not. It will very likely tell what was missed, but why it was missed isn't properly a scientific question. The why might be blatantly clear once the what is known, but it might also be entirely unrevealing.
the Hubble data wasn't precise enough is my guess. Let's remember that wendy was also very much involved with Hubble, so she would know how they calculated it at the time.
@@autohmae If the previous data was not precise enough that should have been reflected on the error bars. But the error bars were not overlapping.
@@pitthepig you have to remember in these kinds of calculations, a small change compounds in effect. So yeah, they calculation of the errors might have been wrong.
First time viewer, and I'm floored at how well I understand this concept when I was unaware of it before watching your video -- you're truly a fantastic teacher! Excited to watch many more of your videos and learn even more. You rock, Dr. Becky! 🤘🏻
“Standing on the void of confusion” - My life in one sentence. Thanks, Dr. Becky.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
from what you are telling us, it seems to me that regardless of these new findings, it won't actually resolve the CIC, but just create a new crisis within the crisis.
I love the ROYGBIV nail varnish... :)
@7:59 editing blip threw me off so bad. Sorry to point it out. Thank you for all of your insight and for walking us through this information as you come across it! Your channel is a regular stop for me in my nerdy journeys.
"Standing at the knife's edge and staring into the void of confusion."
Basically me at work every monday morning!
"...The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.” (H.P. Lovecraft)
There are not just two options for solving the "Crisis"
There are three options
1. Calibration.
2 New Science.
3 Both calibration and new science.
Agreed. Especially the "new science" part.
What I find interesting is that their value is still larger than the CMB data. All of this new data closes the gap but the gap remains nonetheless. Still all very exciting, new science is going to pop up no matter how all of this ends up landing.
Aww man, this is getting exciting!!! I LOVE how you called Wendy Friedman a "giant". She is TOTALLY amazing.
Hay @DrBecky, I think you did a realy good job of resoliviing the tention of presinting new and excithing resolts and telling everyone to keep their breth held for the time being
Hi, are you thinking about an episode in honor of Peter Higgs? R.I.P.
I can not believe he is gone. A truly brilliant man who made major contributions in particle physics. Hope his legacy will live on forever.
The DESI figure being in the overlap between the other two now is also really cool.
This girl is the real deal. She's not a show off. She's got a huge number of scientific papers published. She is the queen of Astrophysics
Great hair too.
CTV was the centre of that ad for Groundnews and CBC was also there. Cool and thank you for this item. You do so much for all of us fans. I am on the last 15 pages of your book. YEAH
9:30 Will the space telescopes orbiting Mars, which will measure parallax from the orbit of Mars, be able to improve step 1 ?
Not really. Space telescopes at Mars are designed to look at Mars, and are very different than outward-facing observatories. Their sensors are “pushbroom” style line sensors rather than 2d imagers. They’re also not overly concerned where exactly they’re looking, with MRO having only 1/200th the pointing accuracy as JWST.
I have questions about the blind analysis and unblinding.
1) how can you be sure that your code is bug-free prior to unblinding?
2) what happens if you discover a bug in your code after unblinding? You can't go back and pretend you did it right the first time, now the cat's out of the bag.
3) what can someone else do to verify a research group really did it blindly?
Can we stop calling it the “crisis in cosmology“? As science moves forward, we often have to resolve apparently conflicting data and hypotheses. It’s not a crisis, it’s an opportunity to deepen our understanding. 😎
She wanted to be a bit more dramatic.
Climate scientist get their models wrong more often then Astrophist how they don't have to reexamine their models
It's always just measurement and analytical error.
@@osmosisjones4912They do. Stop lying.
The word crisis means literally a situation that can resolve one of two ways. It's a very fitting word for the subject and there's no drama involved. 😊
- Is it only limited to either? Could it be both?
- Is the rate of expansion the same everywhere in the universe?
- Would taking measurements farther apart (ie: Pluto at diffent points in it's orbit) help resolve the problem by improving measurement precision?
It had to be either 69 or 42. Those were always the two options.
We can hope that it will turn out to be 69,42. ;)
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 If we allocate ressources to this research enough times, it eventually will. But is it really the way you wish future humans will think ?
@@ghislainbugnicourt3709 Huh?!?!? Didn't you notice that this was a joke?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 My comment started as a joke too, but was hard to interpret sorry. By letting ourselves joke about such numbers, we're slowly letting our brains take them seriously, to the point that it already affects people's behaviour (confirmation bias, superstitions,...). It's just a harmless joke but what if it influences the way you think, and others after you ?
Which one of those is the real part, and which the imaginary part?
Dr. Smethurst, the enthusiasm by which you present these difficult scientific issues, is a true joy to behold. Keep it up, it is just great.
I agree with your sentiment about avoiding covering things that aren't at least preprint, as well as your reasoning for covering this particular finding. My two cents is that coverage of non-written reporting is only an issue if that becomes a majority of the output because, at that point, it starts to feel like the pop-sci press releases where a 1-sigma result is "earth shattering and rewrites everything we know about the universe."
While it's a sign of integrity that you avoid covering things that may have potentially spurious claims (i.e., where one can't really sink their teeth into the claims, math, and supporting citations), I hope it didn't cause too much angst. From what I've seen, you're passionate, knowledgeable, and not gullible, so I see no reason to question your instincts on what is worthwhile to cover.
18:53 In computing, we have the term "bleeding edge", for when something's even newer than "cutting edge", but I love your "standing on the edge of the knife and just staring into the void of confusion"! 😻
JWST: Ugh who was working here before me?
People with archaic tools.
I was hoping to see Freedman et al. result soon! Very nice recap for the time being, and a nice follow up to the DESI data that also includes supernova observations. The criticism I heard so far on DESI is that the supernova results could be statistically weak near the Milky Way, but then it condemns the ladder as well. It was good to hear Freedman et al. kept their analysis blinded, reducing (but not removing) the opportunity for mistakes. By the way, Planck's Efstatiou has an old conference video out there were he claims to identify the region where the ladder method is too weak to suggest new physics (i.e. can go sufficiently wrong). From the looks of it the new work straddles that region.
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
I just realized, Michelson experiment was looking for light traveling through a medium, so if there was no medium - ether - in the ‘vacuum’, the light wouldn’t slow. The null result meant there was no ether in the vacuum. Actually, the first split light experiment had interference pattern, and was stationary, so Michelson moving frame should also produce interference, if no effect of earth motion -weather on ether! In fact Michelson was measuring frequency, not wavelength. That fool wrongstein thought this was about a vacuum, not a medium like water or a prism. In this case, once light leaves the influence of moving object away from earth direction, or gravity slowing it down, it returns to c, the speed of light, and no red shift! Neither does passing through a lens or polarized change its direction. Tired light will red shift
and the Earth is flat 😂, and what next, perhaps an electric Universe theory?
Call me goofy, but wouldn't the brightness of distance stars
change a lot depending on the clouds of dust that vary all over the place?
How can we possibly use brightness to indicate their distance?
Somebody hepp me out?
I don’t like communicating this information to the public when it’s not even peer reviewed.
Pop science news will communicate it misleadingly anyway, and having the voice of actual physicists communicating it with the appropriate evidentiary caveats is the best compromise here.
Dr. Becky, your intro disclaimer was well done. I think this video helps keep the background of the debate fresh in our minds. I certainly appreciated the recap so well done. This makes me even more excited for the studies’ conclusions and reviews. I’d certainly like to know where the heck we are in relation to everything else in the observable universe!
I came here to say floof that is all.
Yeah, at 9:32?
Narf
This is why I love science! I’m excited at the possibility they have solved the crisis in cosmology. But I’m also excited to see if it doesn’t and where that may lead.
The word “crisis” is ridiculous. As a professional astronomer myself, that is simply a silly word to use. .
Agreed. Using this ridiculous term is playing into the hands of the anti-science crowd. It's an opportunity, not a crisis.
Blood sells, even in science reporting. It's not the science that's at fault here. It's the audience.
@@davidhoward4715 The anti-science are best just ignoring completely. No need to account for what they might say or do because they will always find a way to trash anything real scientists do
I agree, but it came from a paper from Di Valentino, Melchiorri & Silk and the term stuck: arxiv.org/abs/1911.02087
But there’s no reason you can’t quit using it and just call it the Hubble tension. It’s very misleading, especially when it gets into main stream media reporting.
Why I love science. The best of us. Thank you x
Let me preface this by saying a have no physics background, but the direct observation vs. modeling is an interesting dilemma. The natural tendency, I think, is to favour the direct observation because those are the ones we've "seen' first-hand as well as that a model can "smooth over' some very important nuances in the data. Obviously that isn't always the case but it's unusual to see it reversed so starkly.
Thanks a lot for covering and explaining all this. Crystal clear, as usual !
Great update! Exciting news!
A great episode. Please keep giving us new research results even when they are preliminary, from only a conference presentation and with a bit of a sensationalist and misleading title.
That was a very clear explanation of the cosmic ladder and much appreciated.
Dr. Becky, you went over the "crowding problem" really quickly. As this seems critical, could you describe in more detail what exactly that is?
Imagine you're standing in a field at night. In the distance there are several people with flashlights. You need to know how far away they are and you can figure that out if you know how bright a specific flashlight is. But the other flashlights are really close to it, so the light all blends together and you can't tell how bright the one flashlight is.
As a keen photographer who has used neutral density filters to dim an image and get slower shutter speeds, I wonder how scientists can factor in the many small objects in the millions of light-years between us and the 'standard candles', which would have the same effect as a neutral density filter and dim the observed light. I'd imagine the amount of 'stuff' would vary depending on direction and could make it very difficult estimate distances.
I think it is a good decision to inform us, thank you!
Convergence towards absolute truth is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Absolute truth (universals) is dual to relative truth (particulars) -- Hume's fork.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases or Riemann geometry is dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity or negative curvature, hyperbolic space hence the big bang must be an infinite negative curvature singularity.
Singularities are dual:- Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature!
"Do you seek absolution!" -- King Aelle of Northumbria.
Thank you for a very thoughtful video summary, Dr. Becky!
Walking out on a plank off the cliff. I love it. Thanks for the story and disclaimer. Keep up the great work.
Mind officially blown! JWST is like the superhero of cosmology saving the day!
Hi Becky, it was good to hear from you on BBC Inside Science today.
Whoa!
Thanks JWST 🤞 Let's hope it all works out.
Yay, Topical Group on Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants! Glad to see H_0 becoming a member of the club!
I'm really glad that this is the kind of breaking news that gets me excited. Of all the crises that are going on, the one in cosmology is probably the most fun.
You’re a great teacher Becky. I am starting from absolute ignorance. Still I think I understand the question. But I do not know what the answer will tell us.
Outstanding. Freedman et al. should be able to pinpoint where Riess et al. differs to give another several sigma difference. Apparently it is missing from the talk.