I watch your videos every night. The amount of discoveries you cover is what reminds me of why we should always try to move forward...so many things in this life to learn about
It still blows my mind that they can deconstruct a gravitational lens to tell where the galaxy behind it is and what shape it is. Not to mention all of the things in between the two galaxies for light to take different paths around. To create the lensed image.
Yeah, it's so cool. It reminds me of how they can reconstruct an image, pretty much perfectly, from the distorted reflection on a reflective curved object like a mug or vase.
Look up deblurring and point spread function. If you know the characteristics of a camera lens (called a point spread function), you can take a completely out of focus photo, and mathematically focus most of it after the fact. Same idea.
The point is they can’t, deconstruct? At these distances there could be dozens,hundreds, or even thousands of lensing and lightbending effects. No way Jose.
Such discoveries don't come every day, not even every year. Wow... just feeling lucky I've been subscribed. Thank you Anton. You do the BEST JOB IN THE WORLD
When I was a kid I thought astronomers discovered things by staring through a telescope like Galileo, now I know they find new things by having to comb through the mountains of data somebody else might have collected years ago
Well, that's one way they find new stuff. Another way is being right at the forefront of new data coming in. The teams of scientists that contributed to building the differ by components of the James Webb Telescope each got guaranteed time to use the telescope for their own research.
Story time. Being the proper uncle that I am, I once convinced my niece that the reason the 3pt line in basketball was moved back was because they had to offset for the expansion of the universe.
Yeah... We are finally beginning to understand that space and time stretch at different rates and that we are going to have to deal with the wobbly wibbly nature of the expansion of the universe
@@douglaswilkinson5700idk if we can say that. From the FLRW metric, we only see that the space part of the spacetime is 'expanding' and that's because of the scale factor changing (so the Universe could have been shrinking as well). But the metric just describes spacetime interval. So the literal distance between things is increasing in that case. We can think of it as the fabric of spacetime stretching or more 'fabric' being created. I don't think we should take that analogy too literally.
Gravitational expansion from initial explosion of dark objects (which we do not know), must have initiated ever growing bubbles which in combination looks like an expansion everywhere, in all directions, but not uniformly, because over larger time distances these bubble sphere shells will collide, causing filament like tensions structures.
I think the expansion isn't an intrinsic, mysterious thing that just "expands" everywhere. I think spacetime emerges from entanglement and the information required to describe a particular volume (the Bekenstein bound). Just like a black hole, more information means more surface area. The more information in a region, the larger the boundary required to describe it. So throughout the Universe, as particles entangle and spread out, more space is required to describe their relationships. It's not a uniform expansion; it's more like a big wobbly unevenly-baking loaf of entanglement.
it seems really likely that the expansion of space is a function of information inside of the space that's expanding. On a deeper level, it appears that spacetime is an emergent phenomenon created by entanglement. Information, when it is spread out, gives rise to what we call space. So as information and entanglement increase, the "space" needed locally to describe the Universe does as well.
If space-time is connected to mass via Higgs Field interactions, resulting in gravity, then varying mass concentrations should alter the expansion rates. Large mass concentrations should slow expansion, while low mass regions would have less of this 'Higgs friction'... this would explain the acceleration, as the Higgs friction would be the 'glue' holding the universe together. As it gets weaker via expansion, the expansion of space time increases. This eliminates the need for dark energy! It ALSO explains why the initial cosmic expansion after the Big Bang was so incredibly, inconceivably fast... there was no mass! Only super-hot energy that had not formed particles yet, thus spacetime was utterly free to expand to its maximum capability. Only when matter began to form did the Higgs interactions begin... and initially the mass concentration was so high that it drastically slowed expansion.
Y'all, it's simple: as we deploy instruments that can peer further in distance and time, the simulation has to adjust for that. I may or may not be a little high.
Don't worry. As human population grows, the simulation gets enough battery for calculating the increasingly costly adjustments. We didn't even have to reset in the year 2000 this time.
Thank you Anton for adding the actual numbers to the content. The use of mostly "huge", "vast" , "very hot", ..., without giving (possibly approximate) values was a drawback.
Sorry. By the time I edited my thoughts to include thanking Anton and then comment in the least abrasive way in the way I share it, so to show by example the respect my opinion gives to other opinions while hoping reciprocation and conversation, I realized the condescension in my approach in itself is disrespectful; and now, I have completely forgotten what I was going to say, beside thank you Anton. 🥂
Thank you. You have been noticed as respectful. Lead with respect and appreciation first, all other things fall apart under responsibility afterwards. Jeremy
Great video Anton. As per! But could you or someone answer me this query. So the Type 1a happened at around 3b years after the Big bang, Do we have the data concerning the stars make up? And would it then be possible to actually see a population 1 star nova or even the star itself if we were lucky enough to catch it through gravitational lensing? Or are these Holy Grails of stars much too early and with too short a life span to be captured with such methods? I hope my questions make sense for someone with a much greater knowledge than myself to hopefully give me an answer and maybe some insight into these amazing phenomena of early star formation. Like most things in our stunning cosmos, I find the idea of these pop 1 stars fascinating. Many thanks. Love and good vibes sent to all. X
Anton after years of watching you, now you look tired, take a few days to relax, i will still be watching for you.vand can i have permission to use some of this info? For a book?
Topographically speaking the Milky Way and andromeda are like towns in a mountain pass almost everything around us is located in a deeper gravity well. In the early universe the gravity wells were deeper due to containing almost all Liquid Dark Matter. Stars and AGN vaporize and lower the content of LDN which has been slowly decreasing since then. Lower LDN also means less compact galaxies, smaller stars and less AGN. We talk about gravity bending spacetime but no one talks about the effect of that bending on the overall topography of spacetime ie smaller black hole for the Milky Way and lower concentration of LDM. Some of the early black hole mass may actually be due to the high LDM mass around the galaxies.
Another option is that the methodology we use to calculate distances between the two might be off. Ergo, out calculations of the Hubble Constant when calculated via different methods may be off, depending on what "Distance Candle" we are using. That would explain why our calculations of the type 1A supernovae all seem to (mostly) agree. I'm sure we'll figure it out eventually. H0pefully.
@@Llortnerof I know! And I personally just find that hilarious. Like there was a study a while back where they were guessing that our movement through, and around, the local group might affect the math... And it did! But made it worse.
The question of accelerating expansion of the universe has been troubling the sleep of astrophysicists for decades. This might have already been disproven but 1 solution floated was that there is just more space as the universe expands and thus more vacuum energy.
I think the new discovery is amazing in most part to how little the "constant" has changed in recent years. We now have 3 points in time with good measurements, and the function over time doesn't look parabolic. The h0pe is that more measurements may give a better look, maybe the function is oscillating or what more your imagination can cook.
It seems to me, If something was able to massively and suddenly expand the early universe, it would stand to reason whatever mechinism this is effects the expansion of spacetime. And would be partly or wholely resposible for the "Hubble Tension" we note today.
If the rate of time slows down the closer you are to mass, like for noticeable effects you'd find getting near a black hole, then wouldn't regions of space that are devoid of matter be expanding faster than regions that are more densely populated with matter/energy?
This effect only becomes noticable at relative velocities "near" the speed of light. Or for gravitational fields, fill in the appropriate grav filled strength that makes an escape velocity "near" the speed of light. The "Hubble Tension" discrepancy is about 15%. To account for this with time dilation would require a velocity about 52% the speed of light.... Or a gravitational field that is half way to becoming an event horizon (black hole).
Wait wait wait, if the expansion is accelerating, wouldn't it make sense that it would be expanding slower the farther away you see in space? (further back in time)
It would if the expansion was some universal, global thing as some astrophysicists still assume. Instead, it appears more and more likely that space isn't "expanding" per se, but that more and more space is required to describe the information in certain regions of space and so those regions have more space as the information in them gets more entangled and complex. The more particles interact with each other, the more complicated it becomes to describe them through time. And what we have learned from black holes is that the information in any spherical volume is proportionate to the surface area of a sphere bounding that volume (the Bekenstein bound). Therefore, as things play out across the Universe, space is being 'created' in between and around all of it, in order to 'fit' more information.
@@vaunjeis6751 Exactly. We started with the theory that the universe's rate of expansion was constant. The data didn't fit. Then we came up with the theory that the rate of expansion was universal, but changing over time in some linear manner. The data didn't fit. It's about time we concede that the expansion can vary locally (as you say, more in regions where there's more information). We're just in denial because it flies in the face of our desire for everything to be neat and tidy.
Hi Anton, long time follower. I have a suggestion (which might sound nitpicky) I often listen to your videos on my desktop, which has full range reference speakers. Your videos have a really muddy lowend, which sounds super uncomfortable on full range speakers So, maybe you could add a high pass filter around 80-100Hz on your microphone audio, would appreciate it a ton!!!!!!
I really appreciate your statement about this being one of the first types of observations like this, and how we could maybe benefit from more experience. I wouldn't want people to get their H0pes up!
Hey Wonderful Anton👋! At around 10:41, you said something about the Universe expanding really fast even around 10 billion years ago. I think I'm a little confused about that statement. Since the Hubble constant is the rate of expansion today, isn't it supposed to be the same value. It shouldn't depend on how far or how redshifted the galaxies are right? Or I might just be confused because of the fever I have. The Hubble tension is the discrepancy between the measured and inferred values of the present value of the expansion rate from local and CMB data respectively. So shouldn't it be same whatever data we use? That's the Hubble tension as I've understood it.
The CMB is not what they tell you it is. It is not ancient. The CMB is like ripples on the surface of the pond, made by interference patterns from everything in the universe.
@@MCsCreationsSee, but that's the thing. There's no evidence for CMB to be "the earliest light" except that the Big Bang Theory needs it to be. I've been looking for an answer to "Why?" regarding the nature of CMB in this context and there literally isn't one, there's just "It just is", so why does anybody need to prove otherwise? In practice even out own Sun emits those microwave too, better yet, it also emits radiowaves, that'd be wavelengths longer than CMB, i.e. what CMB is supposed to eventually "degrade" into, so why CMB can't be just a snapshot of the universe in microwaves with no further strings attached? Like, did you actually see how CMB looks before it's "cleaned"? Our galaxy completely obstructs almost half the view and the cleaning is done completely arbitrarily.
@@MCsCreationsI've been looking for an answer to "Why?" regarding the nature of CMB in this context and there literally isn't one, there's just "It just is", so why does anybody need to prove otherwise?
Here's what's stuck in my head. If someone could answer me that would be great. If white dwarf stars are formed by the aging of low mass starts only slightly larger than our sun and smaller. If it takes a few billions years for a star that's small enough to form a white dwarf to become one. What's the earliest the first white dwarf stars formed? If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, how do we have 13 billion year old white dwarf stars in the nearest dwarf galaxies orbiting us? I'd like to say how can this picture be of a type 1A supernova from that early, but this would have to be one of the earliest white dwarf stars, left over from one of the earliest low mass stars to form.
I still believe, as I've said before, that the Hubble Tension is caused by the initiation of the fusion process in stars early in the Universe. The CMB is the original expansion and it is fixed at approximately 67 km/s/MPC and any difference from that is due to the expansion of space caused by masses of fusion/space causing objects, stars and galaxies. It will be interesting to see if it is different from that and I wait to see what physicists come up with eventually. (not a physicist)
Looks like we have a primary and a secondary cause for the expansion rate at different times. I have always said that the gravitational reaction between baryonic matter and dark matter causes an attraction in mass, but a particle must be generated causing the Hubble flow in the equal but opposite reaction to the attractive mass part of the interaction.
The H0 value obtained by "direct" measurements (Cepheid/SNs/etc) covers only some ~1Gly around our Galaxy, or ~2% of the size of the observable Universe. IOW: two methods are in fact measuring "average" H0 value over vastly different patches of space, and the value is expected to be the same for both methods only if mass density of the Universe is fairly homogeneous. One of the explanations for the tension is that we (the ~1Gly patch) are in an underdense region, and thus the expansion is a bit faster in it than on average. Now, this is not very plausible in a purely homogeneous FLRW model, so this opens the field for ideas that Universe's expansion is less homogeneous than we thought.
The numbers from the distance ladder aren't any more "real" than CMB, buddy. We can only measure the intensity and wavelength of light, everything else is a subject to assumptions and algorithms.
Depends on how much heat is expelled from stars? Heat propulsion like rocketing through space? For every action, there's a reaction? What's put in motion stays in motion until acted upon by force of pressure? Heat is a force of pressure? Cold space is repulsion to heat? Cold repulsion pushing heat energy into mass as renewable heat energy propulsion momentum as perpetual motion momentum plus heat propulsion from cold repulsion momentum?
So, of course, the difference in expansion between Andromeda and the Milky Way from the expected expansion would be due to the stars in both galaxies creating space from their nuclear processes.
Maybe if NASA had a dedicated gravitational lens detector on the JWST they could look further out to find the source of the Hubble tension. Seems like they have already ruled out the HST itself as the cause. 🤔
How does this compare to the data from DESI? It's super intriguing that we got to see this lensing on a SN. I also wanna know the change in distance over the three paths of light.
I'm no astrophysicist, but if I imagine myself to be at a location in the universe 13 billion light years away from Earth and looking towards Earth then I would be seeing how the portion of the universe that eventually birthed Earth looked 13 billion years ago, and it might appear to be expanding more quickly than it is expanding currently. So the rate of expansion might be correlated to the age of the light being observed, and not to the actual expansion currently. Therefore any light that travels a greater distance due to gravitational detours would show a larger expansion rate of that area of the universe than the actual current one. This would mean that even though the universe may have expanded at a rate that slowed over time, it would appear to expand at different rates in different areas dependent on the point of observation. For example a very fast rate at first, and slowing over time, just like the debris of any explosion.
What if the Hubble Constant depends on the direction the telescope is pointing? Or perhaps when the big bang happened, massive gravitational waves rippled out affecting the Hubble Constant?
Not sure how we could determine all that from one image? I suspect there were multiple images, showing the star(s) over time, to first determine it was a IA Supernova, then to determine the time difference between the 3 images of the same star.
In the lens example at 8:00 it's not just that light took more than one path to get to us, but the light actually can take a full LOOP around a black hole. It literally laps the black hole multiple times.
doesnt it make sense that early on when average density was high, mass would hold itself together more and slow down the expansion? and once mass has spread out enough, its not held back and just hurls around in all directions without getting slowed down ?
The rate of acceleration can only increase when energy is applied to the object being accelerated. Where is this energy coming from? Thank you, Anton, for the confusion.
@@Neidzwiedz1They have absolutely no idea, but they need a doohickey like that to make the Big Bang math to function. I.e. the fundamental assumptions are wrong, but they trudge on regardless.
Can we use the different expansion rates of the universe to pinpoint the center of the universe (or big bang); since regions farther from the center of the big bang are expanding faster than regions closer to the center?
There is no center of the universe. When you get an uninflated balloon, all points on it are pretty close together. Then when you inflate it, they spread apart. But from the surface there's no point on the surface that you can point to as being the center.
The Hubble said “don’t disrespect me like that; I still got this”. For our many flaws, we are really good at building spacecraft. Of course there’s been mistakes, but be it probes, orbiters or observatories, the craft usually last well beyond their mission and continue to do science, essentially for free, until they die. I wish the powers that be and uncurious citizens around the world would recognize what a good return it ends up being when you properly fund and design a mission.
Isn’t everything travelling at different speeds because everything is swirling? If everything is spiralling away from the centre then even though it’s all moving away from the centre, the straight line speeds would appear to be different for objects in different positions within their own spiral.
The tapestry that is our universal boundaries has been torn I believe. that’s what the great attractor is. A hole If the universe expands like bread, then quantum theory hypothesizes that the polar opposite can also be true. To every push in existence there is also a pulling force. However, if the universal integrity is compromised, then there is nothing in existence that can counter it, it is like a hole in a spaceship’s hull, all the inner air and even things surrounding it goes thru it until it is either plugged or gets bigger.
But would there not be a discrepancy expected between the far and the near if the flat universe were transitioning towards the positive curvature of collapse?
If the cosmos is infinite and our Universe is surrounded by other Universes and black holes ,then our Universe will experience different gravitational influences from multiple directions .
So, if I am understanding this correctly, this discovery shows that the rate of expansion is changing over time, rather than across space? For clarification, if a measurement is made at 5 billion light-years away, and then another measurement is made 5 billion light-years in a completely different direction, those two measurements will be the same? Since both are 5 billion light-years away, the events that were measured are from the same time but different locations. Or would the two measurements differ, despite being the same distance away (and thus the same age), indicating that the rate of expansion differs in different locations, rather than different times?
I don't quite understand this, but I thought since the large-scale nature of the universe shows bubbles with galaxies lined-up on the intersections, then wouldn't the universe be expanding faster in the bubbles than along their intersections?
This really isn't surprising once you throw out the bad assumptions and refuse to slot in a mysterious force called "Dark energy" which we can't really find and thus have no idea how it works. Seriously lets ask two basic questions: 1) Just because taking the math to an extreme for local observations would lead to either a big crunch or a deep freeze why are we assuming that those observations give us a representative sample, or that the math actually goes to those extremes without any changes over time? 2) Why is the universe expanding or contracting? Is the explanation really simple like "Dark Energy" or does it have something to do with fundamental forces, or perhaps the balance of energy/matter in any given space? If it's the latter than we'd expect the rate of expansion to by lumpy and to change dynamically over time. If it's the former we'd expect not to see anything like the Hubble tension.
Love your vids dude but we still need to be using the word "seems" where expansion of the universe is considered. Other paradigms can be used to explain this even if the modern field refuses to for the most part. The SN1a has issues of its own as does every other rung in the so called ladder. There exist a several paradigms that , if modeled, would give a different explanation of this expansion. These types usually involve a scenario where gravity, vacuum energy, DM and DE are basically all from the same source or different effects of it.
@@denysvlasenko1865 It depends on which one you look at. One of the most well known is Robotaille and others who believe the CMB is due to the presence of Hydrogen and that the CMB itself lacked a physical lattice to produce said blackbody radiation. Other studies have been done that back him up on his model of the Sun or variations but none of them are available for public consumption at this point even though they were done by reputable institutions. I am not sure how much I agree with his CMB idea completely though. I can imagine ways that under certain conditions a plasma could take on a more "liquid" like state and thereby begin providing an acceptable lattice for vibration. Another case is where the universe has always been large regardless of whether initial expansion occurred or not. Imagine a large volume of space. Now have a substance that fills that space undergo (to use analogies here) a sublimation that causes all of space to be filled with the same amount of QGP everywhere at once. This fits better with an initial inflation as its stopping would be the trigger for it happening everywhere but it is possible without it as well. This would still result in a CMB that is indistinguishable from the one we see today. Those models rely on gravity, vacuum energy, DM and DE all being due to the same source field and their interactions with the CMB are what gives it the appearance we see now. All I am saying is we cannot be as sure as is claimed until we can get to some of these places like far out SN1a sources to definitely tell what if any difference there really is. When I was growing up in the 70s to late 80s all of this stuff was not presented with such certainty because we realized we did not have absolute proof of it. It is much like the debate around singularities existing in BH or the BB. Singularities are only possible by way of coordinate frames and physical ones are completely non logical. Could the universe be expanding? Sure but I will doubt it until I see better evidence of it. Even Hubble was warned about taking this expansion to be literal.
Are there new mesurement s of the cosmic micrieave background? Or why dint we detect CMB many times again, with more and more details? Why no radio wave background? Is it toobhard to measure hence of interference? And how is CMB related to redshift? Cant light reeshiftvat the point we cant detect/differentiate it from this famous "background" radiation?? Hence , universe's light beyond detection capabilities is kinda ressembling a scrumbled background. Ahhh where can i discuss hypothesis deeply with a research team?! I wannna get involved amd spread bith ways researchers/public. . We have all one or infinite good questions and itvwill be together ee resolve the most advanced mind maps. I alwsyd Imagine a child attitude, wondering thus finding the next clues! Where are youu ? Thx Anton and love to yall
Its mentioned a lot that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up. But in my mind, I then think that ot probably hasnt reached its full speed yet. Like say an explosion happens, it will continue to speed up until it reaches a certain top/maximum speed, at which point it then starts to slow down or decelerate. Maybe the Universe hasnt reached that maximum yet. Does rhat make sense or am I way off the mark with such thinking? I know the BigBang wasnt an explosion of sorts. More like an expansion or inflation. But the idea around it topping out and then slowing down, whatever you want to call it, still holds up. I know they announced this years Noble prize winners yesterday, so I don't mind waiting until next year with such 'grounrd breaking' insights!?! 😂
I'm a total crank but what if redshift isn't indicative of recessional velocity & the universe is actually homeostatic and eternal? Experiments in particle physics seem to show that time doesn't seem to matter that much at a fundamental level.
Considering neighbouring galaxies can have vastly different redshift values, it's safe to say nether recessional velocity nor cosmological redshift (that'd be expansion of the universe) are the biggest components of redshift.
I watch your videos every night. The amount of discoveries you cover is what reminds me of why we should always try to move forward...so many things in this life to learn about
Yeah imagine being a civilizaton for a million years, and beyond that there is most likely more to learn ! interesting
It still blows my mind that they can deconstruct a gravitational lens to tell where the galaxy behind it is and what shape it is. Not to mention all of the things in between the two galaxies for light to take different paths around. To create the lensed image.
The sun makes an arc like a gravity lens when tilted.
Yeah, it's so cool. It reminds me of how they can reconstruct an image, pretty much perfectly, from the distorted reflection on a reflective curved object like a mug or vase.
Look up deblurring and point spread function. If you know the characteristics of a camera lens (called a point spread function), you can take a completely out of focus photo, and mathematically focus most of it after the fact. Same idea.
The point is they can’t, deconstruct? At these distances there could be dozens,hundreds, or even thousands of lensing and lightbending effects. No way Jose.
Great video, sir.
Stay wonderful, Anton.
Such discoveries don't come every day, not even every year. Wow... just feeling lucky I've been subscribed. Thank you Anton. You do the BEST JOB IN THE WORLD
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 😊☺️🙂
There was a joke early on about the Hubble Constant when it was first derived. The value seems to be variable, it was nicknamed 'Hubble's variable'.
Variably constant
@@Broken_robot1986 Oxymoronic terminology detected
Is it still constantly varying?
Imagine being so far away that the light can bend so much it can get you from a total different place from the same source.
Truly mindblowing
When I was a kid I thought astronomers discovered things by staring through a telescope like Galileo, now I know they find new things by having to comb through the mountains of data somebody else might have collected years ago
Well, that's one way they find new stuff. Another way is being right at the forefront of new data coming in.
The teams of scientists that contributed to building the differ by components of the James Webb Telescope each got guaranteed time to use the telescope for their own research.
Thank you, wonderful Anton!
Wonderful content from a wonderful person, thank you Anton
Story time. Being the proper uncle that I am, I once convinced my niece that the reason the 3pt line in basketball was moved back was because they had to offset for the expansion of the universe.
As an uncle I'm inspired by this one 🤣
Yeah... We are finally beginning to understand that space and time stretch at different rates and that we are going to have to deal with the wobbly wibbly nature of the expansion of the universe
Technically spacetime is not stretching. New spacetime is being created.
@@douglaswilkinson5700idk if we can say that. From the FLRW metric, we only see that the space part of the spacetime is 'expanding' and that's because of the scale factor changing (so the Universe could have been shrinking as well). But the metric just describes spacetime interval. So the literal distance between things is increasing in that case. We can think of it as the fabric of spacetime stretching or more 'fabric' being created. I don't think we should take that analogy too literally.
Thanks for feeding our hunger for knowledge? You are truly one amazing person.
Gravitational expansion from initial explosion of dark objects (which we do not know), must have initiated ever growing bubbles which in combination looks like an expansion everywhere, in all directions, but not uniformly, because over larger time distances these bubble sphere shells will collide, causing filament like tensions structures.
I think the expansion isn't an intrinsic, mysterious thing that just "expands" everywhere. I think spacetime emerges from entanglement and the information required to describe a particular volume (the Bekenstein bound). Just like a black hole, more information means more surface area.
The more information in a region, the larger the boundary required to describe it. So throughout the Universe, as particles entangle and spread out, more space is required to describe their relationships.
It's not a uniform expansion; it's more like a big wobbly unevenly-baking loaf of entanglement.
it seems really likely that the expansion of space is a function of information inside of the space that's expanding.
On a deeper level, it appears that spacetime is an emergent phenomenon created by entanglement. Information, when it is spread out, gives rise to what we call space.
So as information and entanglement increase, the "space" needed locally to describe the Universe does as well.
If space-time is connected to mass via Higgs Field interactions, resulting in gravity, then varying mass concentrations should alter the expansion rates.
Large mass concentrations should slow expansion, while low mass regions would have less of this 'Higgs friction'... this would explain the acceleration, as the Higgs friction would be the 'glue' holding the universe together. As it gets weaker via expansion, the expansion of space time increases. This eliminates the need for dark energy!
It ALSO explains why the initial cosmic expansion after the Big Bang was so incredibly, inconceivably fast... there was no mass! Only super-hot energy that had not formed particles yet, thus spacetime was utterly free to expand to its maximum capability. Only when matter began to form did the Higgs interactions begin... and initially the mass concentration was so high that it drastically slowed expansion.
Why do i so badly want the answer to be 42?
Class, pure unadulterated class.
Everything can be determined in base 42
44.132
Heya! Do you play didgeridoo?! I do 🎉 so fundamental frenquencies, Let's find out the right question!
42 Is also my intuitional answer
2*3*7 😊
Y'all, it's simple: as we deploy instruments that can peer further in distance and time, the simulation has to adjust for that. I may or may not be a little high.
That's why galaxies were only discovered 100 years ago.
Don't worry. As human population grows, the simulation gets enough battery for calculating the increasingly costly adjustments. We didn't even have to reset in the year 2000 this time.
Awesome stuff! 👏 🎉
Thank you Anton. Your narrative is spell binding.
Thank you Anton for adding the actual numbers to the content. The use of mostly "huge", "vast" , "very hot", ..., without giving (possibly approximate) values was a drawback.
Sorry. By the time I edited my thoughts to include thanking Anton and then comment in the least abrasive way in the way I share it, so to show by example the respect my opinion gives to other opinions while hoping reciprocation and conversation, I realized the condescension in my approach in itself is disrespectful; and now, I have completely forgotten what I was going to say, beside thank you Anton. 🥂
Thank you.
You have been noticed as respectful.
Lead with respect and appreciation first, all other things fall apart under responsibility afterwards.
Jeremy
😂
Good ganja man! 😂
You're welcome.
Great video Anton. As per! But could you or someone answer me this query. So the Type 1a happened at around 3b years after the Big bang, Do we have the data concerning the stars make up? And would it then be possible to actually see a population 1 star nova or even the star itself if we were lucky enough to catch it through gravitational lensing? Or are these Holy Grails of stars much too early and with too short a life span to be captured with such methods? I hope my questions make sense for someone with a much greater knowledge than myself to hopefully give me an answer and maybe some insight into these amazing phenomena of early star formation. Like most things in our stunning cosmos, I find the idea of these pop 1 stars fascinating. Many thanks. Love and good vibes sent to all. X
Anton after years of watching you, now you look tired, take a few days to relax, i will still be watching for you.vand can i have permission to use some of this info? For a book?
Agreed homie looks burned out. Please take care of yourself!!!!
@nomernomznomz6015 not sure he reads his posts, prob. No time. Cheerio
Need to use sources he uses, some is from Wikipedia.
Topographically speaking the Milky Way and andromeda are like towns in a mountain pass almost everything around us is located in a deeper gravity well. In the early universe the gravity wells were deeper due to containing almost all Liquid Dark Matter. Stars and AGN vaporize and lower the content of LDN which has been slowly decreasing since then. Lower LDN also means less compact galaxies, smaller stars and less AGN. We talk about gravity bending spacetime but no one talks about the effect of that bending on the overall topography of spacetime ie smaller black hole for the Milky Way and lower concentration of LDM. Some of the early black hole mass may actually be due to the high LDM mass around the galaxies.
Now only to find ANY evidence for ANY kind of dark matter existing.
If i heard you right, sounds like it was expanding faster in the past, then the present..
That’s what I thought too
That’s a wild thumbnail, Anton!
Another option is that the methodology we use to calculate distances between the two might be off. Ergo, out calculations of the Hubble Constant when calculated via different methods may be off, depending on what "Distance Candle" we are using. That would explain why our calculations of the type 1A supernovae all seem to (mostly) agree.
I'm sure we'll figure it out eventually. H0pefully.
It's well known that the distance ladder is a potential weak point. But so far any attempts at refinement have just made things "worse".
@@Llortnerof I know! And I personally just find that hilarious. Like there was a study a while back where they were guessing that our movement through, and around, the local group might affect the math... And it did! But made it worse.
@@ArthurEKing8472 I'm still hoping that other new(ish) measurement results in there being 3 distinct values.
Very cool video, thank you.
The question of accelerating expansion of the universe has been troubling the sleep of astrophysicists for decades. This might have already been disproven but 1 solution floated was that there is just more space as the universe expands and thus more vacuum energy.
I think the new discovery is amazing in most part to how little the "constant" has changed in recent years. We now have 3 points in time with good measurements, and the function over time doesn't look parabolic. The h0pe is that more measurements may give a better look, maybe the function is oscillating or what more your imagination can cook.
It seems to me, If something was able to massively and suddenly expand the early universe, it would stand to reason whatever mechinism this is effects the expansion of spacetime. And would be partly or wholely resposible for the "Hubble Tension" we note today.
That's super Anton.
If the rate of time slows down the closer you are to mass, like for noticeable effects you'd find getting near a black hole, then wouldn't regions of space that are devoid of matter be expanding faster than regions that are more densely populated with matter/energy?
Interesting postulation! It would make denser areas "sticky" by way of time dilation. Maybe this is how the cosmic web holds together
damn. that was clever
This effect only becomes noticable at relative velocities "near" the speed of light.
Or for gravitational fields, fill in the appropriate grav filled strength that makes an escape velocity "near" the speed of light.
The "Hubble Tension" discrepancy is about 15%.
To account for this with time dilation would require a velocity about 52% the speed of light.... Or a gravitational field that is half way to becoming an event horizon (black hole).
I believe your question is answered under the askscience subreddit's wiki > astronomy > expansion_gravity
Maybe there is a spring effect acting on the hubble constant that is caused by the big bang, which tends to flat out constant over time.
I'd love to have a beer with you Anton. You are a very interesting person indeed!
Wait wait wait, if the expansion is accelerating, wouldn't it make sense that it would be expanding slower the farther away you see in space? (further back in time)
It would if the expansion was some universal, global thing as some astrophysicists still assume.
Instead, it appears more and more likely that space isn't "expanding" per se, but that more and more space is required to describe the information in certain regions of space and so those regions have more space as the information in them gets more entangled and complex.
The more particles interact with each other, the more complicated it becomes to describe them through time.
And what we have learned from black holes is that the information in any spherical volume is proportionate to the surface area of a sphere bounding that volume (the Bekenstein bound).
Therefore, as things play out across the Universe, space is being 'created' in between and around all of it, in order to 'fit' more information.
@@vaunjeis6751 Exactly. We started with the theory that the universe's rate of expansion was constant. The data didn't fit. Then we came up with the theory that the rate of expansion was universal, but changing over time in some linear manner. The data didn't fit. It's about time we concede that the expansion can vary locally (as you say, more in regions where there's more information). We're just in denial because it flies in the face of our desire for everything to be neat and tidy.
Hi Anton, long time follower. I have a suggestion (which might sound nitpicky)
I often listen to your videos on my desktop, which has full range reference speakers. Your videos have a really muddy lowend, which sounds super uncomfortable on full range speakers
So, maybe you could add a high pass filter around 80-100Hz on your microphone audio, would appreciate it a ton!!!!!!
I really appreciate your statement about this being one of the first types of observations like this, and how we could maybe benefit from more experience. I wouldn't want people to get their H0pes up!
No, you arr wonderful person!! ❤
Wow, sometimes I almost understand these. Always enlightening, and huge things to think about.
Hey Wonderful Anton👋! At around 10:41, you said something about the Universe expanding really fast even around 10 billion years ago. I think I'm a little confused about that statement. Since the Hubble constant is the rate of expansion today, isn't it supposed to be the same value. It shouldn't depend on how far or how redshifted the galaxies are right? Or I might just be confused because of the fever I have. The Hubble tension is the discrepancy between the measured and inferred values of the present value of the expansion rate from local and CMB data respectively. So shouldn't it be same whatever data we use? That's the Hubble tension as I've understood it.
Every time I watch your videos I find something new and amazing in them. Keep inspiring and surprising us!🏆🚜🚚
bot, you guys liked a bot
Interesting. But our model could also be wrong. In this case, the calculations from the CMB would be totally off.
The CMB is not what they tell you it is. It is not ancient. The CMB is like ripples on the surface of the pond, made by interference patterns from everything in the universe.
@malachiteofmethuselah9713 publish a paper about it pointing to any evidence you might have and we can discuss it.
@@MCsCreationsSee, but that's the thing.
There's no evidence for CMB to be "the earliest light" except that the Big Bang Theory needs it to be.
I've been looking for an answer to "Why?" regarding the nature of CMB in this context and there literally isn't one, there's just "It just is", so why does anybody need to prove otherwise?
In practice even out own Sun emits those microwave too, better yet, it also emits radiowaves, that'd be wavelengths longer than CMB, i.e. what CMB is supposed to eventually "degrade" into, so why CMB can't be just a snapshot of the universe in microwaves with no further strings attached?
Like, did you actually see how CMB looks before it's "cleaned"? Our galaxy completely obstructs almost half the view and the cleaning is done completely arbitrarily.
@@MCsCreationsSee, but that's the thing.
There's no evidence for CMB to be "the earliest light" except that the Big Bang Theory needs it to be.
@@MCsCreationsI've been looking for an answer to "Why?" regarding the nature of CMB in this context and there literally isn't one, there's just "It just is", so why does anybody need to prove otherwise?
Here's what's stuck in my head. If someone could answer me that would be great. If white dwarf stars are formed by the aging of low mass starts only slightly larger than our sun and smaller. If it takes a few billions years for a star that's small enough to form a white dwarf to become one. What's the earliest the first white dwarf stars formed? If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, how do we have 13 billion year old white dwarf stars in the nearest dwarf galaxies orbiting us? I'd like to say how can this picture be of a type 1A supernova from that early, but this would have to be one of the earliest white dwarf stars, left over from one of the earliest low mass stars to form.
I still believe, as I've said before, that the Hubble Tension is caused by the initiation of the fusion process in stars early in the Universe. The CMB is the original expansion and it is fixed at approximately 67 km/s/MPC and any difference from that is due to the expansion of space caused by masses of fusion/space causing objects, stars and galaxies. It will be interesting to see if it is different from that and I wait to see what physicists come up with eventually. (not a physicist)
Looks like we have a primary and a secondary cause for the expansion rate at different times. I have always said that the gravitational reaction between baryonic matter and dark matter causes an attraction in mass, but a particle must be generated causing the Hubble flow in the equal but opposite reaction to the attractive mass part of the interaction.
Great informative video, nice👍❤
The number from the CMB involves much modeling and underlying assumptions. The number from the distance ladder is real data. Always go with the data.
All of cosmology is a series of assumptions.
The H0 value obtained by "direct" measurements (Cepheid/SNs/etc) covers only some ~1Gly around our Galaxy, or ~2% of the size of the observable Universe.
IOW: two methods are in fact measuring "average" H0 value over vastly different patches of space, and the value is expected to be the same for both methods only if mass density of the Universe is fairly homogeneous.
One of the explanations for the tension is that we (the ~1Gly patch) are in an underdense region, and thus the expansion is a bit faster in it than on average.
Now, this is not very plausible in a purely homogeneous FLRW model, so this opens the field for ideas that Universe's expansion is less homogeneous than we thought.
The numbers from the distance ladder aren't any more "real" than CMB, buddy.
We can only measure the intensity and wavelength of light, everything else is a subject to assumptions and algorithms.
I'm interested to see how strong the upcoming solar storm will be that the news outlets are reporting about for this Thursday and Friday.
Depends on how much heat is expelled from stars? Heat propulsion like rocketing through space? For every action, there's a reaction? What's put in motion stays in motion until acted upon by force of pressure? Heat is a force of pressure? Cold space is repulsion to heat? Cold repulsion pushing heat energy into mass as renewable heat energy propulsion momentum as perpetual motion momentum plus heat propulsion from cold repulsion momentum?
So, of course, the difference in expansion between Andromeda and the Milky Way from the expected expansion would be due to the stars in both galaxies creating space from their nuclear processes.
Weird it’s almost like people have been saying the Hubble constant has been false for decades.
Maybe if NASA had a dedicated gravitational lens detector on the JWST they could look further out to find the source of the Hubble tension. Seems like they have already ruled out the HST itself as the cause. 🤔
It’s almost like redshift and blueshift is just observing the direction a body is orbiting another body and not an indication of expansion at all
No it isn't.
How does this compare to the data from DESI? It's super intriguing that we got to see this lensing on a SN. I also wanna know the change in distance over the three paths of light.
I'm no astrophysicist, but if I imagine myself to be at a location in the universe 13 billion light years away from Earth and looking towards Earth then I would be seeing how the portion of the universe that eventually birthed Earth looked 13 billion years ago, and it might appear to be expanding more quickly than it is expanding currently. So the rate of expansion might be correlated to the age of the light being observed, and not to the actual expansion currently. Therefore any light that travels a greater distance due to gravitational detours would show a larger expansion rate of that area of the universe than the actual current one. This would mean that even though the universe may have expanded at a rate that slowed over time, it would appear to expand at different rates in different areas dependent on the point of observation. For example a very fast rate at first, and slowing over time, just like the debris of any explosion.
i'm pretty sure they would have taken that into consideration
It’s because of a plasma gloop soup,it’s stretches out at different angles at different speeds,the splatter of all splatters!.😂
What if the Hubble Constant depends on the direction the telescope is pointing? Or perhaps when the big bang happened, massive gravitational waves rippled out affecting the Hubble Constant?
Not sure how we could determine all that from one image? I suspect there were multiple images, showing the star(s) over time, to first determine it was a IA Supernova, then to determine the time difference between the 3 images of the same star.
Astronomy has Sn Hope, I have Anton Hope!
In the lens example at 8:00 it's not just that light took more than one path to get to us, but the light actually can take a full LOOP around a black hole. It literally laps the black hole multiple times.
it's not a black hole
You where discussing the expansion of the universe and using Androminda as your example, but isn't Andromida comming towards us ?
It is at ~120km/s.
Quite interesting, isn't it?
Super Anton 🥇🥇🥇
Why do we call the telescope James Webb, but not call the other one Edwin Hubble?
Jim and Edwin sound like a band.
Soooo are we learning more than ever before now? Sure feels like it
doesnt it make sense that early on when average density was high, mass would hold itself together more and slow down the expansion? and once mass has spread out enough, its not held back and just hurls around in all directions without getting slowed down ?
"VAR!" - Edwin Hubble
🙋🏽♀️💖anton everyday
The rate of acceleration can only increase when energy is applied to the object being accelerated. Where is this energy coming from?
Thank you, Anton, for the confusion.
Dark energy; that’s astrophysics jargon for we have absolutely no idea!
@@Neidzwiedz1They have absolutely no idea, but they need a doohickey like that to make the Big Bang math to function.
I.e. the fundamental assumptions are wrong, but they trudge on regardless.
Can we use the different expansion rates of the universe to pinpoint the center of the universe (or big bang); since regions farther from the center of the big bang are expanding faster than regions closer to the center?
There is no center. Weird, I know, but true.
There is no center of the universe. When you get an uninflated balloon, all points on it are pretty close together. Then when you inflate it, they spread apart. But from the surface there's no point on the surface that you can point to as being the center.
So no accelerated acceleration. Yay! More time for science :)
The Hubble said “don’t disrespect me like that; I still got this”. For our many flaws, we are really good at building spacecraft. Of course there’s been mistakes, but be it probes, orbiters or observatories, the craft usually last well beyond their mission and continue to do science, essentially for free, until they die.
I wish the powers that be and uncurious citizens around the world would recognize what a good return it ends up being when you properly fund and design a mission.
Isn’t everything travelling at different speeds because everything is swirling? If everything is spiralling away from the centre then even though it’s all moving away from the centre, the straight line speeds would appear to be different for objects in different positions within their own spiral.
The tapestry that is our universal boundaries has been torn I believe. that’s what the great attractor is. A hole If the universe expands like bread, then quantum theory hypothesizes that the polar opposite can also be true. To every push in existence there is also a pulling force. However, if the universal integrity is compromised, then there is nothing in existence that can counter it, it is like a hole in a spaceship’s hull, all the inner air and even things surrounding it goes thru it until it is either plugged or gets bigger.
But would there not be a discrepancy expected between the far and the near if the flat universe were transitioning towards the positive curvature of collapse?
Anton is clearly an AI. Sometimes it gets his eyes in the wrong spot.
Could there be something outside of the universe that is accelerating or slowing down its expansion? Like a force of some kind?
So would we not expect the mass density to affect local expansion? More gravitation slowing expansion?
More mass, slower time
I only understand explanations using loafs of bread.
Hope was the last thing to leave Pandora's box.
If the cosmos is infinite and our Universe is surrounded by other Universes and black holes ,then our Universe will experience different gravitational influences from multiple directions .
So, if I am understanding this correctly, this discovery shows that the rate of expansion is changing over time, rather than across space?
For clarification, if a measurement is made at 5 billion light-years away, and then another measurement is made 5 billion light-years in a completely different direction, those two measurements will be the same? Since both are 5 billion light-years away, the events that were measured are from the same time but different locations.
Or would the two measurements differ, despite being the same distance away (and thus the same age), indicating that the rate of expansion differs in different locations, rather than different times?
I don't quite understand this, but I thought since the large-scale nature of the universe shows bubbles with galaxies lined-up on the intersections, then wouldn't the universe be expanding faster in the bubbles than along their intersections?
The measurements are vastly different even between galaxies in the same clusters, not just the general area in space.
Why are those three sites in that image points and not smears like the rest of the light in that lensing?
“Maybe there something in the universe we don’t fully understand”
No shit!
This really isn't surprising once you throw out the bad assumptions and refuse to slot in a mysterious force called "Dark energy" which we can't really find and thus have no idea how it works. Seriously lets ask two basic questions:
1) Just because taking the math to an extreme for local observations would lead to either a big crunch or a deep freeze why are we assuming that those observations give us a representative sample, or that the math actually goes to those extremes without any changes over time?
2) Why is the universe expanding or contracting? Is the explanation really simple like "Dark Energy" or does it have something to do with fundamental forces, or perhaps the balance of energy/matter in any given space? If it's the latter than we'd expect the rate of expansion to by lumpy and to change dynamically over time. If it's the former we'd expect not to see anything like the Hubble tension.
3) Is redshift actually a function of space expansion and not a characteristic of light itself?
Weren't megaparsecs also expanding when the universe was expanding?
Love your vids dude but we still need to be using the word "seems" where expansion of the universe is considered. Other paradigms can be used to explain this even if the modern field refuses to for the most part. The SN1a has issues of its own as does every other rung in the so called ladder. There exist a several paradigms that , if modeled, would give a different explanation of this expansion. These types usually involve a scenario where gravity, vacuum energy, DM and DE are basically all from the same source or different effects of it.
How those "other explanations" explain why CMB even exists?
@@denysvlasenko1865 It depends on which one you look at. One of the most well known is Robotaille and others who believe the CMB is due to the presence of Hydrogen and that the CMB itself lacked a physical lattice to produce said blackbody radiation. Other studies have been done that back him up on his model of the Sun or variations but none of them are available for public consumption at this point even though they were done by reputable institutions. I am not sure how much I agree with his CMB idea completely though. I can imagine ways that under certain conditions a plasma could take on a more "liquid" like state and thereby begin providing an acceptable lattice for vibration.
Another case is where the universe has always been large regardless of whether initial expansion occurred or not.
Imagine a large volume of space. Now have a substance that fills that space undergo (to use analogies here) a sublimation that causes all of space to be filled with the same amount of QGP everywhere at once. This fits better with an initial inflation as its stopping would be the trigger for it happening everywhere but it is possible without it as well. This would still result in a CMB that is indistinguishable from the one we see today. Those models rely on gravity, vacuum energy, DM and DE all being due to the same source field and their interactions with the CMB are what gives it the appearance we see now.
All I am saying is we cannot be as sure as is claimed until we can get to some of these places like far out SN1a sources to definitely tell what if any difference there really is. When I was growing up in the 70s to late 80s all of this stuff was not presented with such certainty because we realized we did not have absolute proof of it.
It is much like the debate around singularities existing in BH or the BB. Singularities are only possible by way of coordinate frames and physical ones are completely non logical. Could the universe be expanding? Sure but I will doubt it until I see better evidence of it. Even Hubble was warned about taking this expansion to be literal.
extrapolate back and the hubble constant was probably zero at some point around inflation
The madness continues.
You rock. Thank you
When will there be no more mysteries of the universe!!
What would Anton talk about?
@@chrisanderson2368 Indeed - every mystery we reveal leads to 5 more new mysteries so I think we're safe for a while yet!
Oh it's gotta be older than ten billion years old. I'm older than that!
If its been lensed, how can you use brightness to determine distance?
Very smart mathematicians
The Hubble telescope can receive light from objects 12 billion light years away
What if the actual value of the Hubble constant is such that it makes the age of Universe as young as six thousand years old
Are there new mesurement s of the cosmic micrieave background? Or why dint we detect CMB many times again, with more and more details?
Why no radio wave background? Is it toobhard to measure hence of interference?
And how is CMB related to redshift?
Cant light reeshiftvat the point we cant detect/differentiate it from this famous "background" radiation??
Hence , universe's light beyond detection capabilities is kinda ressembling a scrumbled background.
Ahhh where can i discuss hypothesis deeply with a research team?! I wannna get involved amd spread bith ways researchers/public.
.
We have all one or infinite good questions and itvwill be together ee resolve the most advanced mind maps.
I alwsyd Imagine a child attitude, wondering thus finding the next clues!
Where are youu ?
Thx Anton and love to yall
There were no days 10 billion years ago. Back in the days before there were days?
Its mentioned a lot that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up. But in my mind, I then think that ot probably hasnt reached its full speed yet. Like say an explosion happens, it will continue to speed up until it reaches a certain top/maximum speed, at which point it then starts to slow down or decelerate. Maybe the Universe hasnt reached that maximum yet. Does rhat make sense or am I way off the mark with such thinking? I know the BigBang wasnt an explosion of sorts. More like an expansion or inflation. But the idea around it topping out and then slowing down, whatever you want to call it, still holds up. I know they announced this years Noble prize winners yesterday, so I don't mind waiting until next year with such 'grounrd breaking' insights!?! 😂
you dropped off my algo ...now my brain hurts again haha thx crazy facts !!! wtf is going on out there ! 😃
The Hubble Tension is REAL!!! You wouldn't download a universe? Yes eye wood.
I'm a total crank but what if redshift isn't indicative of recessional velocity & the universe is actually homeostatic and eternal? Experiments in particle physics seem to show that time doesn't seem to matter that much at a fundamental level.
Considering neighbouring galaxies can have vastly different redshift values, it's safe to say nether recessional velocity nor cosmological redshift (that'd be expansion of the universe) are the biggest components of redshift.