@@anthonyowen6204 oh, but you wouldn't see a shadow if there wasn't a single photon left in your universe. Moreover there wouldn't be any shadow. Absence of light are quite strong words.
"Reworked once again". I firmly believe the problem is "epicircle"-esque. We've got something very basic VERY wrong, and have built up convoluted theories & explanations, and keep tweaking them to try to make them work. It's likely something we're so indoctrinated to believe, we don't even consider challenging it.
Even when all the gravity models of anything larger than a solar system was disproved, they just used their imagination. As if the universe gives a shit about peoples emotional attachment to certain forces of nature. Dark matter is not science in any way or form.
@@ThePowerLover Dark matter is not science. Neither is dark energy. Just untestable nonsense made up so that astronomers and cosmologists don't have to question their BS dogma.
I have a cosmological crisis. If we're now seeing the furthest galaxies as they were 13 billion years ago, how comes 2 billion years after the big bang we were seeing those much closer galaxies as they were then (given the smaller intervening space light had to travel)? That implies that over the intervening 11 billion years, they haven't appeared to age and in fact appear younger? Is there something fundamental I'm not seeing, because that is perplexing?
The problem is when we keep learning different things depending on how we measure the same thing, which is a problem when we learn everything by measuring it.
No, for people like you it's not a crisis, it's more opportunity to invent some "super mysterious fairy energy" to make your failing theories still give correct predictions after the fact.
According to the cosmological principle, the universe is isotropic. If it spins, there would be a preferential direction which contradicts the principle. Everything in the universe spins in different directions and the total angular momentum must be zero.
Can there be a centrifugal force employed through a spinning? We would need something outside the universe relative to the rotation to make that possible right?
So, just checking, this indicates that the drop from 0.8159 to our current and locally-observed 0.7xx leads to less clumpiness now and that this decrement only kicked in relatively recently? That is indeed wonderfully mysterious! Wow!
@@ogwarfthedawf Wrong New ideas are as likely to take us away from "tRuTh" as to bring us nearer There is nothing meritorious in in the fact that a Idea is new
@@goyonman9655 As I am today, I would say that to understand the true nature of the universe, you have to be open to change and new ideas. There's nuggets of gold in every idea. Life, the universe and everything is the greatest puzzle of all-time, our understanding of physics and science as a whole represesents our attempts to solve it! We've solved most of the puzzle that we can see, touch and feel, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the puzzle is hidden, speculative! Not black or white, but ultra-violet! So it ultimately depends on how badly you want to know the answer. I think it's pretty fun though, even if I'm wrong; it's a mistake I can learn from. A new experience from which new ideas can are born.
Arkhams razor. "The simplest explanation is usually the best one" Aka. we got somthing wrong at some point, and instead of trying to figure out what/where we fucked up, we instead invent new stuff to "avoid" dealing with it. Odds are that what ever we fucked up is simple and easy to miss, or just a miniscule factor we forgot to add or tweak to/in the equations, and once "Scaled up" works to a certain point then starts to cause problems. I'm shit at math, so i can't partake in that part of the discussion. But i know math well enough that the more complex the equation needed, the easier it is to miss something, which can cause the entire thing to give you a semi working solution that seams to be correct, but in fact isen't. It's a bit like spitting in the ocean, and proclaim you have increased it's volume. It's partly correct, but you also need to factor in the evaporation of moisture, and rain elswhere. thusly making said luggie completely meaningless in the grand equation in this case.
Maybe gravity is like a spring or rubber band? Negative or repulsive until the universe gets to a neutral expansion point and then gradually increasingly attractive until another end point before the universe collapses back in an eternal oscillation. Maybe its like a hookes constant or something? Why does gravity have to be a constant? Maybe it just appears to be at this point in time and gradually getting stronger over millions or billions of years until it arrests the expansion of the universe and reverses it. Then as the universe collapses gravity gets progressively less attractive until it goes through the neutral point and then gets progressively more repulsive as the universe shrinks back to the big bang point where it reverses yet again. May sound daft but it gets rid of the need for. Bogus non proven fudge factors such as dark matter which begat dark energy because it doesn't work. And as far as I can tell dark energy doesn't work satisfactorily either so will need another dark fudge of some sort. Make gravity variable and maybe you won't need any of the fudge dark or otherwise.
@BernieGore-fs2is his smile at the end looks like someone still trying to cope with a lot of sadness to me. If you have followed this channel for any length of time you'll understand why that should be.
Just the typical NPC comment when a video is released. Sabine H, Matt O'D. Arvin A. etc also have the same kinds of 'first comments'. They tend to garner 'likes' so monkey see, monkey do. @BernieGore-fs2is Yes he's had a loss, and we don't know how he's coping with that, but that's not the reason for the cheesy grin at the end lol he does that all the time.
"Did gravity change" or do scientist simply not know everything but have ran under the assunption that they do know everything for years. At some point they forgot that "I don't know" is a valid answer.
Most likely we missed somthing werry small but obviously important thing in our equations, and once scaled enough it breaks the "working" molds. Or maybe its aliens fucking with us. (i'm not serious) You know the fishbowl theory? Where a advanced alien civilisation is observing us like we observe a fish in a bowl. But the aliens decided to fuck with us, and tweaking the things we see. Making us go "WHAT THE FUCK!?!" while they laugh their arses off. A bit like how we humans mess with zoo animals.
Thanks Anton, very interesting. We will have to see how much S8 tension is left over once the models include the much higher average density of the galaxies were we get strong hints at the moment in that direction and the calculations are adapted to this. If i remember correct even this channel made a video about using high energy gamma reys and the influence which plasma clouds have on them, which pointed in the direction of much denser galaxies then actual calculations are using.
Damn!...I don't feel so bad now. I got blocked for 23 hrs for....get ready..." Spamming, Misinformation, and Scamming) 😂 Like we don't know who the actual scammers are?😮
Physics holds up in the middle. But first we had a problem on the very small side and now the very large side. So I think it's going to be another field of physics that solves this, like quantum physics did.
It's a great time to be alive to witness all the scientific discoveries that seem to come at us daily... And to have Anton here to bring attention to and explain all these discoveries to us... Anton is the penultimate Wonderful Person...
It’s truly amazing how humans have studied and explained our world from the smallest elementary particles to the edge of the universe. But as a species, we seem closer now to a “big bang” annihilation of our own making because we can’t figure out how to live together. But yes, Anton reduces my “tension” just by hearing his voice!
A parallel universe either approached us and whisked by a few billions years ago is what influenced into our universe via gravity (huge) and declumping as observed in our universe
It’s the human condition - the more one learns about any subject, the more one understands that we understand nothing about that subject. That’s why I try not to know too much about anything. 😺 On a related note, very impressive that you can intelligently converse about so many highly complicated subjects.
I remember once, witnessing two river merges... one being mainly flesh water in composition, while the other being mainly salt water, with the latter being influenced via a king tide from the estuary/ocean mouth. At the interconnecting points along these merging zones, eddies formed, with very unusual laminar flow patterns... some slow by way of high resistance, while others, were akin to white water rapids. Could this be a similar pattern of behaviour that our Universe may be experiencing? In that, instead of merging rivers... a similar result happens, with merging Universes, that's causing these strange varying expansion rates, caused by varying resistance points at these intermingling fronts of these opposing Universes? I may wrong though... just a thought?🤔
If the universe is stretching faster in some areas than others, it could be analogous to a still pond with rain drops falling in it, causing ripples in spacetime?
It seems evident to me that because of this and other measurements, the Milky Way along with the rest of the local group lives within an unusually low density area of the universe. I am not sufficiently mathematically trained to be able to calculate the chances of this happening, but the existence of enormous voids (e.g. the Bootes void) indicates that could happen by random chance. While this might be statistically extremely unlikely from the standpoint of a single area, the question boils down to what might be called the meta-clumpiness of the universe. That is, how much the clumpiness varies from place to place. If this value is sufficiently large, we may find that most of the universe is organized into regions where this clumpiness value is either very low or very high.
Don't know anything of value about endless space in time or tiny atoms which is why I am astonished by the possibility that voids actually exist. Perhaps than makes me a solid-block universalist in spirit.
I confess that I really like every time there's evidence that we may still be getting something fundamentally wrong. I think we need the reminder. As human knowledge and science has progressed so fast over such a short period of time, constantly rapidly forging ahead, and trying to make conclusions about the entire universe based on current knowledge (well what else can we do?), reminders like these that we may be getting something very fundamentally wrong are important to keeping us humble. We are after all a species who have only just begun to look at the universe and don't even have the capability to leave our own little tiny spec of planet to verify what's even out there in reality.
Gravity continues to illuminate us, with even more mysteries... Which is a bit strange, considering that it's probably the easiest known force to grasp 🤔 But also perhaps, gravity is the key, to unlocking the secrets of the Universe Itself. In any case, we are reminded once again, that perhaps some of our theories on gravity, are not as tight as once thought. Which is MUSIC to the ears of any budding Theoretical Physicist 😊
@@oberonpanopticon Indeed! I mean classically at least, gravity is quite easy to grasp. The mathematics of General Relativity are absolutely Beautiful! Which is why, among other things, Einstein deserves the recognition of Genius! And even if we do find a quantum flavour of gravity, his classical works, much like Newton's, will STILL be useful and valid! But yes, at least on the quantum level, Gravity still remains to be one of our Biggest of unsolved mysteries. Which, as I said, gets Physicists excited! I think people outside this field, have this erroneous perception that, anomalies in our understanding of the Universe is a bad thing! That couldn't be further from the Truth! Because it actually means that we learn something new, get a chance to refine our theories, and get another step closer on that long road called Human Progress 👍🏼
I wonder what people with that kind of curiosity will do after we’ve solved every problem in physics (if that’s possible). I like to imagine that they’ll try to find a second, equally consistent but totally different theory of everything. Jump forward by a billion years and our most far flung descendants are passing their time by seeing who can find a new theory of everything the fastest. There’s probably only one solution that explains the universe (or perhaps none at all), but it’s still fun to think about.
it proves they are not worth the money and respect they get if I as an architect would deliver such faulty work over and over I would be broke, but sure shove billions of dollars up their faulty equation delivering ass*s!!
@@supremeintrovert7404 If we survive the next 1000 years, our descendants will probably survive the next 100,000,000,000,000. But yea. Here’s hoping we keep up our track record of miraculously avoiding blowing ourselves up despite incredible odds against it.
@@supremeintrovert7404 Our star can't blow up. It dosen't have enough matter. For a star to be able to go super nova, it have to be about 8 times bigger than our star. when It comes to our star, it will expand then shrink in to a iron dwarf... given enough time, and nothing ellse happens to our star system. But this will happen on a unimaginably long time scale. Our star is still considered a werry young child if we would compare it to the length of a human life.
I suffer with terrible Galactic Winds My Black Hole's Regular Emmisions Tho' exotic, interact with gas pressure But just don't relieve my, Clumpy, S8 tension! 😊
What a wonderful and electrifying conundrum! Really wonder if they can find some fundamental and known physics to help them understand what is happening.
Condensed matter theory beyond the classic physics model, not a theory of quantum gravity, but a hypothesis describing forcing in specific density events has been a field of study from some time, I discussed with with a professor from Caltech. Something similar to freezing a carbonized soda but in a natural state, and when a triggering event pops the top of the soda expressing accelerated gases from the container.
What I like about the Perimeter Institute is that they are looking at alternatives to cosmic inflation to explain the first fractional seconds of the universe. not that there's anything necessarily wrong with it, but it would be nice to have a model that's testable.
I loved watching Neil Turok call out Alan Guth on his inflation model on stage for not being testable. I don’t know who is right, but it nice to see someone question these models
Alan guth himself has distanced himself from inflation as well. I don’t think it’s right but I don’t fully understand it well enough to give any alternative.
Imagine that we inhabit the surface of a bubble. We infer properties about surface tension, air, water, etc, and we develop theories that tell us bubbles should be perfectly spherical. But we observe our bubble, and we find traces that it's slightly non-spherical, and that its roundness has changed over time. At some point we have to start thinking that maybe the water we're in, isn't uniform. There are currents. There are drags. There may be things the water is flowing around. Perhaps there are fish.
Among the four forces, it’s almost always only gravity and the two nuclear force that’s being taken into consideration…I wonder why the models seem incomplete. Are the simulations missing something? 🤔
It seems very fishy to me that electromagnetic forces are not even considered (at least that's what I understood from Anton's remarks). I'm quite ready to believe that if you do all the calculations, the effect is negligeable... but you have to do the calculations first - i.e., include these phenomena in your model. I find it a little hard to believe that there is NO electromagnetic force acting on matter ANYWHERE AND AT ANY TIME in the history of the universe - which is the assumption that these modellers seem to be making, in my understanding. Happy to be corrected if need be.
It’s because our understanding of electromagnetism through QED is highly accurate. We completely understand electromagnetism and what it’s effects are capable of explaining. The other forces have much larger error bars and room for further undiscovered physics.
@@gravitonthongs1363, it’s great to know that electromagnetism is settled science and nothing more can be discovered from it. This is why, even though I sometimes doubt, I catch and stop myself from questioning the science. We just have to trust it.
@@OrdinaryCritic From what I can gather the attempt to add matter in (heating, cooling, emission etc.) is an attempt to add in these electromagnetic interactions - they do make the whole thing way more complicated and difficult to simulate so I don't think anyone could say the science is settled on this, regardless of how accurate QED is. Edited to add that it was only in the late 90s that Magnetars were confirmed as a large proportion of neutron stars so there is a lot of work here still.
@@OrdinaryCritic If no one questioned science we will be a century behind what we have now. Most of the progress comes from people that questioned the established opinion. It's normal in academia to have professors stick to something that's wrong, just because they are afraid that it will undermine their lifelong work and/or prestige. Or from pure stubbornness, not wanting to accept someone's opinion.
My feeling is that leaving magnetic fields out of the simulation might have been a mistake. A greater than expected influence from this quarter may eventually hold the keys to these tensions.
Yup, Electric Universe Theory (and its proponents) is kooky, but their criticism of the lack of electromagnetism in cosmological theories in on point. The fixation of gravity, while obviously a huge factor, is absurd.
@@paroxysm6437 Clearly they have considered it, but equally clearly they haven't yet found the solution to this unexpected reduction in clumpyness, or to the Hubble tension either. We have the MOND folk questioning gravity without much success, people postulating fifth forces various, we have galaxies that matured too early, dark matter that cannot be found and dark energy that apparently varies inexplicably. There have to be surprises somewhere, because our current knowledge is incomplete, and apparently contradictory. I'm just making a guess, just a feeling and I make no observational or modelled claims, that it is in the electromagnetic force that we will find the surprise, perhaps in the nature of it's split from the weak force. Guessing based on feelings is obviously not science, but then how much science do you expect to find in the TH-cam comments?
@@dougselby7592 The difference is that many people harping on electromagnetism as a major force are coming from one direction that has little to do with science, they want to fit the evidence around their theory and not vice versa. There is literally nobody there saying electromagnetism does not play a role at all, but to what extent it does is unclear. Certain followers of various pseudoscience factions, however, finally want to see their beloved electromagnetism playing that major role it deserves in their eyes. The researchers clearly say that dark matter doesn't explain all of it, which concedes to people accusing them constantly of bias towards dark matter, but that isn't a carte blanche for injecting another bias.
@@ArmchairMagpie Yes, you're quite right. The "Electric Universe" folks are quite accurately described by another commenter in this thread as "kooky". They're a bit similar to the Ancient Atlantis types, but then there's a kernel of truth even in that, a hidden surprise quite dissimilar to their literal claims that the ancients were more advanced than we are now, but something.
man the theory of gravity must be one of the few best proven unquestioned "we certainly know it" theories that regularly raises doubts. I'm glad that some scientists are willing to go back to the drawing board.
Dipole Electron Flood theory explains 100% of the Universe and it is all Biological as well as dipoles. S8 tension is simply the muon neutrinos attracting the electron neutrinos in the MEDIUM (not vacuum) of space which is saturated with dust and light particles creating Quantum foam. I have experiments that show the muons and electron neutrinos doing fission and fusion using pulsed lasers.
Every time more information is collected by increased observation, we find out just how ignorant we are. This has been true for every technological advance in this field.
I believe at large scales new forces emerge that we simply can’t notice at our levels. Gravity is so much weaker than say electromagnetism, what if there is a gravity to gravity? Additional but extremely weak forces that only work at very, very large scales.
I propose yet another factor to explain the discrepancy in the Universe. I call it "Dark Mark". It explains it all, just give me some time to ... Nevemind. this was so much food for thought in this video.
5:45 Approach it by by changing perspective from an expanding universe to a shrinking universe. If you take the position that the universe is shrinking or deflating, then much of the weird and missing physics begins to make sense. > P.S. I am confident that this perspective removes the need for the elusive dark energy :)
I'm stupid and even I know what's causing expansion and the fact that it's speeding up. Just think of an embryo, kind of getting ready to go pop than all of a sudden boom, or whaaaa, if you are an actual baby, and there you go, growing and expanding at a rapid rate but gradually slows getting closer to maturity. Not that different except on a bit of a bigger scale. Oh well, I had a go. Cheers Aussie James.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 have you ever heard the sentence that one day, an accelerated expansion might rip planets and even atoms apart? I think that expansion is happening everywhere. It's just very "weak" on short distances. You can't observe gravity inside an atom either. But you wouldn't say that gravity does not exist inside an atom. On small scales, we can't even observe gravity between atoms and molecules. Yet, planets can hold atmospheres. Same with expansion: it doesn't suddenly appear at a specific distance. We just can't observe it separately from other forces at small scales.
I wish, in real life, when I can't figure something out, that holographically-generated random equations could surround me in a small cloud. It's kind of similar to how I wish real life had a musical soundtrack.
Real life doe have a musical soundtrack. You just dont hear it, as you havent learnt how to properly lissen. Not all music is played by instruments or people singing. Music is all around us, when alone on the ocean, or far out in the woods. or in the busseling streets, or a cramped office. All the sounds arround us, makes a song few can hear, as we teach ourselfe to "Ignore" it. Lots of people feel uncomfortable going out in to forests as they claim "It's to silent". They have not learnt how to lissen. Forsts are full of sounds and music for those who lissen. See it as Lissening to an entire lecture, but not have heard a single thing of what the person in question had said. Forests are full of sounds from the wind, the leafs, birds, and and other forest critters, the tapping and snapping of old drie branches and twigs. If you learn to lissen, you can realize we are cossounded by beutifull songs everywhere.
Dark energy is yet to be discovered. It is only a concept that is used to explain existing observations. A bit like the prediction of neutrino way before it was directly observed.
How on earth do you find the time to create a new video everyday Anton? You're such an inspirational person. I hope kids watch this channel and are aiming to get into this field of study too.
The Universe only appears to be expanding. What if the Universe is the same size it always was and is in fact Bifurcating. Wouldn't the observable results look exactly the same.
If one were to "imagine/assume" a much larger Universe (and subsequently, much older), populated at roughly the same density as our current observable Hubble bubble, I am certain many of these cosmological inconsistencies would - disappear...
I fancy the Idea that : Some Cosmological "Constants", especially those that are measured by physical observations, Might be Locally(Specially and/or Temporally) constant, But on Bigger and Bigger Cosmic scale are very very slowly changing variables.
time slows around mass causing it to stretch outwards. and maintain connected to the time beyond the influence. expansion is the collective effect of mass slowing time. attracting more mass along the path of least resistance.
@@atticuswalker8970 So early universe was less stretched? so time was different then compared to what we see now? could that effect growth in the early universe? maybe being so compact time moved very fast everywhere?
@@Dylan_ISA the early universe had more uniform mass with simular frequency of quantum interactions. as the mass gathered . the difference caused more stretch. the mass drawn in by the difference left the space it was in . so the time in that space wasn't slowed down. and the space it moved into . made the time in that space go slower .
@@Dylan_ISA the very early universe. before mass formed expanded faster than the current speed of light. then inflation stopped as soon as mass formed. and didn't start expanding until the mass started clumping together. creating the dilation in time pushing outward to keep the different time connected. drawing more mass into less resistant time for movement. that's why the expansion is acelerating as the mass collects. causing more difference. requiring more stretch.
all these differences are there because the theories are based on distinct misconceptions starting with the idea that everything started out as a infinite dense point in space with no size.
@@patryn36 No it is not, and there is no assumption as everyone agrees that it's out of field. We have a physic up to a limit, and no physic after that limit because it could lead to the assumption you're talking about... or something else.
@@philippecoulonges4439 is that why general relativity breaks down once you pass the event horizon? Or why it fails to account for the stars' speed on the galactic outskirts? As for everyone agreeing, there is a term for that that perfectly describes a very good explanation for that: herd behavior. I can tell you why the hubble tension exists, they are not interpreting the data right for distances and speeds. As you look outwards, you look into the past so you see things as they were, that means things were moving faster in the past. Same for the clumping, things were closer together in the past so it makes sense they clumped more then they do now. I bet you and the rest still wonder where the antimatter is even though it is made in the sun, lightning strikes, a certain radioactive decay product, and the lhc. All those are made of normal matter and much lower energies than is supposed to generate antimatter out in space with gamma rays. The big bang was not a singularity, it was an object that exploded as a white hole and one day in our distant future the matter in the universe will most likely become that object again and repeat the process. Energy is the result of matter moving only, when any of you find an energy that does not have a particle in association then we can discuss what you all believe in a serious manner.
If I’m understanding this correctly, an increasing amount of “dark energy” would solve both tensions. I’ve long thought that “dark energy” was just light. We say that as the universe expands, light is stretched which lowers the energy of those photons, but what if it was the other way round and it’s the energy from those photons that stretches the universe apart? No one has ever been able to tell me how much of the energy in the universe is light. Also, as the universe evolves, isn’t more and more energy converted from matter into light?
To be honest its makes much more sense that different parts of the universe are expanding at different speeds, gravity is also pulling on galaxies by other larger galaxies, and yet again by even bigger galaxies, but the only Cosmic microwave background that we can detect is in the observable universe, we don't actually know how big the whole universe is, so dating the universe from only this info will only give us a rough educated guess to the minimum age for the universe
It is time for astronomers and physics to admit that their model of the universe is in shambles. They need a fundamentally new model, like GR replaced Newton, and not only try to fit every new anomaly in it with ad hoch theories and assumptions on top of other ad hoch theories.
Naw it works great. There's some areas of tension but they are all issues with our understanding of the early universe. And our understanding of the early universe has no impact on any practical matter, so there's no harm in keeping calm and learning more. And the early universe is the part of physics we know the least about so it makes sense to keep studying those ares. Rushing to conclusions is incredibly premature. If something needs to be fixed a fix will be found, but for now there's no reason to start over.
@@j.f.fisher5318 And I say no, you are simply wrong, and it is very easy to perceive. And you can't expect GR to hold water in all respects, or predict exactly every phenomenon correct, once we finally reach a GUT and TOE. That is also very easy to understand. Trolls like the "commentator" above deny it, of course.
My old university still building ridiculous supercomputers just for the physics department. It’s pronounced closer to ‘du-ram’ with the ‘u’ the same as the one in ‘up’ :)
Its funny how you did not mention how the outer universe maybe a place where the inner universe is falling into In other words a much larger gravity in the outer compared to the inner
There are so much crisis in cosmology, particle physics, quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology etc. - it's a miracle that anyone can claim we understand anything.
I think a further study of potential Higgs field variations near and in black holes could be of (mathematical) interest to all the strange things we observe. There one could look into energy interactions with this field (related also to dark matter and another dimension?). Cheers, and thanks for great videos!👍🌟🙂
The cold string black hole singulrity explosion is the origin of the early clumpiness and the string evaporation of the growing oscillating space frame vacuum. See Q.FFF MODEL.
Technically its opinion that dust bunnies look like bunnies. They could be anything like how people see diffy things in clouds . But if random shaped dust bunnies and clouds form some round and random movements and collisions became predictable orbits of stufv form from dust bunnies around predictable bigger rounders things formed from clouds. Wouldn't that violate entropy. Going from discord to order. Then again in retrospect retrospect itself violates entropy
If the universe started off with a wabbit (or rwo) then it would make sense there should be some comological trace left over time. Dust bunnies are our undeniable proof. Both in the cosmos and under the sofa.
Gravity attracts things. Things being separate creates potential energy, reducing entropy. Things coming together reduce potential energy and increase entropy. Same with electrostatic forces that make small things stick together like dust bunnies and the particles that cling to the fibers of N95 masks.
To the best of my understanding from a lot of science communicators, it seems likely that electromagnetism is currently heavily underappreciated in universal simulation models. It seems like simulating that force may be complex and expensive, but could very well be necessary to be able to fully confirm these apparent contradictions
If the big bang was an explosion from a single point, we should see different rates of expansion depending on which direction we look because we are not in the center of the universe.
We _are_ in the exact center of the universe though. Just like you are standing at the center of the earth's spherical surface. All those lines on the earth are just arbitrary conveniences - you are literally in the center of that surface with the same distance stretching away in every direction. Same with the universe, but it's 3D not 2D. Everything emerged together and is expanding together so everything is the center.
So insane that these scientists just calculate this kinda shit and then go on and fine explanations for observations that seem off. Theoretical physicists are truly the pioneers of understanding the universe, SO COOL
The clumping maybe simulates waves around many black holes. Go to your sink, fill it up, start draining it and stir once. Add some different color dye. Black hole.
No worries... This is cosmology, so even though nobody can explain it, I'm confident that the cosmologists will soon find a highly speculative explanation that they will confirm by their usual process of speaking about it as if it is a known fact, repeatedly, and then writing books about it until the public accepts it as a scientific truth.
I think by now we've realised that when they simulate the climate, they know not to trust the models. So why are they trusting the models for the entire universe?
Expanding the mathematical models of the universe to accommodate new observations and then looking for physical observations that match the model reminds me of climatologists plugging in a lot of data and fitting a curve and then being disappointed when another decade of chaotic weather data doesn't match their model. Just because your computer can fit a curve to your data doesn't mean you understand anything. At best, it hints at some observations that might lead to more understanding.
3:50 I wish these were better, longer. I mean, usually they will have a computer simulation where stars move and bounce around swirling all over the screen... But how long is that? 1,000 years? 100,000 years? They never let it go on for billions. They never make stars explode and reform. It's really very inaccurate.
That's why I watch this channel! We get updates on everything even when there's no explanation. Then on top of that we can go to a site that explains that there's no explanation! Oh my what a tangled web we weave if at first we practice to deceive. Not that I would blame wonderful person Anton but I would blame those blind people with their limited senses trying to give an explanation of the cosmic manifestation we are part of but could never create nor fully understand & never mind explaining. The old case of the blind trying to lead other blind people. I take full knowledge from the Vedas which to many a scholars consternation is actually older than they surmise (again with their limited senses) and does give a full explanation as to what this is and why its here and what we're here for. Want to know? Vedabase.
Hubble tension could simply be a consequence of how dark energy is generated (assuming it does actually exist). If it's produced by collections of matter, then as matter clumps, more dark energy will be produced in those locations and cause faster acceleration. The same is true if dark energy is a by-product of voids, with virtual particles more frequently appearing there in line with the 'nature abhors a vacuum' idea. As for this S8 problem, what would be consequence of the initial rapid inflation of the universe suddenly slowing down? And then, WHY DID IT SLOW DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE? If spacetime inflation can vastly exceed the speed of light, what is the mechanism by which that inflation can slow? Should not the 'denser' spacetime in the early universe imply a difference in the force of gravity at that time, given gravity itself is proving to be nothing more than the 'denting' of spacetime by mass? There is much we do not have any explanation for, and perhaps that is due to us not truly understanding how the basic founding principles of the universe may have behaved when it was much smaller.
What if Time is not constant... When we look back in time at stars many light years away, time was just faster. But now that our seconds are slower, looking at that old data instead it looks like space expansion is just speeding up. That is why it's the 'acceleration' looks uniform in every direction as no matter where across the universe you the time is faster when the light from that star was emitted 100 million years ago.
First obvious question: do these two tensions get along with each other? Do the apparent changes happen within a reasonable margin of error in terms of time/distance? If so, the next obvious thing is to identify the temmporal range, and study galaxies and clusters at the corresponding light-distance, for clues or whathaveyou.
Our universe was created by a reality shift from 2nd to 3rd. Think of a two dimensional plane coated with gunpowder and lit at a single point. As it "burned" and spreads, reality changed and so did the matter. Equal distribution of matter conversion, but the density (surface area) becomes greater over time exponentially. Think of an expanding box and have energy bounce around. Eventually it's so large the matter converted doesn't interact as efficiently, but if you look back in time, things will be more dense.
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #7 SS9 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MFDRhuT4RAg/mqdefault.jpg)
I was trying to sleep. Then there was a cosmological crisis..
👍
So it was your fault!!!
It's why we have Anton. To keep us informed when it comes up!
😂
Sounds like a job for.......SPACE FORCE! 😂
Gravity is bitchin'
Mass curves spacetime. We experience this curvature as gravity. When you wave your hand it creates gravitational waves.
Space and time are as real as a shadow if a shadow is the absence of light what is space the absence of ?
@@anthonyowen6204 oh, but you wouldn't see a shadow if there wasn't a single photon left in your universe. Moreover there wouldn't be any shadow.
Absence of light are quite strong words.
Gravity on that crazy wrap spacetime darkness pack
Yes no photons no shadows think about a second
"Reworked once again". I firmly believe the problem is "epicircle"-esque.
We've got something very basic VERY wrong, and have built up convoluted theories & explanations, and keep tweaking them to try to make them work.
It's likely something we're so indoctrinated to believe, we don't even consider challenging it.
Exactly right
Science is always like that, what option is better?
Even when all the gravity models of anything larger than a solar system was disproved, they just used their imagination.
As if the universe gives a shit about peoples emotional attachment to certain forces of nature.
Dark matter is not science in any way or form.
@@ThePowerLover
Dark matter is not science.
Neither is dark energy.
Just untestable nonsense made up so that astronomers and cosmologists don't have to question their BS dogma.
Everyone has faith in something
I dont see it as a crisis. It just means there is still more for us to learn which I find wonderful.
It never ends, thankfully
I have a cosmological crisis.
If we're now seeing the furthest galaxies as they were 13 billion years ago, how comes 2 billion years after the big bang we were seeing those much closer galaxies as they were then (given the smaller intervening space light had to travel)? That implies that over the intervening 11 billion years, they haven't appeared to age and in fact appear younger? Is there something fundamental I'm not seeing, because that is perplexing?
The problem is when we keep learning different things depending on how we measure the same thing, which is a problem when we learn everything by measuring it.
@@skateboardingjesus4006 Why do galaxies being closer in the past imply that they’ve appeared to get younger since then?
No, for people like you it's not a crisis, it's more opportunity to invent some "super mysterious fairy energy" to make your failing theories still give correct predictions after the fact.
I've always wondered does the universe spin? I mean everything in it spins, so does it also spin? And if it does how does that affect its properties?
According to the cosmological principle, the universe is isotropic. If it spins, there would be a preferential direction which contradicts the principle. Everything in the universe spins in different directions and the total angular momentum must be zero.
Can there be a centrifugal force employed through a spinning? We would need something outside the universe relative to the rotation to make that possible right?
And what is it spinning around...
Maybe there is something into separate multiverse bubbles after all like some talking heads and physicists think.
@@pereloupallegedly
good question , and kinda makes original question sounds ridiculous xD @@MW-cx3sb
So, just checking, this indicates that the drop from 0.8159 to our current and locally-observed 0.7xx leads to less clumpiness now and that this decrement only kicked in relatively recently? That is indeed wonderfully mysterious! Wow!
Thank you, Anton. You, sir, are a wonderful person.
I absolutely love times like these. They allow for new ideas, and new perspectives.
And what's good about "new ideas" and "new perspectives"
@@goyonman9655 Because my friend, it brings us closer to the truth.
@@ogwarfthedawf
Wrong
New ideas are as likely to take us away from "tRuTh" as to bring us nearer
There is nothing meritorious in in the fact that a Idea is new
@@goyonman9655 As I am today, I would say that to understand the true nature of the universe, you have to be open to change and new ideas. There's nuggets of gold in every idea. Life, the universe and everything is the greatest puzzle of all-time, our understanding of physics and science as a whole represesents our attempts to solve it! We've solved most of the puzzle that we can see, touch and feel, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the puzzle is hidden, speculative! Not black or white, but ultra-violet!
So it ultimately depends on how badly you want to know the answer.
I think it's pretty fun though, even if I'm wrong; it's a mistake I can learn from. A new experience from which new ideas can are born.
LOL minor spelling mistake!! 🤣
It's amazing how much of cosmology is "we saw something unexpected, are our models wrong?" "Nah, just add dark energy/matter and call it resolved".
Spot on. That's so lazy. Unbelievable they've gotten away with it for so long
This reminds me of the joke about scientists in the 20th century:
"Are your models of the universe wrong? Just add another dimension."
Arkhams razor. "The simplest explanation is usually the best one" Aka. we got somthing wrong at some point, and instead of trying to figure out what/where we fucked up, we instead invent new stuff to "avoid" dealing with it.
Odds are that what ever we fucked up is simple and easy to miss, or just a miniscule factor we forgot to add or tweak to/in the equations, and once "Scaled up" works to a certain point then starts to cause problems.
I'm shit at math, so i can't partake in that part of the discussion. But i know math well enough that the more complex the equation needed, the easier it is to miss something, which can cause the entire thing to give you a semi working solution that seams to be correct, but in fact isen't.
It's a bit like spitting in the ocean, and proclaim you have increased it's volume. It's partly correct, but you also need to factor in the evaporation of moisture, and rain elswhere. thusly making said luggie completely meaningless in the grand equation in this case.
Finally new theories, new findings, I am so curious what comes next. Variable Gravity? Maybe it goes from one state to another in billions of years? ✌
Of course ❤
I can't weight!
Like a breathing organism. Going from Big Bang to Big Bang. Imagine that
Maybe gravity is like a spring or rubber band? Negative or repulsive until the universe gets to a neutral expansion point and then gradually increasingly attractive until another end point before the universe collapses back in an eternal oscillation. Maybe its like a hookes constant or something?
Why does gravity have to be a constant? Maybe it just appears to be at this point in time and gradually getting stronger over millions or billions of years until it arrests the expansion of the universe and reverses it. Then as the universe collapses gravity gets progressively less attractive until it goes through the neutral point and then gets progressively more repulsive as the universe shrinks back to the big bang point where it reverses yet again.
May sound daft but it gets rid of the need for. Bogus non proven fudge factors such as dark matter which begat dark energy because it doesn't work. And as far as I can tell dark energy doesn't work satisfactorily either so will need another dark fudge of some sort. Make gravity variable and maybe you won't need any of the fudge dark or otherwise.
Bless you Anton for bringing so many amazing and informative videos but please also take good care of yourself.
@BernieGore-fs2is his smile at the end looks like someone still trying to cope with a lot of sadness to me. If you have followed this channel for any length of time you'll understand why that should be.
Just the typical NPC comment when a video is released. Sabine H, Matt O'D. Arvin A. etc also have the same kinds of 'first comments'. They tend to garner 'likes' so monkey see, monkey do. @BernieGore-fs2is Yes he's had a loss, and we don't know how he's coping with that, but that's not the reason for the cheesy grin at the end lol he does that all the time.
Thanks for teaching us Anton. Anton > Neil on DeGrass Thiessen. Love ❤️ Anton 2:40
@edit4310 spoken like a true incel
This is crazy. It is always good to see crisis in physics/cosmology so we can advance our understanding.
Anton stays on the edge of discovery! Really potent! ❤
Cosmological Crisis would be a great band name.
"Did gravity change" or do scientist simply not know everything but have ran under the assunption that they do know everything for years. At some point they forgot that "I don't know" is a valid answer.
Most likely we missed somthing werry small but obviously important thing in our equations, and once scaled enough it breaks the "working" molds.
Or maybe its aliens fucking with us. (i'm not serious)
You know the fishbowl theory? Where a advanced alien civilisation is observing us like we observe a fish in a bowl. But the aliens decided to fuck with us, and tweaking the things we see. Making us go "WHAT THE FUCK!?!" while they laugh their arses off. A bit like how we humans mess with zoo animals.
TY Anton for showing us that the universe is once again proving itself stranger than we currently can imagine.
Real people don’t like Anton. Remove the bots and he is a nobody.
Thanks Anton, very interesting. We will have to see how much S8 tension is left over once the models include the much higher average density of the galaxies were we get strong hints at the moment in that direction and the calculations are adapted to this. If i remember correct even this channel made a video about using high energy gamma reys and the influence which plasma clouds have on them, which pointed in the direction of much denser galaxies then actual calculations are using.
Not only the videos but also the comments are more interesting than other TH-cam channels. Thanks Anton for helping me keep my brain active
TH-cam has down that I reported your video for misinformation! I did not, I don't know what their problem is.
Flat earther 😂
TH-cam has been giving me notices about spamming. I've never spammed any comments in my life. TH-cam is sketchy
Damn!...I don't feel so bad now. I got blocked for 23 hrs for....get ready..." Spamming, Misinformation, and Scamming) 😂
Like we don't know who the actual scammers are?😮
@BernieGore-fs2is what has a vaccine got to do with the earth's shape?
@BernieGore-fs2is ok, back to your box now.
Anton you should be at 3mil+ subs by now Thanks for all you do
Physics holds up in the middle. But first we had a problem on the very small side and now the very large side. So I think it's going to be another field of physics that solves this, like quantum physics did.
This calls for a $25M grant. Since you proposed it, would you be willing to undertake this 50-year quest?
@@richardkammerer2814I'll certainly take a crack at it for the money involved 😂
Solved: See Nassim Haramein
It's a great time to be alive to witness all the scientific discoveries that seem to come at us daily... And to have Anton here to bring attention to and explain all these discoveries to us... Anton is the penultimate Wonderful Person...
My life would be decidedly worse without Anton, in this regard,
He sure is!
The more we discover, the less we know?
It’s truly amazing how humans have studied and explained our world from the smallest elementary particles to the edge of the universe. But as a species, we seem closer now to a “big bang” annihilation of our own making because we can’t figure out how to live together. But yes, Anton reduces my “tension” just by hearing his voice!
U mean second to none right?
Phenomenal episode, thank you, Anton.
A parallel universe either approached us and whisked by a few billions years ago is what influenced into our universe via gravity (huge) and declumping as observed in our universe
It’s the human condition - the more one learns about any subject, the more one understands that we understand nothing about that subject. That’s why I try not to know too much about anything. 😺 On a related note, very impressive that you can intelligently converse about so many highly complicated subjects.
I remember once, witnessing two river merges... one being mainly flesh water in composition, while the other being mainly salt water, with the latter being influenced via a king tide from the estuary/ocean mouth. At the interconnecting points along these merging zones, eddies formed, with very unusual laminar flow patterns... some slow by way of high resistance, while others, were akin to white water rapids. Could this be a similar pattern of behaviour that our Universe may be experiencing? In that, instead of merging rivers... a similar result happens, with merging Universes, that's causing these strange varying expansion rates, caused by varying resistance points at these intermingling fronts of these opposing Universes? I may wrong though... just a thought?🤔
What’s flesh water? Sounds gross
If the universe is stretching faster in some areas than others, it could be analogous to a still pond with rain drops falling in it, causing ripples in spacetime?
It seems evident to me that because of this and other measurements, the Milky Way along with the rest of the local group lives within an unusually low density area of the universe. I am not sufficiently mathematically trained to be able to calculate the chances of this happening, but the existence of enormous voids (e.g. the Bootes void) indicates that could happen by random chance. While this might be statistically extremely unlikely from the standpoint of a single area, the question boils down to what might be called the meta-clumpiness of the universe. That is, how much the clumpiness varies from place to place. If this value is sufficiently large, we may find that most of the universe is organized into regions where this clumpiness value is either very low or very high.
The gravity of neighbour-universes may be a bit of a spanner in the works.
Don't know anything of value about endless space in time or tiny atoms which is why I am astonished by the possibility that voids actually exist. Perhaps than makes me a solid-block universalist in spirit.
Ancient people loved the Boötes constellation for some reason.
I thought we already knew about cosmic web. So the universe is relatively full of voids, and filaments. Which involves matter/energy densities.
We're in a massive mixing bowl trying to achieve a homogeneous mixture
I confess that I really like every time there's evidence that we may still be getting something fundamentally wrong. I think we need the reminder. As human knowledge and science has progressed so fast over such a short period of time, constantly rapidly forging ahead, and trying to make conclusions about the entire universe based on current knowledge (well what else can we do?), reminders like these that we may be getting something very fundamentally wrong are important to keeping us humble. We are after all a species who have only just begun to look at the universe and don't even have the capability to leave our own little tiny spec of planet to verify what's even out there in reality.
Hello Wonderful Anton! Thank-you for all you do.
Gravity continues to illuminate us, with even more mysteries... Which is a bit strange, considering that it's probably the easiest known force to grasp 🤔
But also perhaps, gravity is the key, to unlocking the secrets of the Universe Itself.
In any case, we are reminded once again, that perhaps some of our theories on gravity, are not as tight as once thought. Which is MUSIC to the ears of any budding Theoretical Physicist 😊
Maybe it’s just the easiest force to think you grasp
@@oberonpanopticon lol agreed. No one has a clue what is gravity
@@Nat-oj2uc If only we all had vivid imaginations and worked in Swiss patent offices…
@@oberonpanopticon Indeed! I mean classically at least, gravity is quite easy to grasp. The mathematics of General Relativity are absolutely Beautiful! Which is why, among other things, Einstein deserves the recognition of Genius!
And even if we do find a quantum flavour of gravity, his classical works, much like Newton's, will STILL be useful and valid!
But yes, at least on the quantum level, Gravity still remains to be one of our Biggest of unsolved mysteries. Which, as I said, gets Physicists excited!
I think people outside this field, have this erroneous perception that, anomalies in our understanding of the Universe is a bad thing! That couldn't be further from the Truth! Because it actually means that we learn something new, get a chance to refine our theories, and get another step closer on that long road called Human Progress 👍🏼
@@sdwone Being wrong is (sometimes) the most exciting thing in science
These aren't problems, these are the unsolved questions keeping physists employed!
I wonder what people with that kind of curiosity will do after we’ve solved every problem in physics (if that’s possible).
I like to imagine that they’ll try to find a second, equally consistent but totally different theory of everything. Jump forward by a billion years and our most far flung descendants are passing their time by seeing who can find a new theory of everything the fastest.
There’s probably only one solution that explains the universe (or perhaps none at all), but it’s still fun to think about.
it proves they are not worth the money and respect they get
if I as an architect would deliver such faulty work over and over I would be broke, but sure shove billions of dollars up their faulty equation delivering ass*s!!
@@oberonpanopticonright... If humans even exist long enough to find out before the sun blows up!
@@supremeintrovert7404 If we survive the next 1000 years, our descendants will probably survive the next 100,000,000,000,000. But yea. Here’s hoping we keep up our track record of miraculously avoiding blowing ourselves up despite incredible odds against it.
@@supremeintrovert7404 Our star can't blow up. It dosen't have enough matter. For a star to be able to go super nova, it have to be about 8 times bigger than our star. when It comes to our star, it will expand then shrink in to a iron dwarf... given enough time, and nothing ellse happens to our star system. But this will happen on a unimaginably long time scale. Our star is still considered a werry young child if we would compare it to the length of a human life.
I suffer with terrible Galactic Winds
My Black Hole's Regular Emmisions
Tho' exotic, interact with gas pressure
But just don't relieve my, Clumpy, S8 tension! 😊
What a wonderful and electrifying conundrum! Really wonder if they can find some fundamental and known physics to help them understand what is happening.
See what you did there ;-)
Condensed matter theory beyond the classic physics model, not a theory of quantum gravity, but a hypothesis describing forcing in specific density events has been a field of study from some time, I discussed with with a professor from Caltech. Something similar to freezing a carbonized soda but in a natural state, and when a triggering event pops the top of the soda expressing accelerated gases from the container.
Mountain Dew
to the rescue.
What I like about the Perimeter Institute is that they are looking at alternatives to cosmic inflation to explain the first fractional seconds of the universe. not that there's anything necessarily wrong with it, but it would be nice to have a model that's testable.
I loved watching Neil Turok call out Alan Guth on his inflation model on stage for not being testable. I don’t know who is right, but it nice to see someone question these models
Alan guth himself has distanced himself from inflation as well. I don’t think it’s right but I don’t fully understand it well enough to give any alternative.
Imagine that we inhabit the surface of a bubble. We infer properties about surface tension, air, water, etc, and we develop theories that tell us bubbles should be perfectly spherical. But we observe our bubble, and we find traces that it's slightly non-spherical, and that its roundness has changed over time. At some point we have to start thinking that maybe the water we're in, isn't uniform. There are currents. There are drags. There may be things the water is flowing around. Perhaps there are fish.
Among the four forces, it’s almost always only gravity and the two nuclear force that’s being taken into consideration…I wonder why the models seem incomplete. Are the simulations missing something? 🤔
It seems very fishy to me that electromagnetic forces are not even considered (at least that's what I understood from Anton's remarks). I'm quite ready to believe that if you do all the calculations, the effect is negligeable... but you have to do the calculations first - i.e., include these phenomena in your model. I find it a little hard to believe that there is NO electromagnetic force acting on matter ANYWHERE AND AT ANY TIME in the history of the universe - which is the assumption that these modellers seem to be making, in my understanding. Happy to be corrected if need be.
It’s because our understanding of electromagnetism through QED is highly accurate. We completely understand electromagnetism and what it’s effects are capable of explaining. The other forces have much larger error bars and room for further undiscovered physics.
@@gravitonthongs1363, it’s great to know that electromagnetism is settled science and nothing more can be discovered from it. This is why, even though I sometimes doubt, I catch and stop myself from questioning the science. We just have to trust it.
@@OrdinaryCritic From what I can gather the attempt to add matter in (heating, cooling, emission etc.) is an attempt to add in these electromagnetic interactions - they do make the whole thing way more complicated and difficult to simulate so I don't think anyone could say the science is settled on this, regardless of how accurate QED is. Edited to add that it was only in the late 90s that Magnetars were confirmed as a large proportion of neutron stars so there is a lot of work here still.
@@OrdinaryCritic If no one questioned science we will be a century behind what we have now. Most of the progress comes from people that questioned the established opinion. It's normal in academia to have professors stick to something that's wrong, just because they are afraid that it will undermine their lifelong work and/or prestige. Or from pure stubbornness, not wanting to accept someone's opinion.
This guy rizzed up the algorithm real good
My feeling is that leaving magnetic fields out of the simulation might have been a mistake. A greater than expected influence from this quarter may eventually hold the keys to these tensions.
Yup, Electric Universe Theory (and its proponents) is kooky, but their criticism of the lack of electromagnetism in cosmological theories in on point. The fixation of gravity, while obviously a huge factor, is absurd.
@@paroxysm6437 Lol look at this cultist.
@@paroxysm6437 Clearly they have considered it, but equally clearly they haven't yet found the solution to this unexpected reduction in clumpyness, or to the Hubble tension either.
We have the MOND folk questioning gravity without much success, people postulating fifth forces various, we have galaxies that matured too early, dark matter that cannot be found and dark energy that apparently varies inexplicably. There have to be surprises somewhere, because our current knowledge is incomplete, and apparently contradictory.
I'm just making a guess, just a feeling and I make no observational or modelled claims, that it is in the electromagnetic force that we will find the surprise, perhaps in the nature of it's split from the weak force. Guessing based on feelings is obviously not science, but then how much science do you expect to find in the TH-cam comments?
@@dougselby7592 The difference is that many people harping on electromagnetism as a major force are coming from one direction that has little to do with science, they want to fit the evidence around their theory and not vice versa. There is literally nobody there saying electromagnetism does not play a role at all, but to what extent it does is unclear. Certain followers of various pseudoscience factions, however, finally want to see their beloved electromagnetism playing that major role it deserves in their eyes. The researchers clearly say that dark matter doesn't explain all of it, which concedes to people accusing them constantly of bias towards dark matter, but that isn't a carte blanche for injecting another bias.
@@ArmchairMagpie Yes, you're quite right. The "Electric Universe" folks are quite accurately described by another commenter in this thread as "kooky".
They're a bit similar to the Ancient Atlantis types, but then there's a kernel of truth even in that, a hidden surprise quite dissimilar to their literal claims that the ancients were more advanced than we are now, but something.
man the theory of gravity must be one of the few best proven unquestioned "we certainly know it" theories that regularly raises doubts.
I'm glad that some scientists are willing to go back to the drawing board.
As Anton spoke, I felt the Universe pulling away from me.
Was it something I said?
Yes. We didn’t want to tell you. In fact it’s accelerating.
Sorry, I pulled away because I didn’t want to get pregnant.
@@yggdrasil4986 ... We never just talk anymore... tell me, are you seeing another Universe?
Dipole Electron Flood theory explains 100% of the Universe and it is all Biological as well as dipoles. S8 tension is simply the muon neutrinos attracting the electron neutrinos in the MEDIUM (not vacuum) of space which is saturated with dust and light particles creating Quantum foam. I have experiments that show the muons and electron neutrinos doing fission and fusion using pulsed lasers.
Does it only expand if it's being observed?
Every time more information is collected by increased observation, we find out just how ignorant we are. This has been true for every technological advance in this field.
I believe at large scales new forces emerge that we simply can’t notice at our levels. Gravity is so much weaker than say electromagnetism, what if there is a gravity to gravity? Additional but extremely weak forces that only work at very, very large scales.
It's almost as if the universe is bound together as part of a single interconnected whole, who's forces are beyond our meager comprehension... 💭
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 😊
When clumpy burns out or collapses into itself it wouldn't look so clumpy anymore.
I propose yet another factor to explain the discrepancy in the Universe. I call it "Dark Mark". It explains it all, just give me some time to ... Nevemind. this was so much food for thought in this video.
Lol
5:45 Approach it by by changing perspective from an expanding universe to a shrinking universe. If you take the position that the universe is shrinking or deflating, then much of the weird and missing physics begins to make sense.
>
P.S. I am confident that this perspective removes the need for the elusive dark energy :)
This is a superb channel. Love it ❤
I'm stupid and even I know what's causing expansion and the fact that it's speeding up. Just think of an embryo, kind of getting ready to go pop than all of a sudden boom, or whaaaa, if you are an actual baby, and there you go, growing and expanding at a rapid rate but gradually slows getting closer to maturity. Not that different except on a bit of a bigger scale. Oh well, I had a go. Cheers Aussie James.
You can't separate expansion and gravity. You can always only experience and observe a combination of both.
Expansion is not happening within the galaxy because of gravity. Expansion is occurring in intergalactic space.
@douglaswilkinson5700 expanding into what tho?
@@jajupa78 get back in line. One unanswerable mystery at a time please
@@douglaswilkinson5700 have you ever heard the sentence that one day, an accelerated expansion might rip planets and even atoms apart? I think that expansion is happening everywhere. It's just very "weak" on short distances.
You can't observe gravity inside an atom either. But you wouldn't say that gravity does not exist inside an atom.
On small scales, we can't even observe gravity between atoms and molecules. Yet, planets can hold atmospheres.
Same with expansion: it doesn't suddenly appear at a specific distance. We just can't observe it separately from other forces at small scales.
@@jajupa78 Space is not expanding into anything. It's creating space as it expands.
I wish, in real life, when I can't figure something out, that holographically-generated random equations could surround me in a small cloud. It's kind of similar to how I wish real life had a musical soundtrack.
Real life doe have a musical soundtrack. You just dont hear it, as you havent learnt how to properly lissen.
Not all music is played by instruments or people singing. Music is all around us, when alone on the ocean, or far out in the woods. or in the busseling streets, or a cramped office.
All the sounds arround us, makes a song few can hear, as we teach ourselfe to "Ignore" it.
Lots of people feel uncomfortable going out in to forests as they claim "It's to silent". They have not learnt how to lissen. Forsts are full of sounds and music for those who lissen.
See it as Lissening to an entire lecture, but not have heard a single thing of what the person in question had said. Forests are full of sounds from the wind, the leafs, birds, and and other forest critters, the tapping and snapping of old drie branches and twigs. If you learn to lissen, you can realize we are cossounded by beutifull songs everywhere.
Dark energy is yet to be discovered. It is only a concept that is used to explain existing observations. A bit like the prediction of neutrino way before it was directly observed.
Ah, someone who understands. Dark energy is "an observable effect for which a cause has not yet been found."
Again more questions than answers. Now some of the old answers might be wrong!
Gee, thanks Anton!
How on earth do you find the time to create a new video everyday Anton? You're such an inspirational person. I hope kids watch this channel and are aiming to get into this field of study too.
I hope I can be alive when all of this is figured out, with the exponential growth of our technology I think I may have a chance to see it.
The Universe only appears to be expanding. What if the Universe is the same size it always was and is in fact Bifurcating. Wouldn't the observable results look exactly the same.
0:05 I was waiting for the Tom Hanks -- "Houston, we have a problem." line lol
If one were to "imagine/assume" a much larger Universe (and subsequently, much older), populated at roughly the same density as our current observable Hubble bubble, I am certain many of these cosmological inconsistencies would - disappear...
A shame that’d create more problems than it’d solve.
@@oberonpanopticon Please elucidate...
I fancy the Idea that :
Some Cosmological "Constants", especially those that are measured by physical observations, Might be Locally(Specially and/or Temporally) constant, But on Bigger and Bigger Cosmic scale are very very slowly changing variables.
I'm really curious, is there "stretching" while expanding? if so how would(if at all) that effect Time?
Yes. It's not space and time. It's spacetime. Mass curves spacetime so the time aspect is also affected. (cf Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity)
time slows around mass causing it to stretch outwards. and maintain connected to the time beyond the influence. expansion is the collective effect of mass slowing time. attracting more mass along the path of least resistance.
@@atticuswalker8970 So early universe was less stretched? so time was different then compared to what we see now? could that effect growth in the early universe? maybe being so compact time moved very fast everywhere?
@@Dylan_ISA the early universe had more uniform mass with simular frequency of quantum interactions. as the mass gathered . the difference caused more stretch. the mass drawn in by the difference left the space it was in . so the time in that space wasn't slowed down. and the space it moved into . made the time in that space go slower .
@@Dylan_ISA the very early universe. before mass formed expanded faster than the current speed of light. then inflation stopped as soon as mass formed. and didn't start expanding until the mass started clumping together. creating the dilation in time pushing outward to keep the different time connected. drawing more mass into less resistant time for movement. that's why the expansion is acelerating as the mass collects. causing more difference. requiring more stretch.
I think we will be guessing until we actually know for shore Keep up the good work Anton
all these differences are there because the theories are based on distinct misconceptions starting with the idea that everything started out as a infinite dense point in space with no size.
The no size part is not part of the assumption
@@DrDeuteron yes it is and it is part of the massive flaw of the supposed thinking.
@@patryn36 No it is not, and there is no assumption as everyone agrees that it's out of field. We have a physic up to a limit, and no physic after that limit because it could lead to the assumption you're talking about... or something else.
@@philippecoulonges4439 is that why general relativity breaks down once you pass the event horizon? Or why it fails to account for the stars' speed on the galactic outskirts? As for everyone agreeing, there is a term for that that perfectly describes a very good explanation for that: herd behavior. I can tell you why the hubble tension exists, they are not interpreting the data right for distances and speeds. As you look outwards, you look into the past so you see things as they were, that means things were moving faster in the past. Same for the clumping, things were closer together in the past so it makes sense they clumped more then they do now. I bet you and the rest still wonder where the antimatter is even though it is made in the sun, lightning strikes, a certain radioactive decay product, and the lhc. All those are made of normal matter and much lower energies than is supposed to generate antimatter out in space with gamma rays. The big bang was not a singularity, it was an object that exploded as a white hole and one day in our distant future the matter in the universe will most likely become that object again and repeat the process. Energy is the result of matter moving only, when any of you find an energy that does not have a particle in association then we can discuss what you all believe in a serious manner.
I agree. I sometimes have a problem with gravity.
If I’m understanding this correctly, an increasing amount of “dark energy” would solve both tensions. I’ve long thought that “dark energy” was just light. We say that as the universe expands, light is stretched which lowers the energy of those photons, but what if it was the other way round and it’s the energy from those photons that stretches the universe apart? No one has ever been able to tell me how much of the energy in the universe is light. Also, as the universe evolves, isn’t more and more energy converted from matter into light?
To be honest its makes much more sense that different parts of the universe are expanding at different speeds, gravity is also pulling on galaxies by other larger galaxies, and yet again by even bigger galaxies, but the only Cosmic microwave background that we can detect is in the observable universe, we don't actually know how big the whole universe is, so dating the universe from only this info will only give us a rough educated guess to the minimum age for the universe
It is time for astronomers and physics to admit that their model of the universe is in shambles. They need a fundamentally new model, like GR replaced Newton, and not only try to fit every new anomaly in it with ad hoch theories and assumptions on top of other ad hoch theories.
No it's time you stop blindly speculating.
@@blokin5039 It is time for a prejudiced blabber like you to stop blabbering nonsense.
Naw it works great. There's some areas of tension but they are all issues with our understanding of the early universe. And our understanding of the early universe has no impact on any practical matter, so there's no harm in keeping calm and learning more. And the early universe is the part of physics we know the least about so it makes sense to keep studying those ares. Rushing to conclusions is incredibly premature. If something needs to be fixed a fix will be found, but for now there's no reason to start over.
@@j.f.fisher5318 And I say no, you are simply wrong, and it is very easy to perceive. And you can't expect GR to hold water in all respects, or predict exactly every phenomenon correct, once we finally reach a GUT and TOE. That is also very easy to understand. Trolls like the "commentator" above deny it, of course.
@@blokin5039Spot-on!
My old university still building ridiculous supercomputers just for the physics department. It’s pronounced closer to ‘du-ram’ with the ‘u’ the same as the one in ‘up’ :)
Its funny how you did not mention how the outer universe maybe a place where the inner universe is falling into
In other words a much larger gravity in the outer compared to the inner
There are so much crisis in cosmology, particle physics, quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology etc. - it's a miracle that anyone can claim we understand anything.
I think a further study of potential Higgs field variations near and in black holes could be of (mathematical) interest to all the strange things we observe. There one could look into energy interactions with this field (related also to dark matter and another dimension?). Cheers, and thanks for great videos!👍🌟🙂
The cold string black hole singulrity explosion is the origin of the early clumpiness and the string evaporation of the growing oscillating space frame vacuum. See Q.FFF MODEL.
Your presentation of this model of universe-without-magnetism was interesting.
yeah they forgot the main ingredient. The electric force. And also they just made up a bunch others. As if time can be a 'thing'. MORONS
One thing seems certain, we have far more to learn, than we know.
Technically its opinion that dust bunnies look like bunnies. They could be anything like how people see diffy things in clouds . But if random shaped dust bunnies and clouds form some round and random movements and collisions became predictable orbits of stufv form from dust bunnies around predictable bigger rounders things formed from clouds. Wouldn't that violate entropy. Going from discord to order. Then again in retrospect retrospect itself violates entropy
If the universe started off with a wabbit (or rwo) then it would make sense there should be some comological trace left over time. Dust bunnies are our undeniable proof. Both in the cosmos and under the sofa.
Gravity attracts things. Things being separate creates potential energy, reducing entropy. Things coming together reduce potential energy and increase entropy. Same with electrostatic forces that make small things stick together like dust bunnies and the particles that cling to the fibers of N95 masks.
To the best of my understanding from a lot of science communicators, it seems likely that electromagnetism is currently heavily underappreciated in universal simulation models. It seems like simulating that force may be complex and expensive, but could very well be necessary to be able to fully confirm these apparent contradictions
If the big bang was an explosion from a single point, we should see different rates of expansion depending on which direction we look because we are not in the center of the universe.
The big bang is commonly understood to not be an explosion...
Don't repeat this to any of your cosmologically educated buddy's. Sorry but study a bit more
We _are_ in the exact center of the universe though. Just like you are standing at the center of the earth's spherical surface. All those lines on the earth are just arbitrary conveniences - you are literally in the center of that surface with the same distance stretching away in every direction.
Same with the universe, but it's 3D not 2D. Everything emerged together and is expanding together so everything is the center.
@BernieGore-fs2is ...against a well-meaning guy making a fool of himself at a party, sure.
@BernieGore-fs2is "You're"
Evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The reduction in clumpiness is the chef cooking the ragu, smoothing out the thickening.
We can’t be entirely sure what the problem is, there’s just too many things to take into account that no supercomputer can handle.
So insane that these scientists just calculate this kinda shit and then go on and fine explanations for observations that seem off. Theoretical physicists are truly the pioneers of understanding the universe, SO COOL
The clumping maybe simulates waves around many black holes. Go to your sink, fill it up, start draining it and stir once. Add some different color dye. Black hole.
Anton, that's easy to explain: that's how Gravity works!
No worries... This is cosmology, so even though nobody can explain it, I'm confident that the cosmologists will soon find a highly speculative explanation that they will confirm by their usual process of speaking about it as if it is a known fact, repeatedly, and then writing books about it until the public accepts it as a scientific truth.
I think by now we've realised that when they simulate the climate, they know not to trust the models. So why are they trusting the models for the entire universe?
Great news!
The lamda model was already in crisis, hopefully this nails it & we can all move on!
Expanding the mathematical models of the universe to accommodate new observations and then looking for physical observations that match the model reminds me of climatologists plugging in a lot of data and fitting a curve and then being disappointed when another decade of chaotic weather data doesn't match their model. Just because your computer can fit a curve to your data doesn't mean you understand anything. At best, it hints at some observations that might lead to more understanding.
It's crazy both just how much we know about the universe.. and also just how much is still very mysterious to us
3:50
I wish these were better, longer.
I mean, usually they will have a computer simulation where stars move and bounce around swirling all over the screen...
But how long is that? 1,000 years? 100,000 years? They never let it go on for billions. They never make stars explode and reform. It's really very inaccurate.
That's why I watch this channel! We get updates on everything even when there's no explanation. Then on top of that we can go to a site that explains that there's no explanation! Oh my what a tangled web we weave if at first we practice to deceive. Not that I would blame wonderful person Anton but I would blame those blind people with their limited senses trying to give an explanation of the cosmic manifestation we are part of but could never create nor fully understand & never mind explaining. The old case of the blind trying to lead other blind people. I take full knowledge from the Vedas which to many a scholars consternation is actually older than they surmise (again with their limited senses) and does give a full explanation as to what this is and why its here and what we're here for. Want to know? Vedabase.
Hubble tension could simply be a consequence of how dark energy is generated (assuming it does actually exist). If it's produced by collections of matter, then as matter clumps, more dark energy will be produced in those locations and cause faster acceleration. The same is true if dark energy is a by-product of voids, with virtual particles more frequently appearing there in line with the 'nature abhors a vacuum' idea.
As for this S8 problem, what would be consequence of the initial rapid inflation of the universe suddenly slowing down? And then, WHY DID IT SLOW DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE? If spacetime inflation can vastly exceed the speed of light, what is the mechanism by which that inflation can slow? Should not the 'denser' spacetime in the early universe imply a difference in the force of gravity at that time, given gravity itself is proving to be nothing more than the 'denting' of spacetime by mass? There is much we do not have any explanation for, and perhaps that is due to us not truly understanding how the basic founding principles of the universe may have behaved when it was much smaller.
Referring to 13.8 Bya as "back in the day" may be the new standard of understatement. 🤣
What if Time is not constant... When we look back in time at stars many light years away, time was just faster. But now that our seconds are slower, looking at that old data instead it looks like space expansion is just speeding up.
That is why it's the 'acceleration' looks uniform in every direction as no matter where across the universe you the time is faster when the light from that star was emitted 100 million years ago.
Without a grasp on how gravity and mass work at the quantum level how can we hope to understand it at the cosmological level?
First obvious question: do these two tensions get along with each other? Do the apparent changes happen within a reasonable margin of error in terms of time/distance?
If so, the next obvious thing is to identify the temmporal range, and study galaxies and clusters at the corresponding light-distance, for clues or whathaveyou.
Every time a cosmologist pats himself on the back an angel gets its wings 🪽
Our data collection has surpassed our models. We need a new Einstein to make a new one.
Our universe was created by a reality shift from 2nd to 3rd. Think of a two dimensional plane coated with gunpowder and lit at a single point. As it "burned" and spreads, reality changed and so did the matter. Equal distribution of matter conversion, but the density (surface area) becomes greater over time exponentially.
Think of an expanding box and have energy bounce around. Eventually it's so large the matter converted doesn't interact as efficiently, but if you look back in time, things will be more dense.
Fascinating stuff indeed.