Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Hubble Confirms Something Is Strange With Expansion of the Universe
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 май 2022
- Classic t-shirt designs from before: amzn.to/3QFIrFX
Get a Wonderful Person shirt: teespring.com/...
Alternatively, PayPal donations can be sent here: paypal.me/whatd...
Hello and welcome! My name is Anton and in this video, we will talk about new data from Hubble that confirms the Hubble tension and the mystery of the expansion of the universe
Links:
hubblesite.org...
arxiv.org/pdf/...
en.wikipedia.o...
Support this channel on Patreon to help me make this a full time job:
/ whatdamath
Bitcoin/Ethereum to spare? Donate them here to help this channel grow!
bc1qnkl3nk0zt7w0xzrgur9pnkcduj7a3xxllcn7d4
or ETH: 0x60f088B10b03115405d313f964BeA93eF0Bd3DbF
Space Engine is available for free here: spaceengine.org
Enjoy and please subscribe.
Twitter: / whatdamath
Facebook: / whatdamath
Twitch: / whatdamath
The hardware used to record these videos:
New Camera: amzn.to/34DUUlv
CPU: amzn.to/2LZFQCJ
Video Card: amzn.to/2M1W26C
Motherboard: amzn.to/2JYGiQQ
RAM: amzn.to/2Mwy2t4
PSU: amzn.to/2LZcrIH
Case: amzn.to/2MwJZz4
Microphone: amzn.to/2t5jTv0
Mixer: amzn.to/2JOL0oF
Recording and Editing: amzn.to/2LX6uvU
Some of the above are affiliate links, meaning I would get a (very small) percentage of the price paid.
Thank you to all Patreon supporters of this channel
Special thanks also goes to all the wonderful supporters of the channel through RUclips Memberships.
Images/Videos:
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab
NASA/JPL-Caltech
ThomasK Vbg CC BY-SA 3.0 en.wikipedia.o...
Timwether CC BY-SA 4.0 en.wikipedia.o...
eso/Microsoft%20WorldWide%20Telescope%20CC%20BY%204.0%20en.wikipedia.o...
NASA, ESA, Adam G. Riess (STScI, JHU)
European Space Agency CC BY SA 4.0 en.wikipedia.o...
Primefac CC BY-SA 3.0 en.wikipedia.o...
Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri CC BY-SA 4.0 en.wikipedia.o...
Pablo Carlos Budassi CC BY-SA 4.0 en.wikipedia.o...
Licenses used:
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
I have a feeling a lot of “constants” aren’t really constants. We just don’t have the ability to measure them in other parts of the universe.
If velocity affects the passage of time (time slows) and the objects farthest from us are accelerating away from us (for billions of years) perhaps the oldest objects in the observed universe are the youngest and the youngest nearer objects are actually the oldest objects (the youngest objects experiencing the passage of time at a faster rate)..
Speed of Light comes to mind.
@@derekflegg2670 well I can’t wrap my head around anything you’ve really said, and 6 minutes into the video I already lost track of what Anton was saying. Maybe you caused me to have a stroke.
There’s many theories about the universe, and our mental health certainly effects how we view it, and I think that says more about us then what we’ll ever know about the universe itself.
The only constant is change
Or they are constant from the place and time we measure them. A constant with a deviation of 0,00001 isn´t a constant over 1000´s of years.
The Universe isn't expanding, it's running away from Chuck Norris
Ah, a joke with great history.
That's what I've suspected ,I was hoping 🙏 I was wrong 😔
Old meme, but it checks out.
😂😂😂
This is true
I've been waiting for your breakdown of this new info. It's so much more informative than traditional media with their exaggerated headlines and such. Keep up the good work!
I've briefly talked about this with my astrophysics teacher and she said that the standard candle method with cepheids is based on speculative hypotheses that might be false. In this case, the error caused by the hypothesis would not be taken into account in the data analysis, which could explain why the error bars do not overlap.
Cephids and 1A supernovae generally agree, so not likely THE explanation. The possible misunderstanding of 1A supernovae has much greater potential, as it is used at much greater distances.
@User_01kt43u-79 If by "scientists" you mean actually not scientists, then yes. Watching religious people trying to understand god is truly humorous.
@User_01kt43u-79 Pride and ignorance… ironic.
@User_01kt43u-79 Maybe you mean fascinating. Take a look at history and appreciate how incredibly far science has taken us, scientists have learned so much about the world. You were probably born with all these accomodations that we have thanks to that and don't realize most of what you use on you day to day life, you have thanks to "scientists trying to understand God's creation" in the past lmao
(many of whom were religious)
I really like when science says, "wait a minute, that's not right." That's when science starts learning something new!
Thanks, again, Anton, for all you do! 🖖🏽❤️❤️👍🏼
Actually it wasn't science to begin with if you really have a grasp on how the scientific method works. AND you probably never gave a fair audience to the voices of those speaking against the "discovery" in the first place. Scientific history is littered with undeserving celebrations while shunning those who would eventually be proven correct. It's happening now with the electric universe theorists....
angry standard model apologist fan boys emerge in 3, 2, 1...
I like it when science says, "wait a minute, that's not right", because it is something literally EVERY religion on the planet completely lacks.
Is it the constant that changes or is it our observation of the speed of the light at large distances or the calculation of the distances that's wrong?
After all light is bent through gravitational lensing and time progresses at a different speed when the mass density is higher.
I'm still waiting for science to prevail in the anthropogenic climate change debate, and after 30 years of incorrect predictions to say, wait a minute, that's not right.
@@geelee1977 Science lacks it too when it’s controlled by corporations.
Our understanding of the universe will always be limited, unless we can find a way to move to other viewpoints outside of our own galaxy. We need a much bigger triangle. Currently it's a bit like trying to figure out the movements of everything in a whole city whilst sitting in a locked box, on a spinning merry-go-round that's sat on the back of a moving truck... and only being able to see the outside world via a single keyhole. 😁
Yea bruh, i still question why it is assumed that the universe is expanding, i mean it makes perfect sense according to the big bang theory, but wouldnt objects by now be thrown in random directions because of gravitational things and whatnot? Is the plane that objects move through itself really expanding? Or am i getting the wrong idea of what they mean saying the universe is expanding, do they just mean that matter is moving away from the “center” of our universe where the big bang happened. My understanding of the universe is pretty limited haha
@@boykidmanboykidman5420 there is no 'center where the big bang happened' the way you're thinking about it. The big bang happened everywhere, the entire observable universe was essentially a singularity, and suddenly it began to expand. A good way to picture it is to imagine drawing a bunch of dots on an uninflated balloon and then blow it up, as the balloon expands, the dots get further and further apart, that is essentially what's happening with galaxies in space. It's not that things are moving apart, space is literally expanding, the universe is getting larger with every second that passes
@A Nother, meet @PoorMan; you guys see things similarly.
@@vicc6790 that makes sense thanks for putting it that way
@Danger Bear 😳
Really saddened by reading you lost your infant child to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, for all it's worth I hope you are doing okay and you and your s.o. are taking care of yourselfes and each other, are trying to move forward as best as you can and stay strong together.
I enjoyed the video and it was another great one, you pretty much never disappoint with these videos.
Either way, I hope you have a good one, dear reader.
I love how Anton can always break down the most complex science into understandable videos.
I am also grateful for this. IMHO as a lay person.
He teaches Jr. high, right? Wouldn't it be cool to have a Jr High science teacher like hm?
Well if dark energy is causing the expansion, then the expansion is not going to be uniform if the distribution of dark energy isn't uniform.
I think that's the right conclusion
You solved it. Get this man a Nobel prize! 😄
Don't like dark energy theories because gravity should be able to explain what's going on. Just need to get our heads around what is attracting the edge of the universe outward.
Dark energy is the expansion. We dont know of any dark energy. We just know about expansion. Or maybe not even that.
@@maxmusterman3371 I think it would be more accurate to say that we know about dark energy, because it is purely the term we have given to what unknown force is driving the expansion. We however have no clue what it is or how it works, it's just more practical to call it dark energy than "that something that we don't know what is or how works".
I'm so sorry to hear of the loss of your child, Anton. I can't imagine anything worse. You have my deepest condolences.
I wonder if his wife took the vaccine while pregnant or nursing.
I'm so sorry about your families loss & it is so universally brave, healthy & loving that your family asks others to heal others inside of the spirit, energy & nature of that loss. This is how you know you created an angel, the universes first astronauts, they lead the way by looking down upon us as we battle the evil in the world with our only goal to take away misery, to heal.
Great viewing as always, I have been a bit ill lately but I try to squeeze a video of yours as the universe is so dear to me I love learning what I can ,when I can.
Good viewing.
Aussie chris 🇦🇺
It's refreshing to hear "we don't know" when it comes to science.
If only people would stop acting like they do know.
Maybe astrophysicists should just ask politicians, since they always know everything.
Stop acting like you’re on some high horse
@@notionSlave Imagine saying that to someone after reading a short one-sentence comment.
@@djo-dji6018 yeah i see this one-sentence thing all the time to make themselves sound smarter than they are.
Even with all that's going on in the world, I still feel lucky that I live at this present moment in time.
Just imagine what we will discover in the coming years.
Kind of wish I lived hundreds of years in the future, though.
if we survive
Para - Good for you pal, but I reckon I've not much more than 2 or 3 years left of this lucky life!. ....... maybe luckier if I'd never been born!
After all, you can't miss what you've never had, eh?
We live to short . Time is killing us ..
@@uku4171 clueless
Congratulations one one million subscribers!!! You deserve it. I’m so glad to have watched you grow from less than half that over the years
Why do we think that the universe can be traced back to a singularity just because of the expansion that is happening now? Yes, you could follow that logic and reverse entropy to reach a singularity. But how do we KNOW KNOW. That's not the only possibility of before. Current situations do not directly infer previous ones. Especially when there are other factors that we know little or nothing about that could affect every or just a minuscule aspect of what really went on.
Sir Fred Hoyle didn't agree with big bang hypothesis .it's a stupid simplification of red shift data.unknowable I'd say.
we don't know, but if we model it that way it gives a lot of correct results
Hubble measures Hubble constant by looking at some galaxies somewhere in the universe. Planck measures Hubble constant by looking at the CMBR practically on the edge of the observable universe.
If the numbers don't match, why assume the constant is a constant at all? Why not sort or group the galaxies by distance and see if the "constant" makes more sense (forming a gradient from a local value to the CMBR's value?)
Alternatively, group them by direction?
Logarithmic scale perhaps?
No. Just looking at the distribution of the CMB tells us that the universe is the same everywhere. Physics would have to break pretty badly for the rate to change at unpredictable intervals.
The Hubble constant shockingly isn’t constant
The CMBR implies that we are at or near the center of the universe.
Which doesn’t exist according to modern cosmology. Even though the Big Bang theory implies that the universe is finite which implies that it can be modeled as a contraction space meaning the Banach fixed point theorem holds and there should be a center of our universe.
Congratulations, you've just summarized a large number of prior research papers that didn't pan out. Their measurements and groupings (so far) didn't allow them to disprove the Hubble is a constant. The whole thrust of this article by Anton is that much more data and research is needed.
Maybe a vacuum bubble within a solid mass, as mass get closer to the edge things speed up. 🤔
Maybe we are just witnessing the evaporation of the black hole that created our universe
So if things further away are expanding faster, and things closer are expanding slower, wouldn’t that mean that universe expansion is slowing down because things further away are further back in time than things that are closer to us?
Yes, this baffles me, too. If the values were greater in the past, then things really should be slowing down.
Great video, I'm always impressed with your ability to succinctly compress very complex concepts into a format that doesn't put me to sleep, great job Anton!
Time varies based on mass. ..Therefore space also varies. ...When we say " 380000 yrs after the universe formed (cosmic background data)...That time is not constant through the history of the universe. Therefore the Hubble constant is NOT constant. Until a compensation algorithm is employed accounts for relativistic changes in time and space...we will continue to have disconnects
!👍
Guys, HERE is The Savior
HalleluYAH translates “Praise ye YaH”
YaH is The Heavenly Father
YaH is Who Created “Man (Adam)”
YaH arrives via the TENT OF MEETING
YaH was Who they Crucified for the sins OF “Man”
** NO female involved WHATSOEVER **
- Hebrew Book of Isaiah
Isaiah 42:8
"I am YaH; that is my Name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
Isaiah 43:11
I, I am YAH, and there is no other Savior but Me.
Isaiah 45:5
I am YaH, and there is none else.
@@Praise___YaH Smoke less weed Darrell
@@markkaidy8741
Sir, YaH The Heavenly Father was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus. You really should pray to YaH The Heavenly Father, He can hear you and the Angels sing when you do
@@markkaidy8741 Smoke more weed
You're awesome Anton, I honestly don't know how anyone can continue to do what you do after the loss of a loved one let alone a child. Bless you buddy and u have the best channel around. 💓✌🏾🙋🏾♂️
Oh great, just when we were getting back to normal you have to bring up his personal tragedy. Might I suggest mentioning it specifically on the video where he made the announcement?
Misleading video. Hubble constant is a meant to refer to current epoch not distant places and epochs. It measures current (and so local) expansion rate of space. Not the ancient rate. So the question asked in the video "maybe Hubble constant is not constant" has been answered in textbooks from 40 years ago.
Just take 2 minutes and realize Anton knocks out one of these collegiate level lectures from scratch every single day. Pretty impressive!
What if instead of a constant, it's the Hubble variable? Seems to me the simplest way to resolve this "tension" is to start thinking in terms of H(t) instead of H0 = k, with the values growing more or less monotonically, and then we could check whether a linear function is the best fit the observed values, or an exponential, or something else. To test this, all you'd need to do is rerun these studies but dividing the cosmos into "shells" that contain more or less the same volume and using only galaxies within each of these shells: say, you take only galaxies below 1M light years of distance, then galaxies between 1Mly and 1.5 Mly, then galaxies between 1.5 and 1.7, and so on - the Hubble "constant" calculated with these successive shells should be lower and lower if indeed the expansion rate has increased over time.
Did you just create a new PhD thesis
its a great idea
The idea that constants are variable has been tested extensively.
Last I remember reading there were indications that the fine structure constant is actually a variable.
So maybe
Excellent coment.
This is the concept we are already employing as we gather more data.
In order to present a functional theory, we must already be aware of all the parameters.
The Hubble constant is changing - it's only a constant over a spatial hypersurface of constant cosmic time.
Maybe the fabric (substrate) of the universe is spherical in shape, which would explain why expansion speeds of differently positioned objects vary from a fixed observation point along and inside this sphere? The closer you get to the centre of the sphere, the slower things move... and vice-versa, they move faster along the outside perimeter.
After all, everything else *inside* the universe is either rounded or spherical too, so the universe itself probably has the same geometrical characteristics, all bound together with gravity.
Yes, but observed to be flat, so it would be a very very big circle. Wouldn't make measurements weird locally.
I think we are quantum size and we think things smaller then use like the atom is quantum size when it could be entirely something else. I think it's like a drop of oil in water changing with whatever environment it dwells in. Maybe flat but were so small we can't tell unless you could dwell in the environment outside the universe and observe it. Consider the size of our universe so big it takes 13.9 billion light years for first light to reach us. Multiple that 13.9 billion, 13.9 billion times, and I bet the dwelling place the universe sits in would be even larger the size of the environment the universe grows in not expands, like a cosmic microbe.
Could it be a doughnut shape?wherever you go is the center of the doughnut. The observer is the center of the universe from their perspective.
Hubble expansion is like a balloon. It expands regularly no matter how close to the center or edge you are in the balloon.
Collapsing a wave function doesn’t create another world, it expands the universe. The more things that become possible then require more space time to allow them the correct possibility of occurring.
We are at an amazing point in astrophysics as well as general physics. The more we discover, through orbital telescopes and robotic probes, the more we learn that what we thought was the "norm" is not. I wish the media would pay more attention to what is happening now. I believe that everything we thought we knew about the universe, dark matter, string theory, and universal expansion will have to be re-evaluated as we learn more. Thank you, Anton! Your videos are always exceptional and well researched.
The Electric Universe has been pointing out these flaws in their so-called scientific method for decades, only to be ignored. The chickens seem to be coming home to roost. But yes I agree, Anton is special.
I dont know why we ever assumed that the Hubble " constant " is constant. It doesnt even make sense for it to be. Especially if it is the cause of it is dark matter ( which is still not even completely verified to exist ). If it is the Hubble constant depends on dark matter than of course it wouldnt be constant and would totally depend on the density of dark matter in the universe.
P.S. I dont proof read anything. Lol that was horrible. 😂
Love the work and consistency you put in to make quality and well informed videos
If things seen in the far past are moving away faster than things seen in the near past, then the expansion is DECELERATING.
Thank you for this content, I've had a not-so-great day and I love being able to rely on this channel for a welcoming, calm, and absurdly interesting few minutes!
Nobody cares about your day.
Hubble _did not come up with Cepheid variables as a "standard candle" as you imply._ It was in 1908 by Henrietta Swan Leavitt. It was she who determined that the true luminosity of a Cepheid can be found simply observing its pulsation period. Hubble did not start his work until 1917.
I like your pfp :) also, I believe you’re right but I didn’t catch him crediting Hubble for the standard candle idea.
Yes, a bit of oversimplification.
Unfortunately his simplification overlooks yet another woman in science.
Unlikely. You can't use a telescope in the kitchen.
@@DarkMatterX1 Funny, maybe, but tasteless.
@@MrJinXiao Not funny. Not even correct.
I'll just keep saying what i've said all the time.
It may not be the fabric of the universe that is expanding, but rather that beyond the observable limit we live in (due to speed of light being finite), our entire visible universe might be in a relative "void", compared to the rest of the universe (beyond the 14 billion year observable limit).
As such, the expansion we see, may simply be that galaxies around us are moving towards the greater concentration of gravity outside of our visible range, perhaps enormous macro filaments of innumerable galaxies, at the scale of several 14 billion lightyears across (thus, the entire structures are larger than even our own visible bubble could ever see.
That would explain why some areas "expand" faster, and some slower.
Because some areas are closer to a higher gravity well, while others are further away.
Think about it in a smaller scale, if you live by a star that's in the Bootes void, and you could only observe stars as far out as the edges of said void (its not a void, just a relatively lower density of stars, obviously), you would also see the stars around you, moving away from you, and the further away the stars are, the faster they'd be moving away from you, because they'd be closer to the higher density areas outside said void.
Thats why its a relative void, because it doesnt have enough collective gravity to attract more stars.
I'm no astronomer, i'm no mathematician, i just always felt like that was an entirely valid possibility.
Doesnt require any dark energy to expand the universe, doesnt require any "cold death".
We're just not thinking large enough, we gotta think about what the structure of the universe looks like on scales larger than 14 billion LY's.
And i dont think its valid, logically, to say "but if you reverse time, if you track all the furthest galaxies motion backwards, they all coaless into a single point of origin. Because that doesnt take into account all the ways those stars and galaxies might have been perterbed by each other.
Nothing moves in a straight line, things orbit, curve, change direction, accelerate.
If you look at 3 frames of a video of cars on the highway leading out of a city, you could draw lines behind each car and conclude "they all came from the same singularity in the center of the city". But they didnt, they changed directions, accelerated, slowed down, curved, turned. Some even came from outside, from the other side of the city, from somewhere far away.
We're so stuck in the mathematics of established theories, that we forget they are theories, and we forget to look at other paths of logic.
Baleur - Your theory sounds as good to me as some of the rest of them! Well done for coming up with it.
I resonate with your thought process greatly. I find it strange that the accepted range of possibilities seems to be so narrow in the scientific circles. But I don't speak up much as I might just not be educated enough to realize my assumptions are wrong.
Anyways, great theory!
I'd like to hear an expert explanation about the void too. That is, how to distinguish an object being pulled by gravity vs pushed by expansion.
I’m an amateur mathematician and the expanding universe theory, at least if we assume the universe began with a Big Bang, conflicts with the Banach fixed point theorem. It only works if we postulate the existence of unobservable higher spatial dimensions.
The expansion of space is the result of trying to fit the observations of what could well be from our standpoint being near the center of the universe into the Procrustean bed that is the cosmological principle, which Newton came up with during a time before the Big Bang theory, when the universe was thought to be infinite and eternal.
@@malcolmt7883 the “experts” haven’t figured out the logic yet. It’s gonna take time for them to mathematically prove it.
300 years from now humans will view our scientific assumptions much like we view the assumptions of 300 years ago.
I believe we're missing something and don't quite understand as we think we do. And I don't think we will ever really know. But it's fun trying to figure this wonderful beautiful awesome universe out ❤️
With all the sensational and dubious claims on some RUclips sites, I have come to appreciate Anton's sincerity and commitment to facts.
I thnk that the reason it doesnt make sense is that the topology of the universe is not flat, nor spherical, nor is it a simple curvature.
The Universe is shaped like a 4th dimensional Torus, or donut.
Just a gut feeling, I have no math to back that up.
It's actually a hexagonal pyramid. I had proof but my dog ate it. And my neighbour's cat ate the dog.
@@uku4171 i ate the cat and absorbed the knowledge written in your research. I do concur
Homer Simpson and I approve of donuts
My condolences regarding Neil Apollo. I understand your pain and I respect your donation efforts. Peace be with you.
The source of expansion isn't "in" our universe. If we called it, "The Stretching" of the universe, that'd imply an outside force.
Anton, you're amazing. I'm incredibly glad you do this. Thank you for years of edutainment.
Dark energy is a sign of our lack of understanding and is direct result of taking the Hubble constant like a fact. We are finally starting to see the Hubble constant is not constant, and soon hopefully people will start to question whether the observed redshift even represents motion. Gravity also redshifts light, and if we mistakenly attribute gravitational redshift to motion it makes the universe look like it is expanding when in fact it is just massive enough to be redshifting the light that traveled to our detectors. Einstein's ideas have been thoroughly tested and confirmed and he thought the universe was infinite with no beginning, no end, and no edge.
are you saying there is gravity distortion along the path light travels when measuring red shift light signals? but how can that be consistent when measured from different angles
@@mth469 No. Look up gravitational redshift. Then consider that attributing all redshift to velocity when gravity is doing most of the redshifting would lead to a misinterpretation of data leading to the universe seeming to expand when it wasn't.
I agree with your points. Many observational facts do not agree with the narrative. Probably I can suggest two books, which reflect your understanding - "Seeing Red" - (Halton Arp) and "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Hope that they will bring you much pleasure!
One really starts to question the senility of very old light.
@@HotPinkst17 I'm not convinced. There's also gravitational blueshift. What makes you think that it's not all four in action?
Did you take at least one galaxy that's redshifted or blueshifted and tried to crunch the numbers in how much the gravitational *shift should be observed if they were stationary based on the masses involved versus the observed effect?
Thanks wonderful Anton. We only know of what we can see.... There is the unseen part of the universe we may NEVER ever see.
How feasible are these options for increase in speed:
1. The universe is being drawn from other universe clusters around our own
2. As galaxies pull away from each other, the "brakes" are released more and more as the galaxies are less bound by each other's gravitational pulls.
I love how he brings the subject up so casually. Like we all know what he’s saying. Lol. We do buddy 👍
Ikr. No theatrics, just pure lecturing. Anton reminded me of a term called _pedagogy._ He’s great at it.
gotcha 👍
This is the first time I actually realised what the big bang theory, being just a theory, really meant. The concept is really wild. Great video!
You misunderstand what "theory" means in that context. It's not "just" anything.
@@Nebukanezzer facts
@@Nebukanezzer oh for god's sake, dude. You get what he's trying to say. And beside that, he's expressing wonder and awe. There's always got to be some neckbeard like you in every comment thread. Doesn't matter what the topic is. You all respond with the same trite BS that misses the point
@@beanseason6515 he's right, though
We really have no clue from our understanding of physics. We don't understand the grand epoch and we dont have proof on how life started let alone evolved from simple life to complex life. It's pretty beautiful and inspiring to just be alive.
It would be so cool if the scientists could use the Hubble expansion to pinpoint where in the universe that the “Big Bang” actually occurred by calculating how fast other galaxies are moving from each other and use that to work backwards; calculating back to when they were closer and closer to one another to the point right before the bang happened. It would be like a historical site, but in the universe.
ANTON - Here is a possible explanation: like other observable celestial energy, the "dark matter" may act in a waveform, with the observation clusters at the high range happening as a galaxy rides from a high potential to a low potential (the inflection point of the waveform), and with the low range observed for galaxies that are at the crossover point as the energy potential has peaked and will now drop (the "zenith/nadir" of the waveform). ALSO - see reply below: I have refined the idea as actually the box graphs indicate something slightly different.
Need to make correction ... both would be at the zero slope points -- one at the upper and one at the lower -- of the waveform... That is why you would see two subgroups of observation points clustered around those values. On the other hand, at the "maximum slop" point (what I refer to as inflection point above), the effect of the dark energy is changing so rapidly that no galaxy would linger at that point for a long time, and thus you might find a few in that range. If you look at what WMAP9 observed, you might ask why that study might have been more atuned to counting galaxies at all points on the waveform, while the other studies would have some selection bias that cause them to only see stuff at the top or bottom of the wave.
If it did turn out that our current models are wrong, it would confirm my greatest fear that all this science are built upon thin ice, and we are grasping for scraps at the limits of our physical data gathering capabilities.
I have always thought it may be possible that mathematics itself is faulty. Our math is a closed system, reliant upon itself only to verify itself. You have heard that math existed before the concept of zero was added. What must math have been like without a zero? Certainly on some level it must have been more “primitive,” definitely less useful. But it did “work” for the tasks that were required. So what if our entire system of mathematics is lacking something, and we don’t even realize it? It has worked so far for the tasks needed up until now. But with ever-greater tasks presenting themselves every day, who’s to say a mathematical revolution of sorts isn’t possible and even REQUIRED?
@@Unknown17 Ironically I find that math disproves the universal expansion theory, at least if the Big Bang is true. The Banach fixed point theorem implies that a finite universe must have a central point and if we are at or near that central point then that would explain the observations without resorting to space itself expanding.
You are not too far from the truth my friend, I have a nice surprise for you - the thin ice is broken already! - Just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
The universe could be DECELERATING its expansion rate. When we look far away, we see what the universe looked like in the distant past. In the distant past it was expanding faster, so that is what we see far away.
@Scott There is a line between reasonable scientific possibility and random speculation, and you crossed it. There is absolutely no basis for: "The universe is inside a black hole"
@@ufodeath There are peer-reviewed publications which lay theoretical ground for that possibility, so while very theoretical, it's not completely out of scope.
@@ufodeath One could also say there is absolutely no basis for the universe is not inside a black hole.
You tied my brain up
No one teaches the way you do! Love the science keep up the amazing work.
thank you again Anton. Thank all of you Scientist's for the Hard work!
Thanks for really caring about giving understandable information about the universe. Other channels are just trying to get a check.
Here is what is truly strange, Anton. As space expands, the energy/density of space does not decrease, does not dilute. This is like a balloon expanding without air being fed into it.
Like when you put a balloon in a vacuum...
it may not, however, that would answer the question as to why it expands.
coming to different velocities of expansion, density might actually be the key.
If dark matter has a liquid and a gas state it could be reverting to its gas state once it gets far enough from sources of gravity. Much like some liquids will change to a gas if the pressure is lowered. The expansion then results in even more space away from gravity for more expansion
Dark energy pains me to no end, the idea that scientists cease to believe that a simpler concept could be an explanation may forever plague theory and discovery.
Plenty of scientists do
@@uku4171 plenty of scientists don’t think dark matter is a thing?
I agree 100% We need outside the box thinking to move forward
@@Candyapplebone pretty much. There are always new hypotheses trying out new models without dark matter and such.
@@uku4171 Unfortunately the plague is one which feeds off of clicks. Simple explanations are much less exciting.
Developing a better understanding of the universe or realizing we're using the wrong math doesn't make physics "new physics" it makes the wrong description "wrong physics."
Just like the microcosmos, the universe acts in the same way. Reality is based on a triangle of three things. 1) Uncertain 2) Infinite 3) Variability. You examine the far, I examine the near. You analyze life. I analyze death.
Wouldn't the universe accelerating more the further away we look, mean that this happened in the more distant past and since the less it accelerates the closer we look(thus not as long ago), the expansion is actually slowing down?
had that same exact thought
I don't know muh science as well as the big timers, but I've always felt in muh hunch-place that the current consensus about the expansion of the universe wasn't right.
Not necessarily. Imagine a contraption, like sticks that can slide against each other along their length, without becoming detached. If they are 1 foot long, in this simulation they will measure 2 feet long when fully extended. If you add another stick, even though they are only moving a foot each, it will then be three feet long.
Not only that, but if it takes 1 second to extend the stick out all the way, the same rule applies as before, it’s additive. For every stick you add, the end of this contraption will move faster by 100% of the previous speed. If you have 2 sticks, it will take 0.5 seconds. 3 sticks will make it take 0.25 seconds. Of course, this is all in relation to an observer placed at the stick that all others are moving from. Each stick is moving ahead by 1 foot and 1 second in relation to the stick immediately below it.
And that’s on relative observation ✋🏻😔
I don't know enough to test or prove it, but I have considered that the expansion isn't accelerating so much as time is being warped. As there is less matter clustered (as you would expect at the edges of space), time moves more quickly for the objects at the front of that expansion (minimal density of matter). While we are on Earth, in a massive galaxy, time passes constantly for us, but is, in fact, slowed down relative to other parts of space.
I have been asking this question science communicators for years, and they haven't been able to give a satisfactory answer that wouldn't make even less sense. Explaining nonsense with even more nonsense is not how you answer a question to someone's satisfaction, regardless what the topic might be.
I just had a thought...
Gravity contracts spacetime, right?
So where there's "no gravity", space is "spread out". Contracted space makes time move slower, while spread out space would make time move faster.
Could that explain why the universe expands faster the farther away from gravity source?
No "dark energy", but simply spacetime itself.
first of all spacetime and space are two absolutely different frames, space is a virtual vector of spacetime
second of all, there isn't anything such perfectly symmetric spacetime, spacetime is always curved (assymetric) because of presence of energy that is literally everywhere, energy = curved spacetime
third of all, time never "moves" slower, time = the speed of light and in all reference frames, it's because light is time, your speed in spacetime = the speed of light
and, time doesn't move, flows or whatever
fourth of all, spacetime is not expanding, space does
But then what would explain the big bang?. In the theory of eternal inflation for example, what explains the sudden bubble of slower expanding space that nucleated resulted in our universe?
And if just regular inflation, what "started" it, and what stopped it? It can't be the gravity of regular matter because it supposedly it was all there to begin with
@@KibitoAkuya Well, we don't know what was the cause for the big bang to happen, that's probably the real problem and i don't think we'll ever be able to know for sure, just like any other thing
Or the opposite, because there's less space to expand.
Lack of mass/energy clumping (Cause of time dilation, which then causes gravity) just means no time dilation. Time inflation isn't a thing, as far as we know
2:49 - Anton, the cosmic distance ladder is NOT "kind of database of different galaxies". It is a succession of methods by which we determine the distances to celestial objects.
As a pedagogue, I admire your videos because you always take the time to explain things in a way that your non-physicist viewers will understand. I love cosmology and wanted to become a cosmologist when I was younger just because I love listening to the elegant ways in which the most vast and mind boggling concepts can be explained for all to admire. Thank you for all your videos, they always make my day!
it's easy. The universe is expanding at a steady rate since the big bang. Gravity slows time down. As they galaxies get further apart there is less gravity. So it appears that the acceleration is faster. less gravity=faster time goes. We are experiencing time dilation in our part of the universe and it appears as if time is going faster for outer galaxies.
Gravity does NOT slow down or speed up time. Period.
@@Unknown17 Then what causes the time dilation near a black hole or the difference in which time passes the further away from the Earth?
There's nothing strange with the expansion of the universe, there's something strange with our models that assume too much based on too little empirical data. Which describes pretty much all of astronomy ever. It's nice to look at the pretty pictures and empirical data points, but our models are worthless, and have been worthless for the thousands of years we've been trying to model the universe. We're not really doing any better at it now they Ptolemy did 1800 years ago, even with all our superior technology and observations.
I understand your frustration, my friend! You have realistic and logical consideration of the facts we are given. I believe that my book will give a pleasant surprise. - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Let's see if I can make a triggering statement: "The universe isn't understandable because that's not God's will". Somebody get a fire extinguisher 😂😋
This just blatantly isn’t true, unless you’re arguing that literally everything humanity knows about astrophysics is wrong. There are still unsolved things, and possibly always will be, but that definitely doesn’t mean we don’t understand vastly more then we did a century, let alone a millennia ago.
Ptolemy didn't have spectroscopy.
As we look farther away at things further into the past, we can see that things were moving faster in the past than those things we can see more currently nearby. Here's a thought experiment: Let's say a point on the circumference of a circle is moving away from the center of the circle as the area expands and the circle becomes bigger. If the area were expanding at a constant rate, the point would initially appear to be moving away from the center faster in the beginning, i.e., in the past, than later on. Substitute area with volume and the same idea applies to a point on a sphere. Is the expansion really accelerating or is that an observed illusion? Is there a net acceleration or net deceleration? Or is it not so much about the movement of the galaxies apart from one another as much as it is about the expansion of the space in between (which may be constant)?
This is the problem with stubbornly sticking to the idea that it is purely Doppler redshift that we are seeing, and ignoring plasma redshift almost completely.
question how long have we been studying the stars ...over 1000s of years ... and only 100 years we looked at space from the edge of space .... our quest for understanding has just begun ... we still have untold discoveries in front of us...science..or this case astronomy...is never settled
Science is one of the best things humans have invented, though I am dismayed by the hubris of some scientists who seem to believe that we understand almost everything there is to understand. The history of science is littered new discoveries that blow old ideas out of the water. I think that we have only just begun our journey.
My dad had a theory that the shape of space is like an ant hill and we're somewhere along the side of the hill. Everything towards the bottom has less energy than above and the more something loses energy the further down it goes. At our area in space though we are blinded by the surrounding energy signature. How sound is that?
interesting.
That defies the cosmological principle (which I don’t agree with either). But I think we would be very near the top of the anthill.
I have a theory similar, our universe has a 4d shape, which changes a lot, but because of every thing being 3d, it could explain black holes and why we cannot grasp how our universe really works
@@Versuffe Its hypothesized the universe could have as many as 12 dimensions. Many of these dimensions would be dimensions in which the internal geometries of quantum particles are distributed, and would "loop" over infinitesimal distances, (i.e., if you moved something like the width of a photon in one, you'd end up where you started.) Time I think is one of those dimensions. The metric spacetime can wiggle within might be one or more as well. I'm not sure. It's certainly the case that when considering how spacetime distorts, you can model it as the topology of an object with a 4 dimensional surface being bent in a 5th dimensional "space" or... something crazy like that.
@@Versuffe what in your opinion does a universe being 4d explain about black holes? Saying words without knowing what they mean or their implications is not exactly a theory, it's just saying words you don't really grasp the meaning of
I'm sorry but there's a correction. It was Henrietta Swan Leavitt who discovered that variable stars could be used for distance calculation. But she was never credited for it. Hubble and her boss never mentioned her name on their papers :(
I still say that if you know how big the universe is, you can basically figure out concentric rings back to the "beginning of the universe". And if you think of the growth of the universe as a type of "pressure"..each year, as the concentric rings get bigger, the universe still has to maintain enough "prressure" to complete each ring within a year. So each ring of expansion gets faster and faster as they get bigger and bigger in order to fully expand within a year.
A question I have sometimes is, what if our universe is only a tiny tiny portion of a larger dark matter universe? Then, a 'big bang' is explained simply by someone starting their car engine causing an explosion, for example. Or perhaps we were like a grenade, and the dark matter is pulling it apart further and our atoms being 90% empty and e=mc^2 implies our matter is matter-energy, which can be spent. Or perhaps space-time is real, but once u split too far apart, matter pushes apart instead of pulling together, and this includes time as a result of the range of gravity's effect, which means true space has no influence by gravity, and our space is pseudo-space, and when something spreads apart too much its gone for good, and becomes its own universe. Or maybe the universe is alive so expanding and dividing. Like, science has limits. Maybe dark matter is real matter tho and not composed of energy, and because ours is energy, we move through dark matter like how energy moves through us.
Roger Penrose offers a theory that you might be interested in about the universe and the big thing being a phase of eons. I don't know how credibly it is taking these days but it's fascinating
Another thing I'm considering is we might be inside a massive white hole.
Scientists challenging Hubble in the past have been severely ridiculed and their theories squelched. There has always been too much politics involved in the formation of scientific theories. Maybe JWST will shed some light on the origins of the Universe.
Science has always been about as bad as religion when it comes to protecting what you've spent your whole life studying. People tend to not like to be wrong.
lots of this science is hitting too close to home for the occultists and they dont want the public in on the gag.
All the spells and robes are just for cover these guys are in on seriously dark
quantum technologies and have been for decades.
Maybe the measurements depend on the telescope you look through and who paid for it
Humans: this is so strange...
Universe: Yep, just a normal Monday...
Why try to press it in a "constant" at all... As I understand it, the growth of space is due to some "bubbles" of newly generated spacetime from volumes of the free space between galaxies. The bigger the void/volume, the more bubbles. The more bubbles, the faster the "local" extension. The more time passed, the more spacetime grew, the more space grew, the more space for new bubbles => accelerating effect. Makes total sense to me.
is it expanding or are we moving away from the starting points in such a way that creates an illusion of expansion?
I have another thing for you.
Is our universe in a 4d plane? Explaining black holes and a few things.
I guess, it’s only my theory anyways lol
10:23 Finally, a sensible approach taking into account energy density.
Anton Will have 10 million subs before long! Science will only get more exciting, and Anton is doing the best job ever keeping us up-to-date on the latest discoveries. I’ve always been super interested in science, but since watching Anton I actually feel like I’m up-to-date with everything!
I have a somewhat crazy idea
What if our universe is the iside if a black hole.
1. It would explain why the universe is expanding unevenly, because the new matter that gets sucked inside the black hole(universe) is on the outer edge, making it more likely that matter travel away or towards the surface of the sphere of the event horizon where there is more mass.
2. It would explain the big bang, being the moment the black hole formed and why it was so hot and dense
3. It would explain why it's so big and we can't or will never be able to see an edge or limit to the size of the universe
4: it would explain the uneven spacedensity and why it happens: why the diffrent calculating methods give diffrent results to the expanding rate (diffrent masses and diffrent positions to the outer surface of the sphere)
5: it would explain dark matter and why we can't see it(because it isn't there, it s the mass on the outer layer of the sphere horizon
Bonus points to why this is likely: there is no other body or phenomenon in our universe that warps space/time to the extend like a blackhole and making it quite similar to the big bang (time/space was very warped during early stages )
interesting... step by step? we are probably in a black hole indeed... try to explain how it happened and what mechanics are linked to. Next try to prove it wrong: if nothing happens you're probably on the right way!
I think the reason for the inconsistency is the Higgs field. The theory is, that this field gives mass to particles. And this sort of dictates the attractiveness between masses. Classical physics is based on the premise of physical laws being the same everywhere in the universe. But what if the Higgs field is different in places? For all we know every other field is variable too. And at big distances gravity is the only thing keeping things organized. So we need to figure out how it really works to understand what keeps stuff together and what does not.
Anton- thank you for your fantastic videos. I was wondering if you could help us understand what is happening with Voyager 1 and the odd radio signals we are receiving from it?
The Universe is a variable constant, that is moving constantly, but at variable speeds depending on where you are in the Universe. We need interstellar travel to solve this enigma!
I've personally been holding to the idea that the Hubble Constant wasn't in fact a constant at all since the early 1990s, as it didn't make sense to me to assume with limited knowledge that something so unimaginably grand as the Universe could or even should remain a constant, ie, common sense.
To this, it's great seeing formal scientists come around on this and with actual evidence to that which I'd reasoned way back then all by myself and through simple logic.
Same thing with the Speed of Light...simply because it - being a part of physics, it's interdependent and influenced by other bodies and forces within its habitation...namely, the box we call the Universe. Everything within that box is bound to each other as everything that comprises it is held by its laws: both the ones we know and those we clearly know not.
'Til then, we see only through a glass darkly.
In mathematics or spacial programing, when I see irregular progress it sometimes attributed to an inadequate point of view.
It may be that the math of the movement is done in 3D+t instead of 4D+t.
I'm not versed in astronomy so I may be way off, my point is that maybe we're "counting" spacetime in a "wrong" way rather than that the Hubble constant is inaccurate or a variable.
It still astonishes me why cosmologists wring their hands about the Hubble Constant "tension", while simultaneously shrugging their shoulders about not having accounted for more than about 5% of the total matter/energy of the universe, the rest being "dark". Could it be they're two sides of the same coin? If they figure out one, maybe the other will be, at least, partly solved.
@championchap
maybe we are expanding into something that's also expanding into us.
and maybe it's.more than one thing that is expanding into us.
I'm certain there must be multi verses not just our universe.
I close my eyes, and think of Kermit the frog in space
Universe before big bang: "I think I'm gonna hide here with no shape or form"
Dark Energy: "Sir I'm here to discuss about your car insurance"
Amazes me how much Hubble keeps providing! The gift that keeps on giving.
Hopefully, James Webb will follow the same path, providing unmatched production of knowledge even after its intended lifespan.
I highly doubt it. Hubble needed to be serviced a couple times if I'm not mistaken. The Webb cannot under any circumstances be serviced sin e it's so far away.
I suspect the universe isn’t really expanding.
An expanding universe implies that the Banach fixed point theorem holds. This means that the universe has a center. If the Milky Way were roughly at the center of the universe then the observations of the universe expanding could be explained as the objects in the universe flying away from the center in the wake of the Big Bang, and the expansion of space itself wouldn’t need to be invoked.
However, the location of our planet/galaxy is assumed not to be a special place (even though this would be plausible due to the anthropic principle) based on the cosmological principle which dates back to Newton who believed in a steady state universe, so it is inconsistent with a universe that began with a Big Bang. Because this is assumed, the only explanation for the observations can be the expansion of space. Even though, as the Banach fixed point theorem demonstrates, if the universe isn’t infinitely large it MUST have a center, and that center would make different observations from every other point.
If the universe is not infinite. And it's highly unlikely we are at it's exact center. Anthropic principle doesn't work here.
@@youareliedtobythemedia Wouldn’t other objects flying away in the wake of the Big Bang have more energy than the stuff that stayed nearer the center and make for rough conditions that would hamper the development of living planets?
The only other way it works is if our three spatial dimensions are embedded in a higher space and the center is not reachable from our manifold. Like the center of a balloon is not reachable to an ant crawling on the surface. But this is untestable and it violates Occam’s razor. If there are more spatial dimensions then how many? Four? Five? Infinity?!
I wouldnt be so shure that a fixed point had to exists. Im not a mathematician, but i think banach fixed point theorem doesnt apply to arbitrary sets/spaces/mappings. Since the universe expands, its not a mapping from a set onto itself, so no fixed point has to exist.
@@maxmusterman3371 If you go backwards in time the universe can be modeled as a contraction space. The universe today can be mapped to the universe at an earlier point in time.
Without considering whether your statement even makes mathematical sense (I think it does not), observation always trumps theory. So if Banach’s fixed point theorem would imply that our universe would have to have a center (I think it does not), then the observation that all observable galaxies are receding from each other as they are receding from us falsifies that.
One thought which crossed my mind in the past as I learned about the various voids is that our idea of the expanding balloon analogy for the expanding universe is maybe a bit TOO simplified and I remember those other theories about the 'foam universe'. Instead of 'one balloon analogy our universe has various areas expanding and the 'edges' of those different zones can trick us to believe that some unknown force gives us those different constant values depending on in what directions we look.
But like various spheres coexisting besides each other can trick our eyes there might be no unknown force at work about the increasing expansion speed of the universe but the observed effect might be a property of spacetime itself and might vary slightly depending on the direction and on which of such multiple 'bubbles', resp. the misc. voids we see influence the observation, distorting maybe even our perception of those voids appearing empty but bending light in this bubble universe were our observations are influences in some way were we draw slightly wrong conclusions because of the one balloon analogy vs a collection of multiple balloons which change their sizes against each other, letting some bubbles expand more and/or faster and others less like bubbles can shift constantly sizes towards each other.
This is of course highly speculative but the universe also often reflects the very tiny in the very large scale and vice versa.
The base point of my rambling is that we use the 'one balloon analogy for the expanding universe SO massively that maybe that crutch became our limiting factor and as it is maybe more complex like the 'foam universe' were we can see often just clearly inside our own bubble, resp. horizon and those other galaxy clusters and/or voids are other parts of a maaaybe foamier univsere then just the simplified one balloon crutch.
Raises questions.
1. Why do we operate on the assumption that there was nothing before the Big Bang?
2. How big can a black hole get before it reaches a point whereby it collapses; imploding then expanding outward?
3. Have they considered that slower moving galaxies were galaxies that existed and moving long before the creation of galaxies moving at the same rate we are?
I have more but this is my initial set.
I propose adding a new value ,Ld, which describes Dark Languidity, to explain why the universe reacts non uniformly to the influence of dark energy.
The value of Dark Languidity is defined as Ro-Re, or observed results - expected results.
1+1 (+ dark 1) = 3 moment
That's funny.
Beautifully explained, Anton.
HERE is The Savior
HalleluYAH translates “Praise ye YaH”
YaH is The Heavenly Father
YaH is Who Created “Man (Adam)”
YaH arrives via the TENT OF MEETING
YaH was Who they Crucified for the sins OF “Man”
** NO female involved WHATSOEVER **
- Hebrew Book of Isaiah
Isaiah 42:8
"I am YaH; that is my Name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
Isaiah 43:11
I, I am YAH, and there is no other Savior but Me.
Isaiah 45:5
I am YaH, and there is none else.
Humans: "This dosnt make sense."
Universe: "I dont have to make sense."
Aliens: "Slow learners they are."
Children of the GODS: "' Don't listen to your ''SCIENTISTS''.
Very good and informative video. I've been wondering about this, and am skeptical to our ability to tell how old the universe is. This confirms my suspicions. I'm crossing fingers there is still new physics we not yet understand that can explain this, and maybe even give us a basic understanding that might help us develop faster ways of traveling... 🤞
I recently heard a theory that the expansion of the universe might be an 'optical illusion' due to the cluster we are in moving at a particular velocity relative to other clusters, galaxies etc, that all we are seeing is parts of the universe appearing to move away from us because we're also moving. Also, different parts of the universe are moving at different speeds due to the great streams of matter that make up the filament like structures observed. There was a lot more to it but essentially the expansion of the universe might, emphasis on might, be an 'optical illusion' due to our own movement and point of view.
that doesn't make sense, if that were true we would only see galaxies one one side, the side opposite our current 'direction' of motion, moving further away. We instead see galaxies redshifting in every direction, which is only possible if space is expanding in all directions around us. It's true we don't have a full grasp on how fast the expansion is and how much it's increasing etc, but we definitely know inflation is happening
This channel and Anton have come a long way since being created as a math-tutoring channel. The Neil Apollo Petrov Memorial Fund has raised over $166,000. Congrats!
Maybe the reason the farther away something is, the faster it seems to be moving away from us is because we’re seeing them where and how they were millions to billions of years ago, where overall the Universe was expanding faster than it might then be today
I created an experiment to try and show expansion from a spherical explosion to simulate the big bang using high speed cameras and got some unusual results the expansion was not uniform but over several explosions there was a correlation in the pattern, these patterns were similar even if the explosive power was increased, I would love someone to conduct this experiment with the new Caltech camera that shoots 70 trillion frames per second it would show that the expansion speeds are different in certain places around the explosion I hypothesise that the big bang wasn't just an instant explosion over and done but it was prolonged with spikes of energy thus accelerating areas at different speeds , what do you think should this experiment be redone?
As far as most accepted theories go, the big bang was not an explosion, so in that case your experiment can't be used as being analogous to what we believe to be the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang was the expansion of space itself, there was no space before for it to expand.
I think you would also need zero gravity and a vacuum to get comparable results.
Computer simulations would probably work better at that.
Also less risk of accidents with explosives :o
@@Dorihn2009 actually what your saying is one of many theories about the big bang your theory of space expanding into nothingness has many floors 1 being space already existed which means it came from somewhere else the problem is we don't know what we do know is the universe is expanding at different rates there are universes moving faster than those at the edge and those closer to the centre of the universe aswell as universes that are close to it, as I said there are many theories but no definitive answer as the late prof Stephen Hawking said if we all picked a different theory and formulated a proof we would still be left with many proofs and still not know which if any was the definitive proof or maybe they are all correct in a multi verse.
@@NewPipeFTW that would be the ideal experiment the problem with a computer simulation is the data that is input into the computer as it would be guesswork and as we have seen recently with simulations when they have been compared to reality they were completely wrong however if you take reality and feed that data into a simulation you can expand the parameters to get a more realistic simulation but even then until reality confirms the simulation results it's still a guess.
I can’t figure out why people would even believe in a constant to begin with! To obtain a uniform (constant) result of an explosion, all constituents that make up the material and all the forces acting upon that material over time would ALSO have to be uniform and consistent. To get a homogenous result, wouldn’t you have to have complete uniformity beforehand? Why should that uniformity be assumed to begin with?
Either it's an universal, equally distributed expansion force that being "hindered" at varying rates in different places because of mass distribution or, the universe is "porous" and some outside input is being "leaked in" (sorry for the bad analogy) at different rates in different places because the "porosity" is not equal everywhere.
The void "explanation" suggests that the "constant" is not really constant. If the void was having an effect, then it follows that the constant can change depending the criteria that allow it to be different for the void. I really hope the scientists are not really trying to use the void explanation as an argument for the constant being constant but "appearing" to not be constant because that's an illogical argument. If they're providing a possible reason for why the constant can vary, then we should be able to test and find other similar voids that show the constant varying in those locations as well.
The idea of the 'Constant not being constant' reminds me of early Carbon Dating. When Carbon Dating was first created things with known dates didn't match up the further backward in time until they calibrated them with changing amounts of carbon in the atmosphere over time.
Is it possible that the Microwave Background Radiation is extremely red shifted, extremely distant galaxies? And what if something is causing red shift other than things moving away from us? I think we are clearly missing a lot about the universe, including what is dark matter, so there will undoubtedly be more advances, and I think it is totally possible that a lot of our current “story of the universe” is wrong.
Time Dialation. Everyone assumes we run at 1.0x speed on earth but we don't the gravity of earth, the sun, our galaxy, and our SMBH slow us down considerably. Vast empty sections of space outside of the range of the gravity wells of SMBH literally run faster therefor have "more time" to expand.
There is another paradigm "The Electric Universe" as opposed to the current paradigm that gravity rules the universe. It is a fact known for over 100 year that light "photons" are red shifted by passing through electrically charged plasma. The amount of the red shift is a function of the density and amount of charge of the plasma. So the further away a light source is and the amount of and charge density of the plasma it has travelled through red shifts the light. Why is this never mentioned ? On another note gravitational lensing was proposed years ago since then it has been established that our Milkyway galaxy is actually twice as big if you include the gas halo around it. Gravitational lensing uses the same math formula as diffraction through gas. The current gravity centric paradigm of astro physics is under question.
I feel like we probably don't have a big bang starter here, we could be drifting about with endless stars in the distance since whatever we think was the start.
Not only is it totally possible, it’s absolutely true. Scientists are finding new things about our sun and the internal composition of the earth all the time…with all of the different theories that seem to work in one case in another, there’s no way we truly understand the universe as it is.
@@scotthill2865 I don’t know a whole lot about it, but I find this theory very compelling. Any good video recommendations that discus it?