1:05:42 „This is not a quest to measure a number. This is the quest to do an end-to-end test of the universe and understand why it’s failing!“ - I like that. 1:09:39 lose threads in the sweater vs unraveling the sweater when you tug; maybe we don’t even know how to make a sweater at all
As Adam mentioned in the interview, the Hubble constant can be measured at high precision (only 1% error margin) using the Cepheid/SNe Ia distance ladder. But what is the precision of the deceleration parameter measurement? The negative value of the deceleration parameter tells us that the universe is accelerating in its expansion, and the discovery of which lead to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. Can Adam or Sean please shed light on the current measurement of value of the deceleration parameter and its error margin? Just want to make sure that the 2011 Nobel Prize is still on solid ground.
Our view of the cosmos has changed hugely in more recent times yet this strange expanded vista seems to have had little or no effect on human affairs on a little planet. Is this failure of philosophy or of science?
Sean, I love your podcast so much, I found it about a year after you started it. And listened to podcasts all the time. Now unfortunately I have listened to all of them, and certainly re-listened very many. You are by far my favorite "science communicator"(sorry Brian) and not seeing you and the guest on RUclips dosent bother me in the slightest. But sometimes when im listening to your podcast and don't have alot going on, I realy wish you could maybe ad some pictures/videos that maybe have something to do with that your talking about. Especially when it comes to cosmology! I of course know that its just you making these, and its so pure and wonderful because of that! But maybe have someone else do some visuals/pictures for you? Some other podcasts have that, and they are not on your level of science experience wich is why I am here 😁 i just wanted to give you an idea possibly. Thank you so much for your podcast it truly inspires me to never stop learning.
Timestamps would be a lovely addition to your already amazing podcast Sean. Sometimes people want to go back to revisit an idea, or want to skip over parts we are familiar with. Thanks for being you sir. X
I think that in order to progress any further in our understanding of the accelerating expansion of the Universe and the 9% tension in the value of the Hubble constant, we need to finally once and for all figure out what 90% of Dark matter is. The fact that 85% of the matter in the universe is unrecognizable and unexplainable should be the almost singular subject of exploration of Cosmologists today. A 9% tension in the value of Hubble's const is chicken feed compared to the Dark matter problem! Most likely, you figure out what Dark matter is, and you will solve this discrepancy. Or maybe Dark Matter being converted to Dark Energy!
Sean put the idea for the research into Adam’s mind as he himself was skeptical about the theory of the accerleration of the universe. What a miss for such great man. I wonder whether he has thought of research into the other mysteries of the universe. Sean himself is actually an authority on cosmology.
Maybe your program was right except you need a negation of your time value. Near galaxies should be moving away faster. Distant galaxies are showing the expansion from eons ago. So maybe universe is actually decelerating.
Cosmic Entanglement, something that has actually now been proven, is another mountain that needs to be climbed since it truly makes no sense macroscopically.
Is it just me, or does it feel like Sean is a bit intimidated by this dude, and trying not to offend him. Also Adam sounds like an angry dude. Why am I getting these vibes.
Are we considering our movement in our galaxy in the calculations of the red shift? I mean we are at a very large scale orbiting a galaxy at a very high rate of speed. I know velocity doesn't effect the speed of light, but would it not effect the obsevation of said light? Perhaps the shift? I mean what consequence does our solar system orbiting our galaxy at a high rate of speed effect that shift???
@EditFast in reference to the center of our galaxy and whatever we are observing. You have to consider the parallax as we do using the earth to measure stars. We're moving in relation to something is my main point. And if we are in the right part of our orbitnjn the galaxy, and going the right direction, the solar system itself may be moving away from what's being observed. Wouldn't that effect the shift?
@@thomasbarrack1384 You are correct, Earth's relative motion (astronomers call it peculiar motion) does contribute to the redshift of objects we are moving away from and blueshifts objects that we are moving toward. You are also correct that the effect is generally small relative to the redshift of distant objects. The rest frame of the CMB can be used to calculate our motion through the cosmos. You could google "CMB dipole" for more info.
@moi2833 I'm very skeptical of our conclusions from cosmology observations. Namely the conclusions drawn from the color shift. I feel like there are many more reasons than expansion/inflation that through theoretical methods could be made to "fit" either of theories when it can be interpreted other ways or seen as inconclusive. Just a amateurs opinion and curiousity honestly. Not claiming to know anything substantial. Just a dreamer.m
Thx for the info, though I don't have a photographic memory that reaches 15 years into the past like (at the time of writing) 14 of you apparently have!
I think the thing that has to go is the CMB. Just an armchair computer scientist, but the more I learn about how those maps were made the more incredulous I become. The number of image manipulations needed alone should raise red flags to anyone, let alone their arbitrary nature and pure guesswork as to the foreground removal.
You need to be humbled my friend. The CMB is one of the most vetted discoveries ever made. It's a Nobel prize discovery for a reason. It may seem like voodoo to you but I can sure assure you all of those image "manipulations" are well-understood and valid.
The accelarating universe was the most important astronomical discovery during my childhood. So hearing Adam Riess speaking about it gives me great pleasure. Fascinating episode, thank you Sean Carroll!
Sean asked if we are missing something significant in the standard model. I think we are missing several something's, but the most pressing is an inappreciation of what our ignorance of spacetime structure at the Planck scale is leaving out of our model. What about frame dragging? Has no one considered that a SMBH might rip loose a chunk of spacetime to rotate with it and then have several billion years to convince the spacetime occupied by it's galaxy to follow suit? This could perhaps explain Milgrom's observations regarding galactic rotation curves.
@@ghostrecon3214 It means that if space is discreet at the Planck scale perhaps SMBH gravity can induce regions of spacetime to rotate, which could locally have the effect of a preferred direction, which we could observe in the rotation curves of galaxies. It means that perhaps rotating spacetime in dense superclusters effectively acts as additional mass to lens distant objects. If we continue to insist that GR is valid below the Planck scale, perhaps no progress is possible.
I personally sign onto the idea that the entire universe is many 1000s, if not billions, or trillions of times bigger than the visible universe. If the entire universe is only a few times larger instead, would it be possible to see temperature variations in the CMB that could be connected to super-voids, or super-clusters located between the Background and Earth. What kind of resolution in the CMB would be potentially needed to make this connection? If it was found, I guess we would be then able to determine how big the unseen universe was. I don't expect it to be possible (I believe with the measured flatness, it must be at least 250x bigger).
@@LiLi-or2gm in this podcast, professor Carroll at the first step said my guest is one the Nobel laureates. Therefore if even someone didn't know it in the past, now she or he knows. Recently we were in the Nobel Prize season. And when I asked my request, I thought my point is obvious. But you are right. I should add more details on my request. Thanks for your comments.
Thanks for the new podcast with Highclass Content!
1:05:42 „This is not a quest to measure a number. This is the quest to do an end-to-end test of the universe and understand why it’s failing!“ - I like that.
1:09:39 lose threads in the sweater vs unraveling the sweater when you tug; maybe we don’t even know how to make a sweater at all
These podcasts make these hard times more bearable.
Is it possible to timestamp all questions in further podcast episodes? That would be sweet!
As Adam mentioned in the interview, the Hubble constant can be measured at high precision (only 1% error margin) using the Cepheid/SNe Ia distance ladder. But what is the precision of the deceleration parameter measurement? The negative value of the deceleration parameter tells us that the universe is accelerating in its expansion, and the discovery of which lead to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. Can Adam or Sean please shed light on the current measurement of value of the deceleration parameter and its error margin? Just want to make sure that the 2011 Nobel Prize is still on solid ground.
the "you know" constant repetition became close to unbearable towards the end
Could the idea in the Juno model help here? The constants are all dynamic but related in there.
Our view of the cosmos has changed hugely in more recent times yet this strange expanded vista seems to have had little or no effect on human affairs on a little planet. Is this failure of philosophy or of science?
Thanks for providing these videos to those lucky enough to view.
“We’ve all written computer programs that gave the wrong answer.”
😐
Why can't we deploy 3 or 5 JWSTs at once? All that R&D is already paid and it's probably 90+ percent of total costs.
Sean, I love your podcast so much, I found it about a year after you started it. And listened to podcasts all the time. Now unfortunately I have listened to all of them, and certainly re-listened very many. You are by far my favorite "science communicator"(sorry Brian) and not seeing you and the guest on RUclips dosent bother me in the slightest. But sometimes when im listening to your podcast and don't have alot going on, I realy wish you could maybe ad some pictures/videos that maybe have something to do with that your talking about. Especially when it comes to cosmology! I of course know that its just you making these, and its so pure and wonderful because of that! But maybe have someone else do some visuals/pictures for you? Some other podcasts have that, and they are not on your level of science experience wich is why I am here 😁 i just wanted to give you an idea possibly. Thank you so much for your podcast it truly inspires me to never stop learning.
Timestamps would be a lovely addition to your already amazing podcast Sean. Sometimes people want to go back to revisit an idea, or want to skip over parts we are familiar with. Thanks for being you sir. X
I think that in order to progress any further in our understanding of the accelerating expansion of the Universe and the 9% tension in the value of the Hubble constant, we need to finally once and for all figure out what 90% of Dark matter is. The fact that 85% of the matter in the universe is unrecognizable and unexplainable should be the almost singular subject of exploration of Cosmologists today. A 9% tension in the value of Hubble's const is chicken feed compared to the Dark matter problem! Most likely, you figure out what Dark matter is, and you will solve this discrepancy. Or maybe Dark Matter being converted to Dark Energy!
20:55 Did dude just say he used seans formulas for his nobel prize???
No, it was a review article.
Sean put the idea for the research into Adam’s mind as he himself was skeptical about the theory of the accerleration of the universe. What a miss for such great man. I wonder whether he has thought of research into the other mysteries of the universe. Sean himself is actually an authority on cosmology.
Maybe your program was right except you need a negation of your time value. Near galaxies should be moving away faster. Distant galaxies are showing the expansion from eons ago. So maybe universe is actually decelerating.
I love all your podcast, however, these kinds are my absolute favorite!
Cosmic Entanglement, something that has actually now been proven, is another mountain that needs to be climbed since it truly makes no sense macroscopically.
New information is coming soon from the web telescope observations that will seriously challenge the accelerating universe theory.
Some of my favorite nighttime stories
David Deutsch please :)
Is it just me, or does it feel like Sean is a bit intimidated by this dude, and trying not to offend him. Also Adam sounds like an angry dude. Why am I getting these vibes.
Adam is a noble prize winner and Sean just wants to hear it from the horses mouth.
Are we considering our movement in our galaxy in the calculations of the red shift? I mean we are at a very large scale orbiting a galaxy at a very high rate of speed. I know velocity doesn't effect the speed of light, but would it not effect the obsevation of said light? Perhaps the shift? I mean what consequence does our solar system orbiting our galaxy at a high rate of speed effect that shift???
@EditFast in reference to the center of our galaxy and whatever we are observing. You have to consider the parallax as we do using the earth to measure stars. We're moving in relation to something is my main point. And if we are in the right part of our orbitnjn the galaxy, and going the right direction, the solar system itself may be moving away from what's being observed. Wouldn't that effect the shift?
@@thomasbarrack1384 You are correct, Earth's relative motion (astronomers call it peculiar motion) does contribute to the redshift of objects we are moving away from and blueshifts objects that we are moving toward. You are also correct that the effect is generally small relative to the redshift of distant objects.
The rest frame of the CMB can be used to calculate our motion through the cosmos. You could google "CMB dipole" for more info.
@moi2833 I'm very skeptical of our conclusions from cosmology observations. Namely the conclusions drawn from the color shift. I feel like there are many more reasons than expansion/inflation that through theoretical methods could be made to "fit" either of theories when it can be interpreted other ways or seen as inconclusive. Just a amateurs opinion and curiousity honestly. Not claiming to know anything substantial. Just a dreamer.m
Looking forward to this one 👍
40:34 you can skip to here if you watched any of Sean‘s talks in the last 15 years.
Thx for the info, though I don't have a photographic memory that reaches 15 years into the past like (at the time of writing) 14 of you apparently have!
I think the thing that has to go is the CMB. Just an armchair computer scientist, but the more I learn about how those maps were made the more incredulous I become. The number of image manipulations needed alone should raise red flags to anyone, let alone their arbitrary nature and pure guesswork as to the foreground removal.
Good point!...and the foreground removal doesn't include gravitational lensing effects...
You need to be humbled my friend. The CMB is one of the most vetted discoveries ever made. It's a Nobel prize discovery for a reason. It may seem like voodoo to you but I can sure assure you all of those image "manipulations" are well-understood and valid.
I have never seen Sean Carroll get savage.
Listen to his savage debat with a theist; and later in a vid this theist remarked Sean was wild . Lol
The accelarating universe was the most important astronomical discovery during my childhood. So hearing Adam Riess speaking about it gives me great pleasure. Fascinating episode, thank you Sean Carroll!
Great one
Another fantastic podcast! Thank you Sean!
Sean asked if we are missing something significant in the standard model. I think we are missing several something's, but the most pressing is an inappreciation of what our ignorance of spacetime structure at the Planck scale is leaving out of our model. What about frame dragging? Has no one considered that a SMBH might rip loose a chunk of spacetime to rotate with it and then have several billion years to convince the spacetime occupied by it's galaxy to follow suit? This could perhaps explain Milgrom's observations regarding galactic rotation curves.
Rip a chunk of spacetime? What does that even mean?
I guess in a model so removed from reality, anything is possible.
@@ghostrecon3214 It means that if space is discreet at the Planck scale perhaps SMBH gravity can induce regions of spacetime to rotate, which could locally have the effect of a preferred direction, which we could observe in the rotation curves of galaxies. It means that perhaps rotating spacetime in dense superclusters effectively acts as additional mass to lens distant objects.
If we continue to insist that GR is valid below the Planck scale, perhaps no progress is possible.
@@gilbertanderson3456 Like an eddy current?
Oh no, I don't put any limitations on reality, just hope to discover how it works!
Great podcast. Thanks Sean.
Ahh, the dreaded speed of dark.
We love you too Sean Carroll!
"I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers"
Hello professor
I'm waiting for your interview with one of the Physics Nobel laureates (2020). I hope you have a plan for this.
Thank you professor
I personally sign onto the idea that the entire universe is many 1000s, if not billions, or trillions of times bigger than the visible universe. If the entire universe is only a few times larger instead, would it be possible to see temperature variations in the CMB that could be connected to super-voids, or super-clusters located between the Background and Earth. What kind of resolution in the CMB would be potentially needed to make this connection? If it was found, I guess we would be then able to determine how big the unseen universe was. I don't expect it to be possible (I believe with the measured flatness, it must be at least 250x bigger).
Adam Riess IS a Nobel Laureate.
Of course, he is one the Nobel laureates for universe expansion. But I mean the 2020 winners.
@@user-wu8yq1rb9t Yes, I see you edited your initial comment after I posted mine.
@@LiLi-or2gm in this podcast, professor Carroll at the first step said my guest is one the Nobel laureates. Therefore if even someone didn't know it in the past, now she or he knows.
Recently we were in the Nobel Prize season. And when I asked my request, I thought my point is obvious.
But you are right. I should add more details on my request.
Thanks for your comments.
Beautiful