The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1732950267728x526847351697702900 You can now also create your own quizzes on my website, it's free!
the general and special relativity works just find, just remove the space time curvature part, the space time causes curvature need to be removed else the problem won't be solved. I am currently making a new theory on the dimension from negative 2 to positive nine, there will be part how the 4th-dimension causes image distortion rather than space time curvature.
I even made a video regarding this topic, only if miss Sabina do not mind, I called this new framework a colorless king dimension framework, currently made 1 video of negative dimension 2. Title: Colorless King Dimension Hypothesis Negative 2 as Time, New Dimensional Framework
Before one throws out general relativity, one needs to remember cosmological models, such as Lambda CDM, are models based on assumptions of how the universe works. If the assumptions are wrong, then the model is wrong and observations won't match predictions. One of the assumptions in Lambda CDM is the the universe has constant and isotropic curvature. General relativity does not actually require that the universe curves in the same way in all directions (the isotropic part). Nor does it require that the curvature is constant (it could vary from place to place). It is true that both cosmology and astrophysics become much more difficult if the constant and isotropic curvature assumption is wrong, but our job as scientists is to describe/explain the world as it is and not in a way that makes it easy for ourselves.
The problem with throwing out isotrophy and homogeneity is that it's unfalsifiable. We cannot ever know the large scale curvature or distribution of matter of the universe, only the local and the observation that it evens out above a certain scale.
@@bpotter885 teh funny thing is that einstein can be right and wrong at the same time. the same way newton was right and wrong with his calcualtions (at least below 1% of the speed of light). an equation can be right while being incomplete at the same time. we simplificate equations a ton and these higher equations they use have many input values that are undefined (like the center of a black hole or the water speed at a 90° corner curve in fluid dynamics)
@@ObjectsInMotion The whole observable universe counts as "large scale", even if it's "small" in a yet larger scale. If you're getting bumps at the scale of *every single thing that you can see* - then you got some serious bumps, indeed, *regardless* of how it looks on yet larger scales. And that counts as falsification.
Hi Sabine, I’m an Aussie truck driver in my 60’s and a science tragic/lover since I care to remember. I will not waste your valuable time with a long post, just in case you read them, as it would detract from the time you have to do your incredibly important work. I just want to let you know you are wonderful. I rank you as being alongside my heroes like Feynman, Euler, Socrates and Emo Philips. Please keep doing your thing. I appreciate you without limit. For me your sarcastic and compassionate humour is pitch perfect. You go girl!
I agree, Sabine is great -- especially now since she's unfettered from the chains of scientific convention. Good to know you're using your time on the road to learn! 👍👍
Sure, she's wholly very compassionate... “Unvaccinated are a danger to themselves and others. Of course, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as vaccinated people. Anyone who intentionally puts others in danger has to live with the consequences.” - Fräulein Sabine HoSSenfelder, 2021
@@johnkessler9878 exactly. Many things I was taught about the universe in public school are no longer considered true. To his credit, one of my teachers taught then-current cosmological theories as "modern mythology" akin to Greek and Roman and Biblical mythology about how everything was created.
@@johnkessler9878You're forgetting that for decades it has been successfully validated over and over. So of course it's a fact - just like newtonian gravity is a fact for things happening on earths surface. The only thing missing is a footnote that we are debating why it doesn't work well at cosmological distances.
@@danielh.9010 you’re cherry picking. A few thing seem to be fact because they are repeatedly validated. At the same time we can’t get gravity to work at the quantum level. So maybe we don’t know all that much yet. And maybe the Big Bang ain’t such a sure thing, either. I taught math in a public high school for thirty years, and I can say every science teacher I saw taught the Big Bang as fact and the universe is 13billion years old.
Einstein can be wrong sometimes. Unfortunately Sabina has made Einstein has a god and created a religion like figure out of him. He can be wrong once in a while he is human.
What can we learn from this? That, at some point, the belief in the existence of dark matter is hard to defend. But it looks like a sacred cow, for reasons I don’t understand.
Cosmology is far from replacing philosophy. In fact, cosmology is mostly *spontaneous philosophy* (bad one) that tries hard to replace *systematic philosophy* (good one) based on the mere partial observation of the "universe" (a highly debatable metaphysical concept) by using technological devices and applying theoretical physics (math). So, cosmology is not based on material-physical processes (alpha operations - _α_ ) like testing hypotheses and theories in a lab as the object of study cannot enter any laboratory to be tested. Thus, cosmology is mostly based on subjective or psychological inferences and projections from technological observations and computational models (beta operations - _β_ ).
@@axeman2638 Special relativity, time, and gravity are exactly the things we need question. Our assumption that time can dilate is most likely false. There are other relativistic changes that influence the inertial velocity, thus mass, of objects in motion approaching the speed of light. There is no such thing as a vacuum free of any energized fields. All mass generates fields and all mass interacts with fields. Even clocks and quantum computers. It is not possible to isolate anything.
@@brendanwood1540 Yep, Einstein is bunk, space can't warp, time cannot dilate, they are units of measurement we invented they have no physical existence.
@@brendanwood1540we 100% know time dilates. Our satellite communication and location systems wouldn’t work without *accurately* compensating for it. As for everything else you said. I‘ll leave that for the actual experts to roll their eyes at.
Untrue. He threw out Newtonian philosophy of absolute space and time in favor of unobservable, observer-dependent isotropic light speed, which leads to hooey magical relative space and time and which will go down in history as one of the greatest errors humankind has ever made
Another highly engaging review of the follies of Big Bang cosmology. Unfortunately, it remains taboo to question the basic premise, namely, that the Hubble constant measures the rate of expansion of the Universe, rather than some distance and/or density based interaction between light and matter which could be investigated without resorting to preposterous notions like creation ex nihilo or a primordial singularity.
Look at some actual evidence: photos in Halton Arp's books like "Seeing Red", showing luminous connections between low-redshift galaxies and nearby high-redshift quasars, disproving BBT.
Thanks for another good discussion about our universe and our understanding of it. We should never be disturbed by gaps between observations and theory. These gaps tell that there interesting stuff to discover
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is" (Yogi Berra) So to paraphrase: In modelling there is no difference between the model and reality, in reality there is.
As someone who builds dynamic simulation models for a living, I can tell you that your paraphrase is wrong. Most simulation modelers are very much aware that there is a difference, in the model, between the model and reality.
@@NemisCassander Quotes attributed to Yogi Berra are generally like that, because that's how he spoke. For example he did say "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded". What he meant was that _his_ social group no longer went there because that place was now too mainstream.
Everbody loves a good theory. The problem comes when you accept the theory as true. It's like making an error in the ledger of your checking account. Any transaction or deposit correctly figured, after the mistake, will always be wrong. A genius can be wrong also.
Deeply appreciate your insight and reliable reporting in a field swamped with clickbait! What an age we live in, when so much good observational science has become available. 🙏🏻
I recommend to Sabine that each new video she makes that involves dark matter or MOND include a summary (at the end of the video) that lists both the falsifications of dark matter and the falsifications of MOND. When both have been falsified, it's silly to think that an additional falsification of one suggests a champagne celebration of the correctness of the other might be anticipated. A recent Caltech newsletter mentions a Caltech grad student studying observations of galactic clusters that, due to collisions, have had spatial separation of their normal matter and their dark matter. (Like the famous Bullet Cluster.) Since MOND chokes on those observations, the champagne should be reserved for some other celebration.
I recall that when the Bullet Cluster was discovered, it was loudly proclaimed (by Dark Matter supporters) as proof of Dark Matter and disproof of MOND, but MOND supporters (including Mordehai Milgrom, the originator of MOND, himself) later said that the Bullet Cluster can in fact be explained using MOND, but by that time the media interest in the story had died, so hardly anybody heard about their rebuttal.
@-danR not true. I have heard of both. 😅 Don't assume anything, and you become open minded. Then you have room for big idear. Of cours i say that i say nothing
A lot of the latest stuff we're doing, like bleeding edge DM models vs MOND models, or the strong force and QCD / L-QED sound like we're reaching epicycles on epicycles. Unfortunately something better still eludes us, something that has to be far, far more intricate than we are imagining.
@@doublepinger we had quite good data for the planetary movement. If we would have such good data for cosmology, even if we did not understand the physics, we probably can have a good fit trough the data like Planck did at his time. And then we could look for a model that explains it. But the current data is quite weak, but far better than what we had 20 years ago. We just have started to measure the cosmos. (like 200 years ago we did "Measuring the World" according to a book title)
In other branches of science every time they got stuck for a long time, it was evidence from a lower more foundational level that resolved the issue. Spacetime physicists can't do that. But, they can learn a different lesson. The earliest flaw in the model always was followed by other flaws required to make the theory work. Today there are probably multiple flaws that support each other in the best models of physics. Correcting a singular flaw may not fit the data any better. This seems like it makes the problem more difficult. But that's an illusion because physics itself is unchanged by theory.
@@AurelienCarnoywe might theorize a foundation (like the existence of an omnipotent deity). But because we only have this spacetime (that we are within) to work with we can't tell the difference between evidence of the foundation which spacetime emerged from and a property of spacetime.
BBT is founded on gravity, but there is only about 5% of the real matter in the universe needed to support it. Plasma Cosmology is founded on EM forces, and needs no patches like DM, DE and inflation.
I would appreciate if more scientists were willing to say "I'm not sure what this means and we're working to better understand what's happening". I watched a meteorologist once who was predicting a storm's path once it hit Lake Michigan. After two days of the models constantly shifting he stated "We're not sure where this is going precisely. So I'm going to stay in the studio and keep you all up to date on what it's doing right now". The rest of my time in that city he was the only meteorologist I watched. That level of honesty is rare in my experience.
Wow. Yes. I appreciate such transparency too. Like, just say 'you don't know' bruh, you are not any less of an expert if you do it, quite the opposite. Be humble smh.
@@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd Because climate and meteorology are two different things. You don't necessarily need to know everything going on inside a system to predict how the system will behave. That's why we can predict how a gaz will act when under pressure without having to know every minute detail about what each of its atoms will do.
@SabineHossenfelder, thank you for another fascinating and thought-provoking video. As an engineer rather than a physicist, I’ve been captivated by the concept of an expanding universe and wanted to share some thoughts and questions that have arisen as I reflect on your points. First, regarding the expansion of the universe: If the universe is expanding, does that expansion also apply to the space between atoms or within atomic structures? My understanding is that forces like electromagnetism and quantum mechanics (e.g., Planck’s constant) would maintain atomic and molecular integrity, effectively anchoring us at small scales. But if there were any changes in fundamental constants, would they not be imperceptible to us since our measurement standards would also shift proportionally? It’s a thought experiment I find intriguing. Second, about the Hubble tension: It seems to me that our attempts to measure the expansion rate of the universe are limited by our singular vantage point within the cosmos-our galaxy and, more specifically, Earth. While I understand that astrophysicists employ techniques like gravitational lensing, standard candles, and CMB data to “triangulate” and expand their observational framework, aren’t these methods inherently reliant on assumptions about the universe’s uniformity and the consistency of physical laws across vast distances? Could this introduce additional variables that complicate reconciling the discrepancies you describe? Lastly, the idea of a “big bang” leading to a universe expanding forever-or accelerating rather than reversing-fascinates me. I used to think, as many laypeople do, that the mass of the universe would eventually counteract its kinetic energy, leading to contraction. Learning that observations have disproved this has left me wondering: How can this be reconciled with the apparent role of dark energy in driving acceleration? Is this tension between theory and observation perhaps analogous to the Hubble and Sigma8 tensions, hinting at a deeper issue with our understanding of gravity or cosmic dynamics? I’m aware my perspective lacks the depth of someone with formal training in cosmology, but I find these questions compelling and hope they contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Thank you for making complex ideas accessible and for sparking curiosity in those of us outside the field.
Great thoughts and questions. But I'm afraid you probably will not get an answer or any feedback. This is generally 99% of RUclips videos. They may be very informative, but they are generally not a place of discussion. Well not with the person who created the video that is.
I'm not Sabine, but let me try to answer some of your questions. First, about the expansion: The expansion is a slow process, and relatively very weak. We can measure it from galaxies that are far away from each other, since the gravitational force between such galaxies is also incredibly weak. But the electromagnetic force easily overcomes it. The position of atoms and molecules isn't exactly fixed, as things tend to vibrate with heat etc., so the amount of chaotic motion is easily big enough to drown out such a small process. In other words, your ruler will not expand over time, while the distance between faraway galaxies will increase, so by comparing the two we can measure expansion. Secondly, about the Hubble tension: Indeed, the assumption of uniformity and consistency is required. It is essentially the only thing we can assume, as we can only test physics in our neighbourhood. If the laws of physics smoothly vary by location, then we should be able to see minuscule differences in the laws within our neighbourhood, so we should discover the differences as our measurements become better. But indeed, we can never really know what is going on in the universe far from us -- we don't even know for sure if the universe is infinite. There are also theories that the entire universe can be divided into bubbles such that the laws of physics are the same within each bubble but differ between bubbles, in which case we should be able to see some 'domain wall' where the two bubbles meet -- but we don't see any. (We do think there were domain walls in the early universe, based on the cosmic microwave background (CMB), but they did not survive until today.) Lastly, about the contraction: that is exactly why we need dark energy. Just based on matter (visible and dark), you would indeed expect the expansion to slow down until the universe is contracting, and for things to eventually regroup into a "big crunch" or "big bounce". But that does not seem to happen, instead the expansion is accelerating. This means there must be some "pressure" that is driving the expansion, which is what we call dark energy. One idea is that this dark energy is the potential energy of empty space, i.e. making more empty space increases the energy and hence that is energetically favourable. But quantum calculations predict that this potential energy of empty space is many orders of magnitude too large, so that doesn't help us either. The Hubble and Sigma-8 tensions are not directly related to this. Both of those tensions can be thought of as follows: Imagine that you have a gigantic high-resolution photo of your city, made from an airplane. You can zoom in and out quite far, and you use this to measure the area of your house twice. The first time you start fully zoomed in to detail on your roof, and you zoom out until you can see the entire house and measure. The second time you start fully zoomed out, then zoom in to your street and measure. But the two measurements don't give the same result! This raises questions if there is something wrong with the zooming process -- perhaps our zooming gives some distortions to the image, or we started more zoomed out than we thought, or something else went wrong. This unresolved question is the 'tension'. It is entirely possible our zooming process is wrong exactly because we don't understand dark energy, but it is very hard to say something about this with our current understanding.
The universe has not been clumping enough, yet the early universe apparently has bigger galaxies and black holes than expected. Interesting mix of contradictory observations there. 🤔
I currently regard the models of Cosmology as maybe a good start, and the dependance on "dark matter" and "dark energy" similar to "black magic." I'm not a physicist or professional astronomer, but an old fashioned physical chemist by training. If something cannot be detected by current technology, but is required to made these models work, it seems to throw theory into doubt with our current understanding of things. Keep up the good work in these presentations!
This is exactly where "modern science" is. Cheap bubble of cheap people connected only to own wallets. Any change is veeery dangerous for their positions. And try to go against the flow, you will immediately hear “we do not want to work with you”.
No scientist ever said that... The fact that different approaches, measurements, theories are being worked, and this from a point in space looking 14 billion years in the past... That's just normal science...
Can we have a video covering the modified gravity models or theories as of now? Too many readers seem to assume there is a single theory or model of modified gravity (MOND) but it's more complicated than that. Fudging the equations until they fit observations, then testing the fudged equations against results at different scales or measuring different phenomena... it's a good start. Then if we identify an equation that seems to be a good approximation of multiple phenomena we've measured, we have to go from "what" to "why".
@@-danR I don't expect most commenter to know about my cat, but my cat knows HE is the centre of the universe. Every cat knows the universe revolves around them. 😂 People need to stop pretending we can currently create a handy formula or model that describes anything or everything in the universe. Everything is based on limited data gathered from a physically limited viewpoint, our little blue planet, over a miniscule period of time.
"let alone its implications for most species of MOND" Sabine addressed this and the bullet cluster. Someone should expect better of themselves, before spouting out the first pretentious thing that comes to mind, instead of addressing that welling cognitive dissonance in the back of your mind that spurred your attempt at shooting the messenger.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 While you are at it, take a look at photos in his books like "Seeing Red" which show luminous connections between low-redshift galaxies and nearby high-redshift quasars, disproving BBT. This is data, not theory.
So, even before the JWST, every inch of the Standard Model had been patched over multiple times to make every part of it's theory to work. The big bang, the gravitational lensing, black holes, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), Neutron stars, Red shift, Dark matter/energy, how solar systems are created, how stars function, .... Once JWST discovered those far way galaxies, my first thought was they will double the age of the universe to save the Standard Model. Lol, that was exactly the first thing they started saying :)
“Insofar as the propositions of mathematics relate to reality, they are not certain, and insofar as they are certain, they do not relate to reality.” Albert Einstein.
I think it's amazing that we can even do this type of testing in the first place. But, after all the testing and hypothesizing, it looks to me that we have barley scratched the surface of figuring out what is really going. So, we will need more people like Sabine for a long time.
ΛCDM is under 30 years old. General relativity 108 years old; it has a *much* lower flaws/age coefficient. Let's just agree ΛCDM needs to be fixed or replaced.
Cosmology is doing the best it can to identify The Universe from basically no data. Each new space telescope will and does show how little we could see with the last telescope.
Cosmology is still using Flat Earth science to explain the observation. The first mistake is not letting go of gravity as a fundamental force of nature. There is ZERO evidence for gravitational attraction. ZERO. Once it was discovered that the Earth is in MOTION around the sun, that should have put on end to all this gravitational attraction nonsense. Galileo demonstrated that objects of disproportionate mass fall at the same rate but was dismissed by his flat earth peers as a thought experiment. Galileo went on to theorize that it's the Earth's MOTION in space that creates the tides. Not it's mass. So why the nonsense with the moon creating the tides? Isaac Newton have you the Laws of MOTION which explains evert single observation in every frame of reference. So why are you not using them. Is it because you don't understand the difference between am inertial and non-inertial frame? One gets is motion from an external force while the other is accelerating itself. The earth is accelerating itself as it orbits the sun after getting its motion from the primordial dust cloud. Is it because you don't understand the 2nd law of motion, F=ma, Mass TIMES Acceleration? Mass has no force without Acceleration. F=ma does not convert to m=a. It converts to a=a. F=ma -> ma=ma -> m=m & a=a. You have never ever proven that m=a and yet you preach it as gospel. Pitiful. You what is really pathetic? You absolutely do not understand that Newton's gravitational attraction is mathematical nonsense. F=G(m1m2)/R2. What is F. It's motion as shown by Newton’s Laws of Motion. G is some made up constant that seems to vary for EVERY observation which is why you have to plug in this dark matter nonsense. M1 and M2 are presumably the mass of the two objects, and R2 is the distance between them. Have you not seen the many drop tests showing the no matter what m2 is, F is ALWAYS the same. That means G has to adjust to balance out m2. Once again, insert dark matter nonsense into the observation. You have to be pretty stupid to believe that the universe knows exactly how much dark matter is needed for every comparison between objects. Not only that, but it instantly disappears as bowling ball is able to burry itself in the sand while the feather lands on top. As demonstrated by Newton’s Laws of Motion, ma=F. The stupidity of the scientific community comes down to one thing and one thing only. F=ma. Since force (acceleration) comes from acceleration, where does Acceleration itself come from. That's the question Newton was unable to answer without resorting to religion. Some creator god set everything in motion. The entire scientific community has been desperately trying not to go down that road but they can't ignore the facts anymore. JWST is proving that there was no big bang. No early universe. No expanding universe. No gravitational attraction. Explain how a star can have bulge on the side opposite the Jupiter like planet. You can't because you still can't explain why the earth has a tidal bulge on the side opposite the sun/moon. Its because you don't understand the physics behind a rotating frame. Everything is being accelerated outwards, F=ma, the more mass on object has, the less acceleration it has, and vice versa. You haveba tidal bulge because the surface of the ocean is fluid and is therfore, easier to accelerate to a greater radius. The moon has nothing at all to do with the tides. Once you understand that, the need for dark matter disappears. By switching the frame of reference from mass to Acceleration as Newton’s Laws of Motion dictate, all of your observations are easily resolved with one basic question, What is the Acceleration factor. The only question you can't resolve is what set the universe in Motion. For that, I refer you to Giordano Bruno and his infinite universe theory. The universe has always been in motion. Since that is beyond your comprehension, you chose to burn Bruno at the stake, bury your heads in the sand, and pretend like the earth is a stationary frame and everything revolves around it.
@BigZebraCom sure, I get it, it's funny, but at this point in history, science is outrageously non-rectifying. On that same level, I could not let your comment just sit there. Cheers!
Good Theories make successful predictions. If a Theory does not have predictive success, it's crap. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
The cosmological theory is over 100 years old and reaching its limits due to better measurement methods. The mainstream scientists will not gave up the current Lamba CDM model. But it is has a very high simplification of the universe.
It's an Electric Universe. Electromagnetic forces, which include plasma, are stronger than gravity by a factor of 10^39. This means that plasma is significantly more powerful than gravity... and is ignored. How'd that go? "Science advances one funeral at a time"; was that what I've heard?
And universal expansion based on Halton Arps redshift of light is incomplete science. Red shift of light can be more than just one thing . I propose that as energy changes to matter, red shift occurs. This would explain all the quasars highly redshifted but still attached to their much lower Red shifted parent galaxy by plasma and nebula.
Why do you care to expose it here? Fräulein Sabine doesn't care, she's the only always right, she know everything 🤷♂ She's an expert in governance, superintendence, vaccination and viro-epidemiology too, did you know? 🧐 “Unvaccinated are a danger to themselves and others. Of course, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as vaccinated people. Anyone who intentionally puts others in danger has to live with the consequences.” - Fräulein Sabine HoSSenfelder, 2021
Where do these people come from? This is a reasonable video, and then you have people like this who clearly knows very little about physics. You do realize that even in the most exciting scenario (where the explanation of the data is that GR is incomplete/wrong), it absolutely does not have anything to do with the "electric universe"?
@@joshuarich7527 Arp's books, like "Seeing Red", have photos showing luminous connections between low-redshift galaxies and nearby high-redshift quasars, disproving BBT. But cosmologists have no interest in actual evidence that contradicts their pet theories, so they ignore the photos.
No worries, for philosophical discussions we have "AGI", "Superintelligence", "Singularity" and other ideas with no scientific basis, but that many scientist are nonetheless happy to use in their discussions.
#SabineHossenfelder -- Why is it so hard for scientists to accept that they don't know what they're talking about? -- It's okay not to know... that's why we're trying to learn. If we made mistakes in theories and explanations, just swallow and walk it back. -- Drop the ego, everyone. --
"...that's just about high enough to write a paper about." I always love that you don't jump to unwarrented conclusions, and you don't let other people get by with it either.
That's what happens when you do the equivalent of trying to describe to describe the whole of planet Earth just from the view atop Mt. Everest, at night, in a raging snowstorm, with a pair of children's toy binoculars and a cheap flashlight. 😂
I’m old enough to be Sabine’s father and back in my day when I was taking astronomy courses, my professor had several jokes. She liked to comment how something had an uncertainty of “an order of magnitude. “That galaxy is somewhere between 10 million and 100 million light years away”. Also “The Hubble constant isn’t.” referring to how each time a new measurement was announced, it was significantly different from the previous one. Of course I guess the joke was on her as the rate of expansion has been increasing with time. This of course lead to, at the time, the age of the universe being between 8 billion and 20 billion years. But then she pointed out the stellar dynamics people were saying “We think we know how stars age and we aren’t seeing any over about 13 billion years old.” So awesome work star people!
It sounds like a measurement problem. And this only opens Pandora box as many of the methods they use to measure these values is used in other scientific theories. This is true even though these other measurements are thought 100% true for the other theories. That should shake the entire foundation of science proving beyond a shadow of doubt that humans should be much less sure of their theories being true.
The point of science is that we are always unsure and must check for ourselves. This is a win for science. After quantitative shifts we are arriving on a qualitative shift.
@@imperson7005 I'll give everyone a clue. We can never see a 3D universe, only thin 2D spherical shells. Most of the universe at any past time is invisible too us :) Kind of makes it hard (cosmology) to measure what was in the universe if you have never seen it lol
When we had Newtonian gravity, Mercury was acting up. So here came Einstein to the rescue. Now we’ve already spent 50 years trying to shoehorn every discordant observation into one of our two precious theories of everything (which, by the way, are quite incompatible to each other themselves). All of this up to the point where we explain 95% of stuff out there (dark xxx) as undetectable, so relativity and quantum physics can stay correct. Science, quite obviously, needs to start getting a little less dogmatic nowadays…
It all is only digestible because Sabine 's humor makes us forgive the Idé Fixe of some researchers. How to combine rational thinking with various "discoveries" in which we believe, and hope it will explain our very existence? Tell me...
There is no crisis. This is the way science works. As new information comes to light, our understanding grows. Sometimes in big ways, mostly in small increments. If orbital mechanics suddenly stopped working and satellites fell from the sky, THAT would be a crisis in science.
Yes and no. Alchemists made a lot of bad predictions until they found the periodic table that allows for accurate predictions because it is an accurate model. Our cosmology has advanced no further than rewording the cosmic egg concept with new words and building a computer model on that theory... And the model has given inaccurate predictions.
@@Loreweavver I must disagree with you about the advancements in cosmology. A mere half century ago "cosmology" was virtually indistinguishable from "astronomy" (and some would argue "astrology"!). We have new tools that allow us to peer deeper into the Universe, while quantum observations are stuck in the 1930s. I'm exaggerating, of course, but in my lifetime the advancements in cosmology have been staggering. That those observations confirm GR more often than not is astounding to me.
When an experiment yields two broadly different data outputs under nearly identical conditions, it naturally invites speculation. This is especially true in the case of the double slit experiment. In this case both theories of light are true simultaneously?
The interference pattern in the two-slit experiment can be explained by a "wave" nature of light. But a "particle" nature is NOT necessary to explain the localized absorption of the entire quantum of the light's energy at the detector, if we instead relax the Locality assumption ("nothing can be influenced by anything outside its past lightcone") and postulate that the wave has the nonlocal property that it interacts (with a detector) as if its entire quantum of energy is at the interaction location, even though the quantum was widely distributed in space (partially outside the past lightcone of the interaction event) a moment before the interaction. The founders of quantum mechanics were confident about the Locality axiom, which is why they rejected a "waves only" model. (Einstein called it the Separability axiom in the famous 1935 EPR paper.) But our knowledge of space & time is only rudimentary, and Bell tests have undermined confidence in Locality. Einstein's other famous 1935 paper, the ER paper about wormholes, showed that General Relativity can allow violation of Locality.
I'll be a lot happier when dark matter either stops being undetectable, or looses significance. I personally think we've got gravity all wrong, and keep it there mainly as a result of all the particlism. It bugs me to not know why it exists.
Thx Sabine, nice explanation. On the danger of Dunning Kruger, but Hubble tension (higher expansion rate) and sigma8 tension (not clumpy enough in the later universe) sounds like a very similiar issue.
Philosophy is probably nearer being right than observation. All telescopes can see is how distant galaxies were billions of years ago, for all they know the collapse started a couple of billion years ago.
@@littleworkshopofhorrors2395 How can philosophy be right about the scientific aspects of the universe? Physics tries to describe what we see, and to build models to replicate our observations. Then we test those theories, and use them where it fits, disscard them where it doesn't and try to find better representations of the reality. Philosophy is just talking without knowing. So sorry, but that's absurd. Did philosophers decide the type of telescope needed to go as far as possible in the past (JWST) and design it? My god the world is dumb. Focusing on people talking like those are facts...
@@littleworkshopofhorrors2395 Based on ? Trust me bro? Probably? How do you measure the probability that random hunches are better than data accumulation? The expansion is accelerating from our observations. You have no theory to base your opinion on. So yeah... And please, if you hate facts, don't vote. I don't care about informed opinions diverging from mine who vote. But "trust me bro" votes...
@fab5747 the best telescope ever invented cannot see things as they are but as they were! So all judgements based on observation must have an element of doubt, so we are in the realms of philosophy not science. At any moment in time you cannot say with 100% certainty the sun is still shining, although the probability is that it does. Light does take time to get here as you well know. Astronomy can only be considered the study of history. And that also brings it into the realm of philosophy.
Could our fundamental constants be different in other places of the universe? And if so, could it explain dark matter, dark energy and tensions with the rest of the physics that we already know?
The changing economy has pushed many to seek extra income, and I'm considering the stock market to reach my $3M retirement goal. However, the recent market crash is concerning.
Agreed, despite my rookie knowledge of investing, I have a financial advisor who did the trick in a bit more than 6 months after a lump sum capital of $500k, and I've so far made a fortune. I'm now buying real estates, gold and silver as advised by my FA.
@@halloola3636 Try Plasma Cosmology. "Obervations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Cosmology". a 2022 paper by Eric Lerner. Maybe Sabine will open her eyes to it someday.
Cosmologists and other scientists should stick with rationale,a reason and logic. There are so many untested theories it’s just a big mess now. Couple that with man’s tendency to overstate and basically lie about what they so called know and you have a recipe for distaff in the future. All areas of human metaphysics suffer this problem. We just can’t help ourselves..
It needs to be remarked that physics is NOT the truth, it is a collection of intertwined models that work within a certain framework and limitations. Saying that Einstein is wrong is the same as saying that Newton is wrong. Newton's law of Universal gravitation is very useful for many applications, but it is just a low energy approximation of Einstein's relativity for a Schwarzschild type of geometry. Einstein's theory of (general) relativity has proven extremely useful for MANY cases. People saying that he was/is wrong is just a bunch of jealous a--holes wanting to get notoriety, when we know that (most likely) Einstein's theory is just a subset of a higher level theory...that we are yet to uncover. The debate shouldn't be about whether Einstein was right or wrong, more about whether it is the final theory of gravity or there is something else beyond it, and at what point it will break....one of the many reasons why physics (read as: science) is failing and, for example, String Theory has been unsuccessful.
To give credence on the "sluggishness" astronomy used to be at, Brian May, lead guitarist and back-up vocalist for Queen was studying for his PhD in 1974, and did his whole Queen thing, and then came back to get his PhD in 2007, because there had been so little work in the field he was in. I can barely take a day off from work before I'm behind.
(2:15) *_"Too bad for philosophers, I guess."_* ... Naaaah, philosophy is enjoying a new-found popularity with physics currently stuck in the mud. "Philosophy" shows you why your measurements aren't enough to explain existence.
The Standard Model is stuck, but General Relativity is overwhelmed by new data. Maybe artificial intelligence can make sense of the vast information being collected today?
@@BCundergroundHIPHOPit is the one that frustrates me the most. The existence of free will is directly observable. For it not to exist only requires you to define it away. There is no incompatibility between choice and determinism.
well clearly something is required because the data doesnt fit predictions. either the data is wrong or the understanding is wrong so something has to change
No Sabine, the three different weights are evidence that each scale is measuring one type of invisible mass, and one type of invisible energy, both of which are obviously there, as it's the only way to explain how we got so fat even though we were born yesterday.
Curvature and stretch of space are two different things. Stretch causes curvaturе, but curvature can also be the topology of the universe. The red shift reflects curvature, and not stretch, thats all.
We know that Einstein's theories are limited and incomplete. The problem is people can't seem to complete them or build on them even though the experimental evidence is huge. The inconsistencies are more likely due to incomplete theories then anything else. Dark matter and dark energy are meant to be place holders and don't hold any real value in anything. The numbers are probably close enough to be explained by more complete theory and obviously once we know more about gravity and the place holders of dark matter and dark energy. If you can't explain a large portion of what the universe is, you shouldn't be surprised by something like this. It's a very difficult area to improve on unless you can build on and complete Einstein theories. Which to me at this point is never going to happen .
We need to know more about quantum mechanics to solve the inconsistencies with GR. Then the problems with DM and DE will fade, I assume. That´s what Dr. Sabine´s research is about.
Einstein didn't know there are electric currents in space. They were thought impossible until space probes found them. We will never know what he would have done with that knowledge.
Particle physicists will now want more funding for more theoretical particles based on theories, based on theories, to attempt to prove their existence via a larger collider. How does this explain these anomalies... does it matter. Build the bigger collider.
Seems that given a choice between trusting General Relativity, which has been continuously tested for over 100 years, and ΔCMB, my money is on Einstein.
i would consider general relativity to be a (perhaps THE) cosmological principle. i agree with this insight and think the title of this video is a bit misleading, though there are certainly many more relevations to come.
It seems the only thing physicists can agree on these days is to make fun of philosophers. Before the coffee break is over and the physicists go back to discuss their latest quantum and multiverse theories.
Sounds like the discipline of physics is sort a like "A pig in a poke" philosophy science "work" eg: measure with a micrometer ,mark with a grease pencil and cut the mark with an axe "work"
95% of the universe is missing according to the theory. If you have another theory that accounts for reality while not missing anything, feel free to write a paper.
you want to dismiss a theory that explains all of Baryonic matter very very well because a podcaster who needs clicks told you there's a crisis? Please read a book or take an actual science class and stop getting your physics from podcasters.
This is called incompetence, cronyism and inviolability of the narrative, so that someone does not start wondering whether people are really alone in the Universe. The characteristic feature of this gang of dudes is always the same: denying inconvenient facts and emphasizing those that suit them. A real circus.
What on Earth is happening with Sabine's youtube channel? Old videos are being made restricted to paying viewers! That is very awkward. Like selling fish long dead... 🐟🐠🐡🐙
The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1732950267728x526847351697702900
You can now also create your own quizzes on my website, it's free!
Quizwithit: "Stop using mathematics...because it´s clearly not working" -- Heehee.
Professor Dave Farina destroys your rightwing grift, Sabina
ruclips.net/video/6P_tceoHUH4/видео.html
the general and special relativity works just find, just remove the space time curvature part, the space time causes curvature need to be removed else the problem won't be solved. I am currently making a new theory on the dimension from negative 2 to positive nine, there will be part how the 4th-dimension causes image distortion rather than space time curvature.
I even made a video regarding this topic, only if miss Sabina do not mind, I called this new framework a colorless king dimension framework, currently made 1 video of negative dimension 2.
Title: Colorless King Dimension Hypothesis Negative 2 as Time, New Dimensional Framework
Does the quiz illustrate how the Bullet Cluster doesn't hurt DM and kills off most MOND variants?
Before one throws out general relativity, one needs to remember cosmological models, such as Lambda CDM, are models based on assumptions of how the universe works. If the assumptions are wrong, then the model is wrong and observations won't match predictions. One of the assumptions in Lambda CDM is the the universe has constant and isotropic curvature. General relativity does not actually require that the universe curves in the same way in all directions (the isotropic part). Nor does it require that the curvature is constant (it could vary from place to place). It is true that both cosmology and astrophysics become much more difficult if the constant and isotropic curvature assumption is wrong, but our job as scientists is to describe/explain the world as it is and not in a way that makes it easy for ourselves.
i dont know why many posts start with " haha einstein is wrong. " im pretty sure thats the last thing he cared about.
The problem with throwing out isotrophy and homogeneity is that it's unfalsifiable. We cannot ever know the large scale curvature or distribution of matter of the universe, only the local and the observation that it evens out above a certain scale.
@@ObjectsInMotion damn that sounds fucked up
@@bpotter885 teh funny thing is that einstein can be right and wrong at the same time. the same way newton was right and wrong with his calcualtions (at least below 1% of the speed of light).
an equation can be right while being incomplete at the same time. we simplificate equations a ton and these higher equations they use have many input values that are undefined (like the center of a black hole or the water speed at a 90° corner curve in fluid dynamics)
@@ObjectsInMotion The whole observable universe counts as "large scale", even if it's "small" in a yet larger scale. If you're getting bumps at the scale of *every single thing that you can see* - then you got some serious bumps, indeed, *regardless* of how it looks on yet larger scales. And that counts as falsification.
The multiverse theory is important because some of the best episodes of star trek are based upon it.
lol
"Mirror, Mirror"
Best comment ever 😂
Fascinating...
Finally...a valid reason for multiverse theory.
Hi Sabine, I’m an Aussie truck driver in my 60’s and a science tragic/lover since I care to remember. I will not waste your valuable time with a long post, just in case you read them, as it would detract from the time you have to do your incredibly important work.
I just want to let you know you are wonderful. I rank you as being alongside my heroes like Feynman, Euler, Socrates and Emo Philips.
Please keep doing your thing. I appreciate you without limit. For me your sarcastic and compassionate humour is pitch perfect. You go girl!
Emo Philips. "They didn't know I was using blanks." Good one. Least expected of all names here.
I agree, Sabine is great -- especially now since she's unfettered from the chains of scientific convention. Good to know you're using your time on the road to learn! 👍👍
are you kidding... sabine is a sham fraud fake science promoter void of any true knowledge. a total failure who needs a new career.
Sure, she's wholly very compassionate...
“Unvaccinated are a danger to themselves and others. Of course, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as vaccinated people. Anyone who intentionally puts others in danger has to live with the consequences.” - Fräulein Sabine HoSSenfelder, 2021
@@lucar.923 Have you noticed she's become very angry since Trump (and Elon) won the election?
We are only doing this for a few hundred years, would be surprising if we already got everything right. In fact - we may be not even close yet.
We were "astronomers" until the discovery of the microwave background radiation. That's when we became "cosmologists."
Then don’t teach it in schools like it’s a fact.
@@johnkessler9878 exactly. Many things I was taught about the universe in public school are no longer considered true. To his credit, one of my teachers taught then-current cosmological theories as "modern mythology" akin to Greek and Roman and Biblical mythology about how everything was created.
@@johnkessler9878You're forgetting that for decades it has been successfully validated over and over. So of course it's a fact - just like newtonian gravity is a fact for things happening on earths surface. The only thing missing is a footnote that we are debating why it doesn't work well at cosmological distances.
@@danielh.9010 you’re cherry picking. A few thing seem to be fact because they are repeatedly validated. At the same time we can’t get gravity to work at the quantum level. So maybe we don’t know all that much yet. And maybe the Big Bang ain’t such a sure thing, either. I taught math in a public high school for thirty years, and I can say every science teacher I saw taught the Big Bang as fact and the universe is 13billion years old.
Einstein: "Fix your telescopes, not my math"
Einstein can be wrong sometimes.
Unfortunately Sabina has made Einstein has a god and created a religion like figure out of him. He can be wrong once in a while he is human.
Einstein: Hold my beer?
@@piyalisadhukhan1266 So _you_ say.
SOYence is a cult, Science is a tool to discover and prove those discoveries.
What you wrote is the typical Cult thinking.
Professor Dave Farina destroys your rightwing grift, Sabina
ruclips.net/video/6P_tceoHUH4/видео.html
What can we learn from this? That, at some point, the belief in the existence of dark matter is hard to defend. But it looks like a sacred cow, for reasons I don’t understand.
Cosmology is far from replacing philosophy. In fact, cosmology is mostly *spontaneous philosophy* (bad one) that tries hard to replace *systematic philosophy* (good one) based on the mere partial observation of the "universe" (a highly debatable metaphysical concept) by using technological devices and applying theoretical physics (math). So, cosmology is not based on material-physical processes (alpha operations - _α_ ) like testing hypotheses and theories in a lab as the object of study cannot enter any laboratory to be tested. Thus, cosmology is mostly based on subjective or psychological inferences and projections from technological observations and computational models (beta operations - _β_ ).
I love that this channel exists to question everything we think we know. This is the critical step in evolving our understanding.
Science being never settled.
Yes question everything but Einstein's relativity and all the nonsense that flows from it.
@@axeman2638 Special relativity, time, and gravity are exactly the things we need question. Our assumption that time can dilate is most likely false. There are other relativistic changes that influence the inertial velocity, thus mass, of objects in motion approaching the speed of light.
There is no such thing as a vacuum free of any energized fields. All mass generates fields and all mass interacts with fields. Even clocks and quantum computers. It is not possible to isolate anything.
@@brendanwood1540 Yep, Einstein is bunk, space can't warp, time cannot dilate, they are units of measurement we invented they have no physical existence.
@@brendanwood1540we 100% know time dilates. Our satellite communication and location systems wouldn’t work without *accurately* compensating for it.
As for everything else you said. I‘ll leave that for the actual experts to roll their eyes at.
Einstein didn’t prove Newton wrong, he just added. We need someone to add to Einstein.
Einstein didn't know there are electric currents in space, nor did anyone else back then. Try Plasma Cosmology.
Untrue. He threw out Newtonian philosophy of absolute space and time in favor of unobservable, observer-dependent isotropic light speed, which leads to hooey magical relative space and time and which will go down in history as one of the greatest errors humankind has ever made
@@se7964 I’m talking about mathematics, not philosophy.
Thanks
Another highly engaging review of the follies of Big Bang cosmology. Unfortunately, it remains taboo to question the basic premise, namely, that the Hubble constant measures the rate of expansion of the Universe, rather than some distance and/or density based interaction between light and matter which could be investigated without resorting to preposterous notions like creation ex nihilo or a primordial singularity.
Look at some actual evidence: photos in Halton Arp's books like "Seeing Red", showing luminous connections between low-redshift galaxies and nearby high-redshift quasars, disproving BBT.
Thanks for another good discussion about our universe and our understanding of it.
We should never be disturbed by gaps between observations and theory. These gaps tell that there interesting stuff to discover
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is" (Yogi Berra)
So to paraphrase: In modelling there is no difference between the model and reality, in reality there is.
As someone who builds dynamic simulation models for a living, I can tell you that your paraphrase is wrong. Most simulation modelers are very much aware that there is a difference, in the model, between the model and reality.
@@NemisCassander Huh?
In what reality was the comment you responded to about the people creating models?
@@NemisCassander Quotes attributed to Yogi Berra are generally like that, because that's how he spoke. For example he did say "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded". What he meant was that _his_ social group no longer went there because that place was now too mainstream.
@@NemisCassander The problem is not the modelers, its the theorists who then use the models.
Everbody loves a good theory. The problem comes when you accept the theory as true. It's like making an error in the ledger of your checking account. Any transaction or deposit correctly figured, after the mistake, will always be wrong. A genius can be wrong also.
Deeply appreciate your insight and reliable reporting in a field swamped with clickbait! What an age we live in, when so much good observational science has become available. 🙏🏻
I recommend to Sabine that each new video she makes that involves dark matter or MOND include a summary (at the end of the video) that lists both the falsifications of dark matter and the falsifications of MOND. When both have been falsified, it's silly to think that an additional falsification of one suggests a champagne celebration of the correctness of the other might be anticipated.
A recent Caltech newsletter mentions a Caltech grad student studying observations of galactic clusters that, due to collisions, have had spatial separation of their normal matter and their dark matter. (Like the famous Bullet Cluster.) Since MOND chokes on those observations, the champagne should be reserved for some other celebration.
99.9% of commenters have never even _heard_ of the Bullet Cluster, let alone its falsification of (most) MOND variants.
I recall that when the Bullet Cluster was discovered, it was loudly proclaimed (by Dark Matter supporters) as proof of Dark Matter and disproof of MOND, but MOND supporters (including Mordehai Milgrom, the originator of MOND, himself) later said that the Bullet Cluster can in fact be explained using MOND, but by that time the media interest in the story had died, so hardly anybody heard about their rebuttal.
@-danR not true. I have heard of both. 😅
Don't assume anything, and you become open minded. Then you have room for big idear.
Of cours i say that i say nothing
A lot of the latest stuff we're doing, like bleeding edge DM models vs MOND models, or the strong force and QCD / L-QED sound like we're reaching epicycles on epicycles. Unfortunately something better still eludes us, something that has to be far, far more intricate than we are imagining.
@@doublepinger we had quite good data for the planetary movement. If we would have such good data for cosmology, even if we did not understand the physics, we probably can have a good fit trough the data like Planck did at his time. And then we could look for a model that explains it. But the current data is quite weak, but far better than what we had 20 years ago. We just have started to measure the cosmos. (like 200 years ago we did "Measuring the World" according to a book title)
In other branches of science every time they got stuck for a long time, it was evidence from a lower more foundational level that resolved the issue. Spacetime physicists can't do that. But, they can learn a different lesson. The earliest flaw in the model always was followed by other flaws required to make the theory work.
Today there are probably multiple flaws that support each other in the best models of physics. Correcting a singular flaw may not fit the data any better.
This seems like it makes the problem more difficult. But that's an illusion because physics itself is unchanged by theory.
Please explain why we can't find foundation of space time? 😅
Just try. It's intresting
@@AurelienCarnoywe might theorize a foundation (like the existence of an omnipotent deity). But because we only have this spacetime (that we are within) to work with we can't tell the difference between evidence of the foundation which spacetime emerged from and a property of spacetime.
@@AurelienCarnoyok you are first in line to jump in the black hole then
BBT is founded on gravity, but there is only about 5% of the real matter in the universe needed to support it. Plasma Cosmology is founded on EM forces, and needs no patches like DM, DE and inflation.
I would appreciate if more scientists were willing to say "I'm not sure what this means and we're working to better understand what's happening". I watched a meteorologist once who was predicting a storm's path once it hit Lake Michigan. After two days of the models constantly shifting he stated "We're not sure where this is going precisely. So I'm going to stay in the studio and keep you all up to date on what it's doing right now". The rest of my time in that city he was the only meteorologist I watched. That level of honesty is rare in my experience.
Professor Dave Farina destroys your rightwing grift, Sabina
ruclips.net/video/6P_tceoHUH4/видео.html
Wow. Yes. I appreciate such transparency too. Like, just say 'you don't know' bruh, you are not any less of an expert if you do it, quite the opposite. Be humble smh.
They can't predict a storm's path in the present moment but they can predict the climate a hundred years from now.
Sure they can.
@@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd Because climate and meteorology are two different things. You don't necessarily need to know everything going on inside a system to predict how the system will behave. That's why we can predict how a gaz will act when under pressure without having to know every minute detail about what each of its atoms will do.
@@theslay66 Yet they keep getting all their predictions wrong.
@SabineHossenfelder, thank you for another fascinating and thought-provoking video. As an engineer rather than a physicist, I’ve been captivated by the concept of an expanding universe and wanted to share some thoughts and questions that have arisen as I reflect on your points.
First, regarding the expansion of the universe: If the universe is expanding, does that expansion also apply to the space between atoms or within atomic structures? My understanding is that forces like electromagnetism and quantum mechanics (e.g., Planck’s constant) would maintain atomic and molecular integrity, effectively anchoring us at small scales. But if there were any changes in fundamental constants, would they not be imperceptible to us since our measurement standards would also shift proportionally? It’s a thought experiment I find intriguing.
Second, about the Hubble tension: It seems to me that our attempts to measure the expansion rate of the universe are limited by our singular vantage point within the cosmos-our galaxy and, more specifically, Earth. While I understand that astrophysicists employ techniques like gravitational lensing, standard candles, and CMB data to “triangulate” and expand their observational framework, aren’t these methods inherently reliant on assumptions about the universe’s uniformity and the consistency of physical laws across vast distances? Could this introduce additional variables that complicate reconciling the discrepancies you describe?
Lastly, the idea of a “big bang” leading to a universe expanding forever-or accelerating rather than reversing-fascinates me. I used to think, as many laypeople do, that the mass of the universe would eventually counteract its kinetic energy, leading to contraction. Learning that observations have disproved this has left me wondering: How can this be reconciled with the apparent role of dark energy in driving acceleration? Is this tension between theory and observation perhaps analogous to the Hubble and Sigma8 tensions, hinting at a deeper issue with our understanding of gravity or cosmic dynamics?
I’m aware my perspective lacks the depth of someone with formal training in cosmology, but I find these questions compelling and hope they contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Thank you for making complex ideas accessible and for sparking curiosity in those of us outside the field.
Great thoughts and questions. But I'm afraid you probably will not get an answer or any feedback. This is generally 99% of RUclips videos. They may be very informative, but they are generally not a place of discussion. Well not with the person who created the video that is.
Expanding according to what standard of measurement?
I'm not Sabine, but let me try to answer some of your questions.
First, about the expansion: The expansion is a slow process, and relatively very weak. We can measure it from galaxies that are far away from each other, since the gravitational force between such galaxies is also incredibly weak. But the electromagnetic force easily overcomes it. The position of atoms and molecules isn't exactly fixed, as things tend to vibrate with heat etc., so the amount of chaotic motion is easily big enough to drown out such a small process. In other words, your ruler will not expand over time, while the distance between faraway galaxies will increase, so by comparing the two we can measure expansion.
Secondly, about the Hubble tension: Indeed, the assumption of uniformity and consistency is required. It is essentially the only thing we can assume, as we can only test physics in our neighbourhood. If the laws of physics smoothly vary by location, then we should be able to see minuscule differences in the laws within our neighbourhood, so we should discover the differences as our measurements become better. But indeed, we can never really know what is going on in the universe far from us -- we don't even know for sure if the universe is infinite.
There are also theories that the entire universe can be divided into bubbles such that the laws of physics are the same within each bubble but differ between bubbles, in which case we should be able to see some 'domain wall' where the two bubbles meet -- but we don't see any. (We do think there were domain walls in the early universe, based on the cosmic microwave background (CMB), but they did not survive until today.)
Lastly, about the contraction: that is exactly why we need dark energy. Just based on matter (visible and dark), you would indeed expect the expansion to slow down until the universe is contracting, and for things to eventually regroup into a "big crunch" or "big bounce". But that does not seem to happen, instead the expansion is accelerating. This means there must be some "pressure" that is driving the expansion, which is what we call dark energy. One idea is that this dark energy is the potential energy of empty space, i.e. making more empty space increases the energy and hence that is energetically favourable. But quantum calculations predict that this potential energy of empty space is many orders of magnitude too large, so that doesn't help us either.
The Hubble and Sigma-8 tensions are not directly related to this. Both of those tensions can be thought of as follows: Imagine that you have a gigantic high-resolution photo of your city, made from an airplane. You can zoom in and out quite far, and you use this to measure the area of your house twice. The first time you start fully zoomed in to detail on your roof, and you zoom out until you can see the entire house and measure. The second time you start fully zoomed out, then zoom in to your street and measure. But the two measurements don't give the same result! This raises questions if there is something wrong with the zooming process -- perhaps our zooming gives some distortions to the image, or we started more zoomed out than we thought, or something else went wrong. This unresolved question is the 'tension'.
It is entirely possible our zooming process is wrong exactly because we don't understand dark energy, but it is very hard to say something about this with our current understanding.
JWST is turning out to be one of the best "Big Science" investments ever. Very exciting times!
The universe has not been clumping enough, yet the early universe apparently has bigger galaxies and black holes than expected. Interesting mix of contradictory observations there. 🤔
I currently regard the models of Cosmology as maybe a good start, and the dependance on "dark matter" and "dark energy" similar to "black magic." I'm not a physicist or professional astronomer, but an old fashioned physical chemist by training. If something cannot be detected by current technology, but is required to made these models work, it seems to throw theory into doubt with our current understanding of things. Keep up the good work in these presentations!
Yeah it's crazy and scary how long so called scientists have been able to dupe the public with dumb fairytales disguised as science
The Universe isn't matching my expected measurements! The Universe must then be wrong!
This is exactly where "modern science" is. Cheap bubble of cheap people connected only to own wallets. Any change is veeery dangerous for their positions. And try to go against the flow, you will immediately hear “we do not want to work with you”.
No scientist ever said that...
The fact that different approaches, measurements, theories are being worked, and this from a point in space looking 14 billion years in the past...
That's just normal science...
@@p0k314COM Nobel prize will be awarded to the person that solves the tension.
@@p0k314COM this. Finally people are talking about it
@@fabr5747no that's bs science
Can we have a video covering the modified gravity models or theories as of now? Too many readers seem to assume there is a single theory or model of modified gravity (MOND) but it's more complicated than that. Fudging the equations until they fit observations, then testing the fudged equations against results at different scales or measuring different phenomena... it's a good start. Then if we identify an equation that seems to be a good approximation of multiple phenomena we've measured, we have to go from "what" to "why".
Your glee when saying "physics just got a new problem" got me rolling... that was awesome!
Foundation grants?
Einstein’s work has already been massively valuable to humanity. He’s hardly going to have issues with his legacy.
Exactly.
How exactly?
@@axeman2638By eliminating the need for an aether. 🎉
I agree 😊
@@axeman2638communication with satellites would be impossible without his discoveries
Theories about anything can be dissected and reasoned to be flawed. Your videos assist this layman tremendously Sabine ... thank you.
I don't expect most commenters to have heard of the Bullet Cluster let alone its implications for most species of MOND, but I expect better of Sabine.
@@-danR I don't expect most commenter to know about my cat, but my cat knows HE is the centre of the universe. Every cat knows the universe revolves around them. 😂 People need to stop pretending we can currently create a handy formula or model that describes anything or everything in the universe. Everything is based on limited data gathered from a physically limited viewpoint, our little blue planet, over a miniscule period of time.
"let alone its implications for most species of MOND"
Sabine addressed this and the bullet cluster. Someone should expect better of themselves, before spouting out the first pretentious thing that comes to mind, instead of addressing that welling cognitive dissonance in the back of your mind that spurred your attempt at shooting the messenger.
Sabine, I think of Halton Arp every time I see something like this. I'm so glad Germany was open-minded enough to let him continue his research there.
Thank you for this seed. I just learned about the interesting life of Halton Arp. 🙂
@@obiwanduglobi6359 While you are at it, take a look at photos in his books like "Seeing Red" which show luminous connections between low-redshift galaxies and nearby high-redshift quasars, disproving BBT. This is data, not theory.
Clearly I’m not gaining weight. It’s just a modification of gravity
sabine's cold humor always manages to warm my heart
The stereotype that Germans lack humor is a common misconception.I believe it's the bluntness that sometimes makes Americans uncomfortable.
@@kalevala29 Because "all" of them are blunt?!
So, even before the JWST, every inch of the Standard Model had been patched over multiple times to make every part of it's theory to work.
The big bang, the gravitational lensing, black holes, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), Neutron stars, Red shift, Dark matter/energy, how solar systems are created, how stars function, ....
Once JWST discovered those far way galaxies, my first thought was they will double the age of the universe to save the Standard Model. Lol, that was exactly the first thing they started saying :)
No. The longer I live, the more Eistein's cosmology gets confirmed.
Einstein was definitely wrong, but he was less wrong than any person who has ever lived yet.
“Insofar as the propositions of mathematics relate to reality, they are not certain, and insofar as they are certain, they do not relate to reality.”
Albert Einstein.
Thats how science works.
We're wrong.
Just less wrong now than we were before.
I think it's amazing that we can even do this type of testing in the first place. But, after all the testing and hypothesizing, it looks to me that we have barley scratched the surface of figuring out what is really going. So, we will need more people like Sabine for a long time.
??? we need more people launching telescopes and studying data. shes communicating papers to the public.
We need more people like Einstein not more data or more people like Sabine
@@Nat-oj2uc so why are you watching her channel??
@@jwv6985 because it's entertainment. What a dumb question. Why are you? think you gonna be smart as Einstein watching it? Lol
😂😂😂@@Nat-oj2uc
ΛCDM is under 30 years old. General relativity 108 years old; it has a *much* lower flaws/age coefficient. Let's just agree ΛCDM needs to be fixed or replaced.
Saved me the trouble of posting the same thing.
The latter.
Oh, everything is starting to make so much rationality
Back when I was a student, all the data was on stone tablets. Really messed up your pockets.
3-D printed copy of Plimpton . . .
You had pockets? Wow!
But back when Sabine was a student, they just drew everything on the cave walls. 😉
Cosmology is doing the best it can to identify The Universe from basically no data. Each new space telescope will and does show how little we could see with the last telescope.
Cosmology is still using Flat Earth science to explain the observation.
The first mistake is not letting go of gravity as a fundamental force of nature. There is ZERO evidence for gravitational attraction. ZERO. Once it was discovered that the Earth is in MOTION around the sun, that should have put on end to all this gravitational attraction nonsense.
Galileo demonstrated that objects of disproportionate mass fall at the same rate but was dismissed by his flat earth peers as a thought experiment. Galileo went on to theorize that it's the Earth's MOTION in space that creates the tides. Not it's mass. So why the nonsense with the moon creating the tides?
Isaac Newton have you the Laws of MOTION which explains evert single observation in every frame of reference. So why are you not using them. Is it because you don't understand the difference between am inertial and non-inertial frame? One gets is motion from an external force while the other is accelerating itself. The earth is accelerating itself as it orbits the sun after getting its motion from the primordial dust cloud.
Is it because you don't understand the 2nd law of motion, F=ma, Mass TIMES Acceleration? Mass has no force without Acceleration.
F=ma does not convert to m=a. It converts to a=a.
F=ma -> ma=ma -> m=m & a=a. You have never ever proven that m=a and yet you preach it as gospel. Pitiful.
You what is really pathetic? You absolutely do not understand that Newton's gravitational attraction is mathematical nonsense.
F=G(m1m2)/R2.
What is F. It's motion as shown by Newton’s Laws of Motion. G is some made up constant that seems to vary for EVERY observation which is why you have to plug in this dark matter nonsense. M1 and M2 are presumably the mass of the two objects, and R2 is the distance between them.
Have you not seen the many drop tests showing the no matter what m2 is, F is ALWAYS the same. That means G has to adjust to balance out m2. Once again, insert dark matter nonsense into the observation. You have to be pretty stupid to believe that the universe knows exactly how much dark matter is needed for every comparison between objects. Not only that, but it instantly disappears as bowling ball is able to burry itself in the sand while the feather lands on top. As demonstrated by Newton’s Laws of Motion, ma=F.
The stupidity of the scientific community comes down to one thing and one thing only. F=ma. Since force (acceleration) comes from acceleration, where does Acceleration itself come from.
That's the question Newton was unable to answer without resorting to religion. Some creator god set everything in motion.
The entire scientific community has been desperately trying not to go down that road but they can't ignore the facts anymore. JWST is proving that there was no big bang. No early universe. No expanding universe. No gravitational attraction. Explain how a star can have bulge on the side opposite the Jupiter like planet. You can't because you still can't explain why the earth has a tidal bulge on the side opposite the sun/moon. Its because you don't understand the physics behind a rotating frame. Everything is being accelerated outwards, F=ma, the more mass on object has, the less acceleration it has, and vice versa.
You haveba tidal bulge because the surface of the ocean is fluid and is therfore, easier to accelerate to a greater radius. The moon has nothing at all to do with the tides. Once you understand that, the need for dark matter disappears.
By switching the frame of reference from mass to Acceleration as Newton’s Laws of Motion dictate, all of your observations are easily resolved with one basic question, What is the Acceleration factor.
The only question you can't resolve is what set the universe in Motion. For that, I refer you to Giordano Bruno and his infinite universe theory. The universe has always been in motion. Since that is beyond your comprehension, you chose to burn Bruno at the stake, bury your heads in the sand, and pretend like the earth is a stationary frame and everything revolves around it.
"Wot?" 🤗 Thank you!
Vas?
@@brothermine2292 "Ghosts in the 'scopes"?
There's a crisis in cosmology, but I feel fine.
Awesome comment!
If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention 🤔
@@edword3457 My comment is a reference to the famous REM song "It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)"
@BigZebraCom sure, I get it, it's funny, but at this point in history, science is outrageously non-rectifying. On that same level, I could not let your comment just sit there. Cheers!
@@edword3457 🦓😃
No troubles for general relativity. It's a far more general theory than the current simplified cosmological models.
"We need data to prove our theories right!"
Data comes in...
"Nooooo the data proves our theory wrong!"
😁
Good Theories make successful predictions. If a Theory does not have predictive success, it's crap.
Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
@@edword3457 Right. What has BBT predicted correctly? Definitely not the massive galaxies found by JWST.
Approximations mess things up.
The cosmological theory is over 100 years old and reaching its limits due to better measurement methods. The mainstream scientists will not gave up the current Lamba CDM model. But it is has a very high simplification of the universe.
I prefer the original version of CDM, Cadbury's Dairy Milk chocolate.
Wait the invisible stuff doesn't work? What a surprise... 🤦♂️
It's an Electric Universe. Electromagnetic forces, which include plasma, are stronger than gravity by a factor of 10^39. This means that plasma is significantly more powerful than gravity... and is ignored. How'd that go? "Science advances one funeral at a time"; was that what I've heard?
And universal expansion based on Halton Arps redshift of light is incomplete science. Red shift of light can be more than just one thing . I propose that as energy changes to matter, red shift occurs. This would explain all the quasars highly redshifted but still attached to their much lower Red shifted parent galaxy by plasma and nebula.
Why do you care to expose it here? Fräulein Sabine doesn't care, she's the only always right, she know everything 🤷♂
She's an expert in governance, superintendence, vaccination and viro-epidemiology too, did you know? 🧐
“Unvaccinated are a danger to themselves and others. Of course, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as vaccinated people. Anyone who intentionally puts others in danger has to live with the consequences.” - Fräulein Sabine HoSSenfelder, 2021
Where do these people come from? This is a reasonable video, and then you have people like this who clearly knows very little about physics. You do realize that even in the most exciting scenario (where the explanation of the data is that GR is incomplete/wrong), it absolutely does not have anything to do with the "electric universe"?
Don't worry, just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe"
@@joshuarich7527 Arp's books, like "Seeing Red", have photos showing luminous connections between low-redshift galaxies and nearby high-redshift quasars, disproving BBT. But cosmologists have no interest in actual evidence that contradicts their pet theories, so they ignore the photos.
No worries, for philosophical discussions we have "AGI", "Superintelligence", "Singularity" and other ideas with no scientific basis, but that many scientist are nonetheless happy to use in their discussions.
#SabineHossenfelder -- Why is it so hard for scientists to accept that they don't know what they're talking about? -- It's okay not to know... that's why we're trying to learn. If we made mistakes in theories and explanations, just swallow and walk it back. -- Drop the ego, everyone. --
The problem is both one of individual virtue, or lack thereof, and ever present institutional forces.
If it ultimately comes down to who I would trust, I'd take Einstein over Lamda CDM any day of the week.
"...that's just about high enough to write a paper about." I always love that you don't jump to unwarrented conclusions, and you don't let other people get by with it either.
Because this is exactly what is written in the communication presenting the publication. ..so the scientists themself who wrote the paper said that
THIS GOES BACK TO THE DIVIDE BETWEEN SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY SUPPORTING QUANTUM PHYSICS -VERSUS- THE FOLLY OF GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
Not clumpy enough? Yet, early universe has much more big galaxies than expected, so too clumpy at the same time? I'm so confused.
That's what happens when you do the equivalent of trying to describe to describe the whole of planet Earth just from the view atop Mt. Everest, at night, in a raging snowstorm, with a pair of children's toy binoculars and a cheap flashlight. 😂
@@another3997 lol Best analogy :)
If the universe expands over time and the statements are meant for different points in time, then both statements can be true.
Very useful! In future, I will not have failures, I will just have tensions.
I’m old enough to be Sabine’s father and back in my day when I was taking astronomy courses, my professor had several jokes. She liked to comment how something had an uncertainty of “an order of magnitude. “That galaxy is somewhere between 10 million and 100 million light years away”. Also “The Hubble constant isn’t.” referring to how each time a new measurement was announced, it was significantly different from the previous one. Of course I guess the joke was on her as the rate of expansion has been increasing with time. This of course lead to, at the time, the age of the universe being between 8 billion and 20 billion years. But then she pointed out the stellar dynamics people were saying “We think we know how stars age and we aren’t seeing any over about 13 billion years old.” So awesome work star people!
Ho ho ho ho!!! Good timbes, good timbes!
The professors still make the exact same jokes in undergrad cosmology today!
This is what you get when you only consider the weak force of gravity in forming cosmology theory. Cosmology is in need of a paradigm shift.
It sounds like a measurement problem. And this only opens Pandora box as many of the methods they use to measure these values is used in other scientific theories. This is true even though these other measurements are thought 100% true for the other theories. That should shake the entire foundation of science proving beyond a shadow of doubt that humans should be much less sure of their theories being true.
I agree :)
The point of science is that we are always unsure and must check for ourselves. This is a win for science. After quantitative shifts we are arriving on a qualitative shift.
@@imperson7005 I'll give everyone a clue. We can never see a 3D universe, only thin 2D spherical shells. Most of the universe at any past time is invisible too us :)
Kind of makes it hard (cosmology) to measure what was in the universe if you have never seen it lol
2 Sigma and a single paper is not compelling to me.
But it is for a self proclaimed failed scientist.
When we had Newtonian gravity, Mercury was acting up. So here came Einstein to the rescue.
Now we’ve already spent 50 years trying to shoehorn every discordant observation into one of our two precious theories of everything (which, by the way, are quite incompatible to each other themselves). All of this up to the point where we explain 95% of stuff out there (dark xxx) as undetectable, so relativity and quantum physics can stay correct.
Science, quite obviously, needs to start getting a little less dogmatic nowadays…
I can’t take a channel seriously that uses ridiculous titles that are trying, I guess, to imitate teenagers on TikTok. It’s just not a good look.
I agree. It’s bad clickbait. Shame shame
It all is only digestible because Sabine 's humor makes us forgive the Idé Fixe of some researchers. How to combine rational thinking with various "discoveries" in which we believe, and hope it will explain our very existence? Tell me...
Is it Ide Fixe or economics. The economics is that of the theoretical basis of your grant applications.
There is no crisis. This is the way science works. As new information comes to light, our understanding grows. Sometimes in big ways, mostly in small increments. If orbital mechanics suddenly stopped working and satellites fell from the sky, THAT would be a crisis in science.
I get intrigued when there are conflicts between the data and the prediction as I see it as an opportunity staring us in the face.
yes, albeit it has put a mask on.
Indeed. A conflict in data and observation is a clue that an incorrect assumption was made.
Yes and no.
Alchemists made a lot of bad predictions until they found the periodic table that allows for accurate predictions because it is an accurate model.
Our cosmology has advanced no further than rewording the cosmic egg concept with new words and building a computer model on that theory... And the model has given inaccurate predictions.
@@Loreweavver I must disagree with you about the advancements in cosmology. A mere half century ago "cosmology" was virtually indistinguishable from "astronomy" (and some would argue "astrology"!). We have new tools that allow us to peer deeper into the Universe, while quantum observations are stuck in the 1930s. I'm exaggerating, of course, but in my lifetime the advancements in cosmology have been staggering. That those observations confirm GR more often than not is astounding to me.
Or you close your eyes to the obvious.
In other words, cosmology is still basically just phylosophy. Check back in 20 or 30 years.
When an experiment yields two broadly different data outputs under nearly identical conditions, it naturally invites speculation.
This is especially true in the case of the double slit experiment.
In this case both theories of light are true simultaneously?
The interference pattern in the two-slit experiment can be explained by a "wave" nature of light. But a "particle" nature is NOT necessary to explain the localized absorption of the entire quantum of the light's energy at the detector, if we instead relax the Locality assumption ("nothing can be influenced by anything outside its past lightcone") and postulate that the wave has the nonlocal property that it interacts (with a detector) as if its entire quantum of energy is at the interaction location, even though the quantum was widely distributed in space (partially outside the past lightcone of the interaction event) a moment before the interaction.
The founders of quantum mechanics were confident about the Locality axiom, which is why they rejected a "waves only" model. (Einstein called it the Separability axiom in the famous 1935 EPR paper.) But our knowledge of space & time is only rudimentary, and Bell tests have undermined confidence in Locality. Einstein's other famous 1935 paper, the ER paper about wormholes, showed that General Relativity can allow violation of Locality.
So for gravity we just need a theory of GR-MOND duality.
@ramonacosta2647 personally, I think we should admit there are only two dimensions and past that, it's an illusion.
To be more precise, something is really wrong with the observations and the shaky conclusions based on them.
Cosmology; a comedy show on a sinking Big Bang Titanic.
I'll be a lot happier when dark matter either stops being undetectable, or looses significance. I personally think we've got gravity all wrong, and keep it there mainly as a result of all the particlism. It bugs me to not know why it exists.
Have you tried changing your scale to imperial units?
Ha ha! Americans are so precious.
@@drbuckley1 Yes, we are.
@@jdilksjr Personally, I never even tried to learn metrics. It always seemed so "French" to me!
General Relativity is not for you then.
@@ianstopher9111 My remarks were not intended seriously. Of course I understand metrics. Like Col. Flagg, "Sarcasm confuses me."
Thx Sabine, nice explanation. On the danger of Dunning Kruger, but Hubble tension (higher expansion rate) and sigma8 tension (not clumpy enough in the later universe) sounds like a very similiar issue.
"...cosmology was basically philosophy." That's good. Puts me in mind of multiverse theories.
Philosophy is probably nearer being right than observation. All telescopes can see is how distant galaxies were billions of years ago, for all they know the collapse started a couple of billion years ago.
None of that brings to the multiverse...
@@littleworkshopofhorrors2395
How can philosophy be right about the scientific aspects of the universe?
Physics tries to describe what we see, and to build models to replicate our observations. Then we test those theories, and use them where it fits, disscard them where it doesn't and try to find better representations of the reality.
Philosophy is just talking without knowing. So sorry, but that's absurd. Did philosophers decide the type of telescope needed to go as far as possible in the past (JWST) and design it?
My god the world is dumb. Focusing on people talking like those are facts...
@@littleworkshopofhorrors2395 Based on ? Trust me bro?
Probably? How do you measure the probability that random hunches are better than data accumulation?
The expansion is accelerating from our observations. You have no theory to base your opinion on.
So yeah...
And please, if you hate facts, don't vote. I don't care about informed opinions diverging from mine who vote.
But "trust me bro" votes...
@fab5747 the best telescope ever invented cannot see things as they are but as they were! So all judgements based on observation must have an element of doubt, so we are in the realms of philosophy not science. At any moment in time you cannot say with 100% certainty the sun is still shining, although the probability is that it does. Light does take time to get here as you well know. Astronomy can only be considered the study of history. And that also brings it into the realm of philosophy.
Could our fundamental constants be different in other places of the universe? And if so, could it explain dark matter, dark energy and tensions with the rest of the physics that we already know?
The changing economy has pushed many to seek extra income, and I'm considering the stock market to reach my $3M retirement goal. However, the recent market crash is concerning.
For majority, the solution to their problem can be found in specialized knowledge, so can as well seek guidance from a well experienced advisor.
Agreed, despite my rookie knowledge of investing, I have a financial advisor who did the trick in a bit more than 6 months after a lump sum capital of $500k, and I've so far made a fortune. I'm now buying real estates, gold and silver as advised by my FA.
I've been considering getting one, but haven't been proactive about it. Can you recommend your advisor? I could really use some assistance.
Melanie Kristine Skelton is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with to set up an appointment
I have to say, she seems very well-informed. I visited her page and her resume stood out. I’ve reached out and hope things go well.
Isn't this related to a story from a couple weeks ago, "Webb Falsified Dark Matter Prediction - And No One Cares"?
Yes, but more videos mean more money.
From the point of view of scientists this isn’t a crisis at all - it’s a hugely exciting indication of new physics.
The fundamental problem - that Sabine has adressed many times - is that the past 100 years have not produced new theories that can actually be tested.
Crisitunity - Homer Simpson.
@@halloola3636 Try Plasma Cosmology. "Obervations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Cosmology". a 2022 paper by Eric Lerner. Maybe Sabine will open her eyes to it someday.
Sabine has discredited both BBT and MOND. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe.
@@halloola3636 Plasma cosmology is a self-contained, testable physical theory of the universe -- and is ignored.
Cosmologists and other scientists should stick with rationale,a reason and logic. There are so many untested theories it’s just a big mess now. Couple that with man’s tendency to overstate and basically lie about what they so called know and you have a recipe for distaff in the future. All areas of human metaphysics suffer this problem. We just can’t help ourselves..
It needs to be remarked that physics is NOT the truth, it is a collection of intertwined models that work within a certain framework and limitations. Saying that Einstein is wrong is the same as saying that Newton is wrong. Newton's law of Universal gravitation is very useful for many applications, but it is just a low energy approximation of Einstein's relativity for a Schwarzschild type of geometry. Einstein's theory of (general) relativity has proven extremely useful for MANY cases. People saying that he was/is wrong is just a bunch of jealous a--holes wanting to get notoriety, when we know that (most likely) Einstein's theory is just a subset of a higher level theory...that we are yet to uncover. The debate shouldn't be about whether Einstein was right or wrong, more about whether it is the final theory of gravity or there is something else beyond it, and at what point it will break....one of the many reasons why physics (read as: science) is failing and, for example, String Theory has been unsuccessful.
Exactly. It's a cringe when people have a go at Einstein. Easy to say he was wrong. Come up with something better 'Einstein' lol
It's more like saying "Not quite correct". So we have to be careful with interpretation of language :)
GRT is not even useful for all planets in our own solar system because it gives wrong results to the planetary motions of both Venus and Mars.
To give credence on the "sluggishness" astronomy used to be at, Brian May, lead guitarist and back-up vocalist for Queen was studying for his PhD in 1974, and did his whole Queen thing, and then came back to get his PhD in 2007, because there had been so little work in the field he was in. I can barely take a day off from work before I'm behind.
(2:15) *_"Too bad for philosophers, I guess."_* ... Naaaah, philosophy is enjoying a new-found popularity with physics currently stuck in the mud. "Philosophy" shows you why your measurements aren't enough to explain existence.
The Standard Model is stuck, but General Relativity is overwhelmed by new data. Maybe artificial intelligence can make sense of the vast information being collected today?
"Philosophy is the attempt to catch a black cat in a dark room, without the cat actually being there at all."
-Pablo Cruz
@@drbuckley1 yes and Artificial intelligence which doesnt exist by the way will wipe your behind and give ur girlfriend orgasms.
There is no free will. This is my favourite philosophical viewpoint.
@@BCundergroundHIPHOPit is the one that frustrates me the most.
The existence of free will is directly observable.
For it not to exist only requires you to define it away.
There is no incompatibility between choice and determinism.
Dr. Hossenfelder, adding the quiz is a brilliant addition. Keep it up!
Yes, really entertaining
3:30 ah yes. Modified gravity. Textbook example of a handy technique for fitting your data to the expected result.
well clearly something is required because the data doesnt fit predictions. either the data is wrong or the understanding is wrong so something has to change
@@canismajoris6733 The latter.
No Sabine, the three different weights are evidence that each scale is measuring one type of invisible mass, and one type of invisible energy, both of which are obviously there, as it's the only way to explain how we got so fat even though we were born yesterday.
Curvature and stretch of space are two different things. Stretch causes curvaturе, but curvature can also be the topology of the universe. The red shift reflects curvature, and not stretch, thats all.
That's what I think too, but it's hard to concile this with the existence of the cosmic microwave background.
@@theslay66It's turtles all the way round and round. But maybe just once or twice.
So much Hubble Tension. The CMT and the CDL should just get a room somewhere and consummate this.
The problem is, modified gravity is also just math. It has zero explanatory power.
We know that Einstein's theories are limited and incomplete. The problem is people can't seem to complete them or build on them even though the experimental evidence is huge. The inconsistencies are more likely due to incomplete theories then anything else. Dark matter and dark energy are meant to be place holders and don't hold any real value in anything. The numbers are probably close enough to be explained by more complete theory and obviously once we know more about gravity and the place holders of dark matter and dark energy. If you can't explain a large portion of what the universe is, you shouldn't be surprised by something like this. It's a very difficult area to improve on unless you can build on and complete Einstein theories. Which to me at this point is never going to happen .
We need to know more about quantum mechanics to solve the inconsistencies with GR. Then the problems with DM and DE will fade, I assume. That´s what Dr. Sabine´s research is about.
Einstein didn't know there are electric currents in space. They were thought impossible until space probes found them. We will never know what he would have done with that knowledge.
Cosmology is in its infancy. Why would we expect the first generally accepted model would be correct? We have many paradigm shifts left to go.
agreed
More like humanity is in its infancy
@@CausallyExplained It becomes more and more unlikely that humanity will ever reach the teenage years...
Including creation?
@@IanPritchard
If you find any data supporting the assumption, everyone will be thrilled.
Sabina forget gravity and start thinking 'plasma'. Otherwise we all continue to wander the wilderness for another 100 years
Particle physicists will now want more funding for more theoretical particles based on theories, based on theories, to attempt to prove their existence via a larger collider. How does this explain these anomalies... does it matter. Build the bigger collider.
Everyone wants money for the work they do. It’s that simple.
so you're just typing what Sabine says in every video she puts "crisis" in the title of for clicks?
Love your humor!
Seems that given a choice between trusting General Relativity, which has been continuously tested for over 100 years, and ΔCMB, my money is on Einstein.
i would consider general relativity to be a (perhaps THE) cosmological principle. i agree with this insight and think the title of this video is a bit misleading, though there are certainly many more relevations to come.
I'd bet more on the possibility that general theory is incomplete than trusting it blindly just because it was valid on few tests that we did.
@@NotSomethingIsNothing General Relativity has been continuously tested in every conceivable way for over 100 years.
@@DJ_Force i am not saying it's wrong, i am saying it's incomplete.
@@DJ_Force so was classical mechanics and yet it was proven to be incomplete.
I'will geatly appreciate a video with an explanation of each parameter in the ΛCDM model.
One thing is certain, there is more to reality than what's in our universe.
why are you certain? how could you test if there are other universes?
Let me guess: "Therefore, God!"?
It seems the only thing physicists can agree on these days is to make fun of philosophers. Before the coffee break is over and the physicists go back to discuss their latest quantum and multiverse theories.
Sounds like the discipline of physics is sort a like "A pig in a poke" philosophy science "work" eg: measure with a micrometer ,mark with a grease pencil and cut the mark with an axe "work"
Gravity-only theories in an electric universe can't lead anywhere else but to a dead end.
The EU has advanced - check the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe"
Mike McCulloch has a theory called Quantized Inertia that fits this data much more acurately, and doesn't require any fudge factors.
If over 95% of the universe missing is not enough to dismiss a theory, then what is ?
they got so familiar with their dark stuff that it does not feel for them like sth is missing
Which theory do you want to replace and with what?
95% of the universe is missing according to the theory. If you have another theory that accounts for reality while not missing anything, feel free to write a paper.
you want to dismiss a theory that explains all of Baryonic matter very very well because a podcaster who needs clicks told you there's a crisis? Please read a book or take an actual science class and stop getting your physics from podcasters.
This is called incompetence, cronyism and inviolability of the narrative, so that someone does not start wondering whether people are really alone in the Universe. The characteristic feature of this gang of dudes is always the same: denying inconvenient facts and emphasizing those that suit them. A real circus.
What on Earth is happening with Sabine's youtube channel? Old videos are being made restricted to paying viewers! That is very awkward. Like selling fish long dead... 🐟🐠🐡🐙