Webb Measured How Fast The Universe is Expanding. There's a Big Problem
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has calculated the expansion rate of the universe. The results have confirmed the biggest crisis in cosmology, the Hubble Tension. This means that the universe is expanding at a rate faster than what our best cosmological models predict, and no one knows why. The resolution of the Hubble Tension is important as it highlights a significant flaw in our understanding of the cosmos.
RESOURCES and REFERENCES:
📄 RESEARCH PAPERS:
1. Crowded No More: The Accuracy of the Hubble Constant Tested with High-resolution Observations of Cepheids by JWST, Riess et al. (The Astrophysical Journal Letters) - bit.ly/3W08Mle
2. JWST Observations Reject Unrecognized Crowding of Cepheid Photometry as an Explanation for the Hubble Tension at 8σ Confidence, Riess et al. (The Astrophysical Journal) - bit.ly/444SY2P
REFERENCES:
🏴 The Great Debate: bit.ly/3UjvHH4
✨ Cepheid Variables: bit.ly/4aYINPn
🚀 NASA Press Release: bit.ly/43BR7Cj
🎼 Music: KZhead Audio Library, Envato Elements and MotionElements
🎥 Footage: Envato Elements, StoryBlocks, NASA, ESA, and Pond5
💻 Created and Produced by: Rishabh Nakra
🔍 Researched by: Shreejaya Karantha
✍🏻 Written by: Shreejaya Karantha and Rishabh Nakra
🎙️ Narrated by: Jeffrey Smith
🌌 Animated by: Sankalp Dash
🌐 3D Models of Big Bang: Orkun Zengin
On behalf of Earth, I have to ask all those galaxies moving away from us: “Is it something we said?”
It's because we stink😮
I think it's because we are a carbon based being that destroys everything we touch. I don't want to have anything to do with the human race half the time.
Bleep vlorp, poopoo stik, dsa n Utica. Fchff. Gucci to tu if👽
Absolutely hilarious
🤣🤣🤣
You know what is interesting? All the debates and competing views were completed without anyone being burned at the stake or condemned as a heretic.
It was more civil than today's debates.
From what I hear it isn't the easiest to convey new ideas in the upper echelons of your scientific discipline, Evolution has had some big holes that have not been commonly recognized until recently. Money is also a factor, so fewer people are interested in the expansion of the Universe than the expansion of their bank account, so when news about the expansion happens fewer people have an interest in Reality Objectively as apposed to Reality Subjectively. So we have less comprehension as a sum of all the comprehension of the minds on our planet. I agree we are more civil today, although we still have skins to shed it seems.
want to bet? anyone that dares questions the false unproven assumptions of cosmology gets excommunicated.
I Don’t Think it’s off the Table 😂
You obviously haven't been keeping up with the literature.
Improving knowledge is getting better, not "worse". It is not a "big problem". In the future things that are taken for granted today might be proven to be mistakes tomorrow; that is science.
"Crisis"? WtF! How about a facinating mystery or energizing contradiction? Or just science at it's best?
Most people's biggest problem: " How will I pay Rent" Scientist biggest problem: "How fast is everything moving away from us, Exactly" Such wildly different lives we live.
It's just an expression😂
Science clearly has a good definition of itself 🤗 Pseudo Science defines everything ✨Not Understood Yet ✨ 🤯
@@ESL-O.G. "It's just an expression" is also just an expression.
Except for our current assumptions this is hardly a “crisis” or a “problem”. It’s science and it’s a wonderful and exciting question. This is how science works, by following the facts wherever they may lead.
Yes but, despite the rigors of the scientific method that scientist prescribe to, they are highly defensive and reluctant to face any question of the established accepted theory. Whenever new evidence emerges that upsets the established cosmological view, there is always naysayers and those that will refute the new thinking to the end of their days. Which is a very unscientific.
@@Lethgar_Smith No. That’s not at all how science works. I don’t know where you got such a crazy idea.
universe approaching a division ie akin to a cell division thus another "cell" formation in the body containing the process we are a universe in a pimple on a gigantic Giant's ass !!!!
Yes, but it it changes the narrative of what we have claimed to know for centuries, it means we literally have to.l audit the info we have taught for years. Science is no longer about "discovery" or a search for knowledge, it's now about finding ways to do more with less money, for example, "high powered new telescope" stares at stars, not looking at the stuff closest to us (Trappist system) Andromeda, zooming in on Mars, Jupiter, Uranus or Pluto, instead it's focusing more on 14 billion years ago instead of our own/closest neighbors, things we could ACTUALLY reach in the near future and the funniest thing is, jwst is actually TOO sensitive to actually look at out neighbors the light reflecting off them would literally burn a hole/cauterize the lenses and equipment, don't get me wrong jwst is awesome but shouldn't we get to know our neighbors first before looking at a nother country? (Metaphorically speaking)
I'm expanding way faster than the universe!
Do not worry, you will implode again.
you're a man.
I’m boundless.
Sounds like something my MIL has shown me over time.
I wonder if there is a ‘universal equivalent’ of the ‘middle aged spread’? I can only confirm that it is constant and persistent here on earth!😂
Moments like these are the most exciting moments in science.
We don't know didly!
We know more than yesterday
Bo?
And didly is expanding at a faster rate than expected.
The main problem is that redshift is mostly an intrinsic function based on atomic density or magnetic flux density, not doppler. The expanding model is based on the sci-fi model of Einstein.
@@JoeDeglman Yes Joe is correct! For those looking to advance their knowledge beyond the standard (blinkered) view of cosmology, the best sources are Ray Fleming, Eric Learner, and Pierre-Marrie Robitaille. Good luck truth seakers!
Mind officially blown! Webb's findings on the universe's expansion are mind-boggling.
All based pm Theory and it is in reality "so called science"
There is no crisis in cosmology. We are advancing our insight. Its progress. The laws we handle in science are the best we have.......untill we learn otherwise. That is why agnosticism is the best attitude. (also socially)
*For the people not understanding the problem/crisis framing of the new cosmological evidence that's coming up:* Cosmology is like a "house" of complex interconnected theories that not only explain observation, but also predict phenomena. This prediction aspect is an essential element of science. Theories must predict phenomena accurately if they are to be valid. When actual observations conflict with theoretical prediction (the prediction is wrong), then the theory has a problem. If significant observational challenges to theories keep accumulating, the problem keeps growing and can eventually be labeled "crisis". A crisis would mean that essential foundational theories are challenged to the extent that their validity would be suspect. Once the foundations of your house are shaky, the whole house could come tumbling down. This is basically called a "paradigm shift" (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). From the perspective of a lay person interested in science as a hobby or even a scientist that is not in physics or astronomy, this is not a crisis. It's just inevitable evolution of scientific understanding. It's actually exciting. However, for the people from the scientific fields whose careers are built around science which becomes obsolete, this is indeed a potential crisis. Shaking up the foundations of cosmology and related science could turn into a period of chaos for the people involved. For some scientists a paradigm shift would be a blessing, but for many it would be a curse for a number of reasons. A paradigm shift in science can negatively impact scientists by rendering their expertise obsolete, diminishing the relevance of their research, and complicating efforts to secure funding if their work aligns with now-questioned theories. Additionally, their professional reputation can suffer if they are closely associated with discredited theories, potentially stalling their career advancement. The psychological toll is also significant, as adapting to new paradigms can be challenging for those who have invested heavily in the old ways of thinking, causing emotional and psychological distress. These factors contribute to the entrenchment of existing scientific paradigms because they create a significant inertia against change. Scientists, whose careers, reputations, and emotional investments are tied to established theories, may resist new ideas that threaten their professional standing and the validity of their past work. This resistance is compounded by institutional mechanisms, such as funding priorities and publication biases, which favor established paradigms. Consequently, the scientific community can be slow to accept paradigm shifts, despite the foundational principle of science to continually test and revise its theories based on new evidence. This entrenchment is a natural human response to the risks associated with fundamental changes, reflecting a tension between the ideal of objective scientific inquiry and the practical realities of career-driven scientific research.
What if physical constants are not constant over long time?
There is no crisis. And it's not a problem. It's impossible to measure the size of the universe because it keeps expanding everytime human consciousness focus on it!! This is just the way it is!!
I'd like to clarify, are you under the impression that the universe is only expanding when we observe it? If so, what do you mean by "observe"?
I believe they're referring to when we observe atoms via our eyes on a microscope they are more likelier act out of the ordinary. Same goes with telescopes with this theory.
yes and before humans it was expanding because dinosaurs used to observe it.... and before that... alien dinosaurs used to observed it, till we get as far back to the big bang.
Write your paper. Let the world know you figured it out!
Yes, an expanded form of the heisenberg principal!
I know I'll be laying awake all night worrying about this crisis!!
What we previously thought about the functioning of our universe does not seem to be confirmed in any way. Where we thought the Big Bang expansion (out of a singularity) began, we are now discovering a completely different pattern. It doesn't seem to be a case of a starting explosion but rather a cyclical self-renewal of our cosmos, so to speak from one generation of the universe to another, a kind of passing on of the physical laws under quantum mechanical processes. We cannot explore the universe with precise chronological information, since the real beginning probably dates back several (constantly self-renewing) universe cycles and cannot be grasped due to the enormous "time shifts". With our (limited) human consciousness we probably won't be able to really bring light into the great darkness, we'll simply be overwhelmed... In summary: Determining the age of the universe from the beginning seems impossible; in any case, it is much further back than around 13 billion years, probably a multiple of this estimate. There was no Big Bang during a transition from a previous universe to our current universe. We also don't know how often this process was repeated. The expansion and contraction of the cosmos remains a certain mystery; it´s probably a cyclical process that could be described as a primal cosmic force. So we have to be patient in order to correctly understand and interpret these extremely complicated and varied processes of the concept of our entire universe. At this moment we know perhaps 1 to 10% (?) of the whole...
It feels like Schrodinger's cat... Like the observer plays a role in what is being seen.
There is a new theory that the universe is a holographic projection, the source of which is our conscious awareness.
Since we now know that the speed of light is not a constant, maybe someone should consider the impact of that.
you mean not a limit
I think that what was said, is what was meant to be said.
Variable speed of light
Wait wait wait….I thought the science was settled?
Man we dont know shit
It’s almost like we don’t know everything and act like we do.
I think you have mistaken this by some religious video. This is a science page, scimce is a tool we use to learn our reality. We'll never know everything, and the video itself mentions many disputing theories which is literally saying "we dont know that yet"
@MsPabloRms Science can only scratch the surface of reality, which is beyond our comprehension. We need to accept our limitations, and the limitations of our tools.
@@johnmichalski5981 Sure, no problem. Science doesn't claim to explain everything in the first place. That doesn't mean that religion is an answer - for anything, really.
Who's we? I certainly don't act like I know everything, nor do I know anyone who does.
@@MsPabloRms I have heard very few scientists say WE DON'T KNOW IN ANY FIELD. You are so naive to believe that SCIENCE TODAY is not one of the biggest scams in the Universe. Not that real science is not being done but it is so hidden in the pure crap it is hard to find.
Thought provoking!! If there's a missing link( which seems plausible after the discrepancies found between two measurements) I hope it will lead the field of Physics and Astronomy to a greater understanding of this existence. A well analysed episode it is!! 💯🙏🌌
Bang on.
Irene, alas, that is highly unlikely. Cosmology is well and truly stuck in a rut, and all tenured professors steadfastly refuse to re-examine the foundational assumptions.😢
Irene, alas, that is highly unlikely. Cosmology is well and truly stuck in a rut, and all tenured professors steadfastly refuse to re-examine the foundational assumptions.😢
@mikehannan8206 maybe not in our lifetime but can't eliminate the possibility entirely. We must not be ignorant of the fact, that time plays a pivotal role in shaping up such unlikely thoughts into reality.
No big bang, that's a theory that seems to be taken as fact but they left out two important factors in their calculations, quantum physics and consciousness. Universes are constantly passing through one another and occasionally create another universe. Yet everything we observe is an illusion, distance and space is a single point/location, HERE. Time is another illusion as there is a single moment, NOW. . In each second of earth's time, there are measurements we refer to as Planck TIME, the length of time it takes light to travel the diameter of an atom. In each moment of Planck Time, a parallel and completely new universe is created. And there are 14billion X 10Million Planck Times per second. This creates the illusion of linear time. And the really good news is, we are the creators of all this. We are HERE NOW always. 💥
No crisis: Light looses momentum (red shift) over long distances. "The "tired-light" hypothesis, claimed that galaxies' light reddens because it loses energy as it passes through space. In this scenario, distant galaxies are red not because they are moving, but because their light has traveled farther and gotten pooped along the way." Presume the universe expansion isn't accelerating & calculate the lost of momentum over distance.
Excellent presentation. Am I right to understand that the rate of expansion, though obviously very important, is really quite slow compared to cosmic distances and velocities? Or am I missing something?
I've been saying since my youth that it's silly to imagine that the speed of light is constant. We already know that time as we experience it is relative depending on mass and acceleration. Everything we know is really just based on accurate measurements within our solar system and local bubble. I'm pretty sure that we exist in a multidimensional universe where, as 3D creatures, all we can see are spheroids everywhere.
The thing I really like about SOU is that their contentjust keeps getting better and better. I have been watching your videos for the past three years now, and this was the best one so far. The animations, script, narration by Jeffrey, and presentation was top notch! Please keep it up. Looking forward to more :)
Somewhat weird to call this discrepancy ‘tension’, since as far as I am aware that’s not a term used in other fields. One solution, is that BOTH answers are correct, in which case some kind of phase-change would have occurred between the time of the Cosmic Background Radiation was produced, and later galactic measurements.
I wish I understood. Don't values closer to a line mean the difference is less?
If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding INTO? If it isn’t expanding into some container or shape, is it really expanding?
The Hubble constant clearly can be interpreted as a measure for the acceleration of galaxies relative to each other. And yes, that can be interpreted as the expansion rate of the universe if you like. In the Acceleration view it should be possible, by reverse calculation, to obtain either the Force associated with the big bang or the mass of the initial universe. Even at a large scale, Newtonian mechanics often apply.
I am happy to see you start to make videos again SOU
The real problem is the naive assumption that all typev1 supernovae have the same brightness. There is really no good reason to assume this. There are examples of type 1 supernovae with no observed stellar remnant, showing that two white dwarves collided to generate it. So not all explosions are the same, and it makes them useless as a standard candle.
The issue is the Doppler effect used to calculate red shift. The electric universe makes more sense. Brush up on that theory
The galaxies on the universal edge are obviously less bound by descreasing density / gravity so an acceleration would be naturally occurring. In our understanding we could safely make that hypothesis.
What if I told you... that the Doppler effect is not the only mechanism that causes the cosmological redshift?
You would be correct in stating that. Alton Arp, astrophysicist, stated in his study on red shift that the spectrographic evidence revealed an intrinsic variation.
@@summerbrooks9922 It's Halton Arp and his theories have been discarded with the advent of better and more precise observation instruments. If his theory was right the observations from modern instruments would have produced results consistent with his theory. On recent study with find inconsistences with quasar redshifts - but nothing to the point that supported his theory.
Great and cool video! I would really like to know in which directions these measurements against supernovae and galaxies are made? Even if the coordinate system in the universe is surely defined in some way, so if the measurements are made in roughly the same direction, will the values be correct? Think of the center of the Milky Way as 0 reference (take into account the movement of our solar system in relation to the galaxy) Then from 0 measure in X, Y and Z. 180 degrees X,Y and Z will thus be the opposite direction. So what are the results in different measurements? According to the Big Bang theory, the space between galaxies expands. Like multi-layered balloons, the outermost layers even faster than the ones inside. Thus everything moves apart, even galaxies moving in the same direction as us thus appear to move away from us regardless of whether their positions are inside or outside us. Even greater differences if we study galaxies on the other side(?!). I know this is considered paradoxically contradictory because it would imply that the universe (big bang) had a center. Scientists return several times to say that the universe does not have a center, a starting point does not exist - but that hypothesis still feels wrong to me because they are still allegedly able to "reverse the expansion" and calculate when the Big Bang occurred. Does anyone know of these measurement points that have been made and can give me sources?
The more you learn, the more you realize what you do not know. This does not make a crisis. Humble yourself before the lord.
Is there a difference in the direction they are looking at?
I think that instead of the universe expanding at an increasing rate the method of measuring is failed, and is revealing a new aspect of physics we haven't gotten a grasp on.
So every method of measuring is wrong? And wrong in an oddly consistent manner?
Does not seem right that there is a rapid stretching of space ,in between galaxies , with such a high speed??? If expansion of space is occurring that fast----- how can we see any galaxies --- how it is possible to see/ observe these galaxies???? Something is not right here.????
Seems like the more we learn, the less we know.
First, if one galaxy is twice as far as another, why do you think it is moving faster, second the pulsating star may be so far away that the luminosity may be far greater and go through less particles. The remarks and equations are just theory. How do you prove a star is x number of light years away? So, what if light travels at a different speed in different parts of the universe?
This is because red shifting do not mean space expansion. It means only depletion of the energy of the light produced from the very old images of the real galaxy sources, which are invisible. We see only images and because the real source travel on a trajectory, it isn't any more behind the image to suppl;y it with energy. From the law of Plank: λ= ch/E and if E tends to 0 then λ tends to infinity and that explains the red shifting of the light which becomes analogous to the distance from the observer, from blue to yellow, to green, to red, to infrared, to microwaves and then to darkness.
Please explain how a photon (which travels at the speed of light and does not experience time) can become 'depleted' over time. (Remember that the 'speed of light is not an accurate description - since photons do not have mass the amount of force necessary to accelerate light to infinite speed is zero. Light travels at 'light speed' because this is the ultimate 'speed limit.')
@@colincampbell767 So you believe that photon is a real particle and not a particle property of light. This is a big mistake, even for Einstein's views. What I mean. The light has two known material "properties" by its nature, the particle and the wave. This is because the light is not emitted in a constant energy nature but with energy quanta, with frequency, and these quanta of energy are what we call photons and carry the physical property of particle for the light. The photon is neither immortal nor can exist without light. If the photon was immortal as you say, and it was not in essence a coin of energy exchange, then we would not have the phenomenon of turning light into electricity and have been explained by Einstein and took the Nobel for it. The well -known photoelectric phenomenon. So, the photon it gives its energy and stop to exist and disappears or can be created and occurs again every time there is excess energy such as in a transaction in changing an electronic layer, or in nuclear reactions. This is the reality for light, and it is not the light, just particles like an electron beam in the Thompson tube. As you said it has no mass, it is only a property a function. From a galactic source, therefore, the light emitted, say, emitting 10^10 photons for a period of time and encounters a transparent material such as glass e.g. Polaride. In fact, if we take two polarizing glasses and put them perpendicular to each other, then, the light will disappear and this is the phenomenon of light polarization. Do you think I need to give you more explanations that light it is possible to looses energy and to reduce the number of photons in its travel as a beam and to be absorbed absolute from the materials even if it is only from photons? The photons do not lose energy in the way you think, the one moment is there the next moment if the energy drops to 0 they vanish, in the mend time they only change their wavelength as we can see in nuclear reactions, but this phenomenon it seems that is ignored by the astrophysicists. As for the limit of the speed of light for all possible or unlikely reference systems, this is simply a doctrine, a dogma of Einstein for purely philosophical reasons that if you look for it, you will find the reason, it has to do with what was the beliefs of his teacher Mach, if you don't find it tell me to explain it. This does not mean that this limit cannot be this a truth, but it is something we will never know, because if you know, the speed of light we only measure it unfortunately as Einstein wrote, in two directions, going and returning, it is the only way, and we are measuring as a speed of light the whole distance over time passed. So the light can go with faster speed and return with a smaller one and we to do the wrong to count the two periods like the same. Chances are 50/50%. I think that I have proved to you that I am right and the quantum law of Plank is working and that we have depletion in the energy of light when the temperature of the image of a galaxy is reduced, because the galaxy travels on a trajectory and isn't anymore behind its image at that spot to supply it continuously with energy. You see, everything around us in the Universe, are only images, and it is not the appearance of the galactic sources in real time. From this law of Plank and the law of Wien, the conclusion is that when the energy of the light production drops, then the wavelength will redshifted. I have to suggest you a simple physic's experiment of red shifting with the use of an ordinary flashlight if you let it deplete batteries. Then some time you will see its light to change colors and to change wavelength to redshifted, and your space, trust me, will stays the same. Do you know a such experiment done from the Astrophysics that proves the dilatation of space and not the depletion in energy? If so, please give me the knowledge. If not, then do my experiment and tell me if I am right, and give my the Nobel.
@@user-dialectic-scietist1 I used 'photon' as a convenient shorthand. Because I felt that for the purposes of this discussion - it's 'good enough.' You went and posted a complicated explanation that I'm certain that nobody read. Should I use General Relativity to calculate the acceleration due to gravity? It is more precise than Newtons' Laws.
If the expansion is speeding up, I think that kills the expand/crunch notion. Another thing that you don't hear very often, because it's a bit scary to grapple with, is the fact (according to the math) that just after expansion began the outer edge of the universe was moving outward at infinite velocity. How far can it travel at infinite velocity? 🤔🤯
The period of 'inflation' in the early universe demonstrated that spacetime itself can move faster than the speed of light. In fact, this is the basis for theoretical 'warp drive' that compresses spacetime in front of it and expands spacetime behind it in order to move faster than the speed of light - despite not actually moving at all.
A ''crisis'', till you hear that it's been only a hundred years ago that they were debating if the Milky Way was all there was or just one of many galaxies.
They forgot to carry the 2
We are looking back in time. So it seems if things are moving much faster long ago would that mean that much closer objects would be a better indication of expansion? Gaging the expansion further back in time seems counter intuitive. ❓❓🤔
Absolutely you got a very basic fact in the logic line, there. If you look back in the past where the universe was in a tumble, is it worth measuring for now? Congratulations for being reasonable. I appreciate you very much.
Ding ding! Logic champ! Gratitude. Reward insight: looking outside the being is always a measure of the past, the future can only be seen within
Looking at close objects will only give you the current expansion rate, but looking at both near and far will help you see the change over time.
Perhaps the assumption is incorrect. Light speed is affected by the medium through which it travels. Perhaps the medium of space varies with distance? Remember the images we're shown are not actual but created by software which interprets electromagnetic waves or frequency and converted to visual representations. And electromagnetic waves do interact, canceling and enhancing and radiate spherically in all directions. Viewing the universe as spherical it's impossible to find it center from where we currently reside. We can only be on the outer edge of the supposed bang, the center or somewhere in between. We can rule out the outer edge. If we were the center then there would be no way to determine which direction of the outer sphere was the exact center in the past. Lastly if we're in between there is no way to determine where the center of the sphere originated. That diagram of the expansion is a nonsensical representation of an explosion, it would be spherical not funnel shaped. Then it's closed, open, positively curved or negatively curved. It might even be static.
How does something appear in and move through nothing?
Excellent video, thanks.
There is no crisis, it’s natural. So it’s doing what it’s supposed to do. We just get scared when we don’t know what’s going on.
Maybe their reliance on using Human Time Scales is the Big Flaw in Their Theories... The Rest of the Universe doesn't abide by 24 hours in a Day & 365 days in a Year.
This guy's illiterate in the beet possible way. Go learn from godly scriptures, 😂😂
Are you implying that time isn't constant and can speed up or slow down due to many variables?
These are just reference numbers it doesn't matter what value you use as long as you apply it to everything
No...he just had a thought that popped into his head...thought it was clever and posted it...he's not thinking past that first thought...@itsrobby3487
The red shift is due to the age of the light, not the distance / velocity of the source.
The problem is that astronomers accept some preposterous assumptions, including: Isotropy and Homogeneity. These are NOT FACTS, but only simplifications to ease calculational labor. These introduce the UNREALISTIC concepts such as "Age of the Universe" as if there were a single coordinate frame in which all time can be measured. In reality, each particle has its OWN trajectory and hence its own proper time. Thus, the "Age of the Universe" depends upon which path a given particle has taken. Expecting vastly different methods of measurement to give the SAME answer is naive, to say the least. "Reality is ALWAYS more complex than you imagine; it is hyper-complex and chaotic, and can never be accurately described by mathematical models beyond a certain level."
Another example of the saying, "Nothing changes more than the past!"
If you analyze the CMB you can see a great void which would infer the central point of the expansion, the location of the origin, now why would we assume that the expansion is uniform? Maybe pockets of matter based on their cluster density would not have the same rate of expansion so the expansion itself is not collective, but is relative to the matter density of the galactictic clusters.
How do we know that our known universe isn't just some cosmic drop of condensate that formed on the glass of cold liquid some alien being is drinking and his gravity is causing it to spread out? What happens when he finishes his drink?
Think about it. There are other universe is out there and they’re gravitational. Pull is affecting the expansion rate of our universe. It’s a multi-verse people. That’s all there is to it.
Yup. Universes are just groupings like galaxies. They affect each other gravitationally and merge. There are “big bangs” constantly happening in the cosmos. Probably caused by universes merging. It would explain why the expansion is not the same in all directions and also the mystery of stars or galaxies that appear too old to be part of our universe. Everything they keep finding out points to this. Humans have a problem with scale. It’s infinite both ways.
@@motleyh9427 Yes, this universe must be a local event. Its more logical when we accept infinity.
to my mind "the universe" is all encompassing. the one song that contains everything. there cannot be more than one everything. talk of other universes is nonsensical . there can be only one "all".
@@sceptic33 Yes, language put us(me) on the wrong foot. Better; ¨Infinite bigbangs in universe¨.
"There will always be something else" - The Universe thinking to itself
The fact we know the expansion is accelerating is amazing.
SOU is on of the best Astrophysics channels. Cool Worlds and SEA also good.
Have to say that the 'dominant' theory seems hopelessly naive.
"Crisis" lol... makes it sound as if it matters one way or the other
its not just the universe its everything
There is nothing to worry about - absolutely nothing what-so-ever. The universe or material world is expanding because it receives energy from the realm just beyond our physical realm. Thats it *E / c² = m*
We are no more than a simulation in an alien computer, the universe is expanding because a memory upgrade is currently underway.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Time to put the illicit items down buddy. You've had too much.
Put a needle in your finger and say it again.
@@Johan-rm6ec And thus the humor was missed.
@@asmith1711 And thus, as always, the ignorant, are ignorant of the humor.
excellent summary.
the potential lack of homogeneity in the universe could demonstrate why the hubble constant is not constant: the dark matter between us and the observed point is the interference of something yet not understood, or the dark energy is fluctuating (or the way we understand that quantum fluctuations occur spontaneously and mass is transformed to energy to create large sudden particles but imagined on a larger scale); I am interested and slightly more assured with the way the CMBR has been used to understand the difference between 74 and 67 kms^-1mpc^1 , I hope james webb demonstrates it in a new picture of cosmology and astrophysics! @TheSecretsoftheUniverse
I agree, dark energy works at different rates at different times and places. They should study the rate of expansion in a place such as Bootes Void and compare it to the expansion in a super cluster.
Whenever your math returns values that indicate a exponential and fairly constant increase, as seen in a basic exponential line graph, your math is not complete. See there is one thing that is constant and only one thing, decay. Everything decay's, somethings can only exist for a few minutes others for billions of years but there will always be a real world unseen variable that we cant factor into our current calculations. A truly complete calculation that accurately reflects reality must always have some downward curve as gradual decay will affect the data on a long enough time frame. Once we build functioning quantum computers our calculations will become more complete and more accurate but at this point in our existence we cant complete the math yet.
Are we expanding too? Some are 😂 but maybe we have universal expansion down to the subatomic level? How would we know with everything being relative - relatively speaking.
🤣🤣
I Think that there is ONE endless infinite universe, in which all galaxies with a centred black hole are moving by the red and the blue. the red is c1 and the blue is c2 from E=MC2. There is a speed of light, which is limited and therefore prsent by two borders. (red and blue). The speed of light has a centre by a "horizontal" wave of e-volution Inisde this centre there is a vertical line by the amplitudes of in-volution. The in-volution comes back to the tinniest point of zero. Now there must be a relationships between the speed of light and the smallest black hole known. I think this idea can help to find the answers longing for.
Your channel has become a trusted source for me. I appreciate the integrity and credibility you bring to your content.
Hubble constant Ho was introduced as a variable to establish a relationship, but in order to find that constant’s value you have to establish another relation to find one value that is used to get Ho, it’s just stupid that the scientists are trying to use flimsy way to find a values to find a constant’s value.
Read Mark Twain's comments on scientific extrapolation. I think it has some applicability to the question at hand.
@9:44 Using a hypothetical model to confirm an unknown constant. What could possibly go wrong?
It's inversion physics chat that is needed in this video... (The video's 'conventional wisdom' premises are flawed, and Mary Fowler's GEOPHYSICS PREM chart offers insight about this paradox-problem)...
This is an excellent video. Thanks
Our moon is the same distance from us as always. So is our sister planets. So local expansion, if any, is all that concerns me.
I agree. Unless there is something headed towards us this kind of exploration likens itself to shooting at a moving humvee to see what happens 😂. 🤔 uh oh running will not help 😊
Miss you dearly Mr. Hawking. 🌏
From the perspective of the other galaxies moving away from ours faster. Would not those "expanding away" galaxies not have the same perspective as we?
Those far away galaxies would have the same problem and one of those problems is that our solar system didn't exist yet and what we see far away maybe don't exist anymore. All we can say is that the expansion is faster the longer time we look back, in other words, it may slow down.
@@birrextio6544 Hmmm , you have me thinking. Thank you for the reply
From their perspective everything in the universe is moving away from them. Think of a balloon. You put a bunch of dots on it and the slowly inflate it. From the perspective of every single dot - they are standing still, and all the other dots are moving away from them.
@@colincampbell767 All of us here know this, the question is, do they move away faster or slower. It depend on if you think of distance to them or how long back in time we see them. The answer is probably some complex math that include both way of thinking but nobody explain that for us, we just get a simple answer based on distance.
@@birrextio6544 From the perspective of each dot - the further away another dot is - the faster it is moving away from it.
Good video
So based on the measurements the age of the universe can and has been calculated. So what is it?.
If m is the absolute value of a star's true brightness how can it have a value of -4.85 since absolute value (modulus) is defined as the distance from zero it is always expressed as a positive number.
What is the universe expanding into ???
It seems that a crisis and problem could be we have a scientific community who regard new knowledge as a crisis and problem.
In the depths of space, where stars ignite, The James Webb Telescope, with cosmic sight. It peers into the void, with eyes so keen, Unraveling mysteries, of the cosmic scene. With precision's grace, it calculates, The universe's expansion, at staggering rates. But what it reveals, brings a cosmic plight, A tension unresolved, in the realm of light. The Hubble Tension, a crisis profound, Challenges our theories, with a resounding sound. For the universe expands, at a pace unknown, Beyond the bounds, our models have shown. Faster and faster, it stretches wide, Defying expectations, with cosmic stride. But why does it race, at such a pace? A puzzle unsolved, in the cosmic space. As Webb measures, with meticulous care, The tension mounts, in the cosmic air. For the resolution sought, holds the key, To understanding the universe's mystery. So let us heed, the Webb's cosmic call, As it unravels the cosmos, standing tall. For in the heart of this tension, lies the prize, A deeper understanding, beyond the skies.
"The farther they where the faster they seemed to be receding." Well, that is wrong way to see the problem, it should be: "The longer back in time they are, the faster they seems to receding" In other words, the expansion rate was at max during the big back and have since then slowed down due to gravity. If we see a galaxy 13 billion light years away, we actually see the speed it had 13 billion years ago. If I'm wrong, just explain for me how we know that the Hubble tension is right but without making it simple by mixing up time and distance.
was thinking on this recently, the whole premise of dark energy was an accelating expanding universe based on observations the further away the galaxy is the further it seem to be moving away. BUT like you said, the further away they are is also further back in time which would imply the expansion is slowing down because local galaxies are not moving away as fast. Ie universe is not expanding, its slowing down?
You explained the "first method" using Cepheids very well, and then you added Type 1a Supernovae as though that were not a second method but rather an adjunct to the "first method". You then went on to waffle about a "second method" involving cosmic background radiation without showing how it might work. In conclusion I would say that there are 2 methods which agree on the value of H0, and a third unspecified method which suggests a significantly different value.
Nothing is speeding up, but time itself is slowing down, giving stuff a longer time to move. There, I said it.
Lots of love n Blessings ✨✨✨✨🙌🙌🙌🙌sou
I was about on my sixth beer, and when I briefly looked at that thumbnail image of JWST I thought it was Bart Simpson riding on a surfboard lol !
I'm not drunk but now I can't unsee it lol
So clearly explained it is almost comprehensible for laymen like me. Thank you so much!!
I really just feel like we are the trailer in the back cosmically speaking, the one that the land lords have TRIED to evict, but we "know our rights"
The great unsolved mysteries will continue throughout time but what if all questions about the universe were known how would that change our lives?
Like many other commenters, I also don't see "the problem". Science "fact" is rarely carved in stone, it is subject to reexamination and reinterpretation, over and over again. This is why the scientific method is the single most valuable discovery of our species. We've come a long way from believing that if you sailed too close to the edge of the world, you'd fall off. And we have a long way to go.
Suppose any one of the mathematical variables used to establish brightness or distance is flawed then wouldn't that cause this problem?
God is expanding, to protect life here on Earth, from colliding, and destroying our life. Similar to water expanding as fish 🐟 are protected from the Freezing of water. To protect & preserve life here on our Earth. Always expanding to protect life, and proof of God, the first giver of our lives, in Ice 🍨 & Universe. 4-26-24
It’s obvious we don’t have a clue what is actually happening in space. Theories run rampant in physics and most are not provable or even understood by other physicists and that’s a serious issue. To say that the universe is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light then say that isn’t what is happening is confusing period. Just saying.
How do they know the apparent brightness of a star is not affected by occlusion from clouds or by lensing effects from strong gravitational bodies?
I noticed that in 2018 the IAU voted to add Lemaitre’s name to the Hubble Law so that it should read Hubble-Lamaitre Law. Does that also apply to the Hubble Constant and the Hubble Tension?
In an email response from an Associate Professor of Astronomy, she said “Yes.” It should read Hubble-Lemâitre Law, Hubble-Lemâitre Constant, and Hubble-Lemâitre Tension.
What law dicates that a star pulsates at a rate proportional to its brightness?
Good question. Money would be better spent improving agriculture in poor countries.
@@rb368370 I'm still looking for a university that offers a program in the applications of cosmology. Put differently, what is the practical benefit of all this cosmology stuff? --Old physicist
@@rb368370 Research into 'pure science' is actually an investment in the future. All of our advanced technology is based on research conducted decades to centuries ago.
current model is broken, so basically they want to expand it to fix it? first it was dark matter (which quickly only complicated the issue and fixed nothing), then dark energy (which only complicated the issue and fixed nothing) ... so now what new imaginary dark entity are they going to invent to ... further complicate (and not fix) the issue. sensible people would thrown the whole thing in the trash long ago, but not scientists, I'm sure another couple rolls of duct tape on the car will stop that annoying rattle. ... well start by admitting they were wrong ... they (most) know what the 'cosmic background radiation' actually is (hint: it's not the big bang echo), but not only afraid to admit they were wrong but still attempt to use it to cover failure. ... many smart scientists (even separate knowing true source of CBR) tossed the BB THEORY, yet still derive other "accepted solutions" (as well as the CBR) from it. ... it's herding lying demons ... they know the truth but it's their nature to always and continue lying - keeps them in work, keeps the $ rolling in.
That’s the kicker, a lot of so called “scientists” aren’t truly scientists. They come up with hypotheticals and theories and use what is known to take them where they want to end up. Instead of letting facts take them to where they should go.
Anyone know a creator that gets to the point?
Amazing.