Categorically NO, it is a physical impossibility. An alternative expplanation can be found in an alternative hypothesis to the standard model, called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by Tony Norman Marsh. Just type in Tony Norman Marsh into Google, and details will be shown.
Best interview so far Dr. Keating. You're asking pointed questions and being more concise and sitting back and letting her talk. Much better interview techniques
@@leoborganelli Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
I'm going to push back on the use of the word "crisis". It's not a crisis, it's an opportunity. We're not talking about dogma, this is science, we're talking about the opportunity to improve our understanding of the universe.
Amen! "Crisis" can lead to new physics. The ultraviolet catasphrophe led to quantum mechanics. Failure of the ether theory led to general relativity. The infinity problem led to QED. Parity violation contributed to the standard model. I'm sure there are even more examples.
Thank you our beautiful Mother Wendy for attending unto our own! Brian thank you and gratitude and honor for having sincere conversations unto our beautiful Mother Wendy!
Not an astronomer here. But I know how complicated the distance measurements and errors are, and how much they affect expansion measurements. I always had a hunch that the Hubble tension is almost completely due to this. After watching this interview, I'm now even more convinced. The poor astronomers are stuck in distance measurement purgatory.
@Zen-d1z Why do you ask such an odd question? You are displaying that you were disinterested and learned nothing...OR, that you hold some level of contempt and dismissal.. Which is it?
About 25 minutes in, you ask why we don't subscribe. So, this is a 46 minute podcast that competes for my attention with quite a few other really terrific astronomy podcasts. I'll watch you a few times, and if I feel like you answer a greater group of my questions per unit time, I'll subscribe, but so far you don't seem better or worse. Getting Wendy Freedman drew me to this episode.
Nice conversation for quite challenging subject. I general I think cosmology must be one of the toughest fields of science to work in. You are totally dependent on the images coming in from a far and the technological level of the instruments. No petri-dish settings, potentially unknown variables, no close-by reference. Since the technological advancements of our telescopes have been huge, we have the unfortunate fact that the base of cosmology was ‘set in stone’ on inferior limited observations 100 years ago (starting with the Edwin Hubble era) whilst ideally you would want to re-do all of cosmology based on the knowledge we have right now. We carry a huge burden from the past (accepted old theories, Nobel prizes, money spent) on which we tried to retro-fit new unexpected observations. And when we can’t (mature galaxy problem, small angular galaxies) we are inclined to sideline them as ‘to be looked at paradoxes’. I am convinced that if you gave freshmen Cosmologists a blank sheet to again come up with a best model, their newly constructed cosmology would be irrecognizable. Fur sure, based on JWST, the ‘galactic Z redshift = doppler effect’ assumption would be the first to be thrown out. Secondly, I would be highly interested to see if we overlooked a common ‘single point of failure’ explanation that would solve the dark matter and dark energy issues. Both hinge on the shared ASSUMPTION that our galactic fabric does not in a meaningful way distort images we are getting through it. I would suggest it does, and that in both cases we are seeing mere optical illusions, which might be explained if our galactic fabric was (in part) ruled by a Quantum Physical setup. I would like to see an experiment done where we simulate such refracted incoming photons images passing through a subatomic substance, especially regarding redshift of furthest located images. Such things would help cosmology advance and even hook up more firmly with fundamental physics. Besides; if ever we would want to become a spacefaring species, such research would potentially have very practical results as well. Cosmology would become money well spent with respect to future tech.
great interview on the JWST data helping to resolve the Hubble constant problem explaining the three classes of stars used in determination of the HC by WF's research group...
I like how she doesn't talk down to the listeners. IMO there is more to be gained by keeping a discussion at the highest level by getting people there than there is to step it down so as to not leave people behind.
@@freehat2722 Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
There are also some studies out right now that say JWST made the problem of the Hubble Constant worse. The controversy won't be resolved until Dr. Becky says it is resolved. /s
I would think the Hubble Constant itself would be making the whole procedure much more difficult. That means the universe is expanding and even the distance is changing over time. If the Hubble constant is not right than the distance the universe is expanding during any time frame is wrong.
People always chase me off with "Subscribe" guilt trips. I just was shown this video by RU-vid and I clicked it. That's all. I paid by RU-vid premium subs, I'm not looking for commitment, it just happened to be an interesting title, that's all.
Why are there no Posthumous Nobel Recognitions? The misfortune of someone dying before they would have certainly received the Award for a significant discovery seems capricious and lacking in acknowledgement of their important work. Alfred Nobel died at age 63. Perhaps a Posthumous Nobel Recognition could be designated for deserving Nominees 63 years after their deaths. 🤷♂
I am wondering how the massive voids, and their lack of significant mass, affect the time it takes for light to pass through those areas of expanding space. Does space time expand at a faster rate in the voids due to a lack of mass in the area?
Solve the 'crisis in cosmology' and reconsider the cosmic distance ladder, in light of SPIRAL cosmology. No ongoing cosmic expansion (Pearlman vs Hubble). Max light departure point is SPIRAL Light year radius i. i = light year distance to nearest departure point of any light arriving here and now at standard light speed that has ever been subjugated to any cosmic expansion. So a max should be the radius of our local 'gravitational bound' region. beyond radius i 99.99% of the entire universe (that likely approximates the visible universe) is all look-back to the transition from the hyper-dense start to the entire universe at gravitational bound equilibrium. so the more distant the stellar object, the earlier during the hyper-cosmic epoch transition we view it from, the denser (so the hotter) the universe was at the light departure. consider Pearlman SPIRAL cosmology at ResearchGate.
It’s the sop, of RU-vid… same as the ask/subscribe or the “if you like it…” It’s always annoying it’s always there… The best we can hope if it at the end :)
If you find it irritating, it's a you problem, not a Brian problem. What I find irritating is if someone doesn't take care that his or her sound is acceptable, and that images used are not the atrocious AI kind, "like & subscribe" is small potatoes and a given in the YT economy. Get a grip.
Concrete examples contrasting contradictory equations/formulations from classical physics and mathematics with their non-contradictory counterparts from infinitesimal/non-standard analysis and monadological frameworks: 1) Calculus Foundations: Contradictory: Newtonian Fluxional Calculus dx/dt = lim(Δx/Δt) as Δt->0 This expresses the derivative using the limiting ratio of finite differences Δx/Δt as Δt shrinks towards 0. However, the limit concept contains logical contradictions when extended to the infinitesimal scale. Non-Contradictory: Leibnizian Infinitesimal Calculus dx = ɛ, where ɛ is an infinitesimal dx/dt = ɛ/dt Leibniz treated the differentials dx, dt as infinite "inassignable" infinitesimal increments ɛ, rather than limits of finite ratios - thus avoiding the paradoxes of vanishing quantities. 2) Continuum Hypothesis: Contradictory: Classic Set Theory Cardinality(Reals) = 2^(Cardinality(Naturals)) The continuum hypothesis assumes the uncountable continuum emerges from iterating the power set of naturals. But it is independent of ZFC axioms, and leads to paradoxes like Banach-Tarski. Non-Contradictory: Non-standard Analysis Cardinality(*R) = Cardinality(R) + 1 *R contains infinitesimal and infinite elements The hyperreal number line *R built from infinitesimals has a higher cardinality than R, resolving CH without paradoxes. The continuum derives from ordered monic ("monadic") elements. 3) Quantum Measurement: Contradictory: Von Neumann-Dirac collapse postulate |Ψ>system+apparatus = Σj cj|ψj>sys|ϕj>app -> |ψk>sys|ϕk>app The measurement axiom updating the wavefunction via "collapse" is wholly ad-hoc and self-contradictory within the theory's unitary evolution. Non-Contradictory: Relational/Monadic QM |Ψ>rel = Σj |ψj>monadic perspective The quantum state is a monadological probability weighing over relative states from each monadic perspectival origin. No extrinsic "collapse" is required. 4) Gravitation: Contradictory: General Relativity Gμν = 8πTμν Rμν - (1/2)gμνR = 8πTμν Einstein's field equations model gravity as curvature in a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold, but produce spacetime singularities where geometry breaks down. Non-Contradictory: Monadological Quantum Gravity Γab = monic gravitational charge relations ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx Gravity emerges from quantized charge relations among monad perspectives x, y in a pre-geometric poly-symmetric metric Γ, sans singularities. 5) Zeno's Paradoxes Contradictory: Classical Geometric Paradoxes - Dichotomy paradox (travelling 1/2 the distance, then 1/4, 1/8...) - Achilles and Tortoise paradox These paradoxes arise from assuming space and time are infinitely divisible continua, leading to logical contradictions when summing infinite sequences. Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal Geometric Calculus x = Σ ɛ1 + ɛ2 + ... + ɛn (finite sum of infinitesimals) Using infinitesimals, space and time are modeled as finite sums of indivisible quantized increments rather than uncountable continua, eliminating Zeno's paradoxes. 6) Quantum Entanglement Contradictory: Bell's Inequality Violation |Ψ>AB ≠ |Ψ>A ⊗ |Ψ>B (non-separable entangled state) Quantum entanglement cannot be represented in a classical tensor product state space, violating locality and separability assumptions. Non-Contradictory: Algebraic Quantum Theory |Ψ>AB = U(A ⊗ B) |0> (holistic transformation) In monadological frameworks, the state arises from a holistic unitary transformation on the monadic zero product, avoiding undue separability assumptions. 7) Wave-Particle Duality Contradictory: Double-Slit Experiment P(r) = |Ψ(r)|2 (probability from wave) But detections are particle-like. The ambiguity of whether light/matter behaves as particle or wave in the double-slit experiment represents a fundamental paradox. Non-Contradictory: Bohm's Pilot Wave Theory Ψ = Re(iS/ħ) (integrating particle and wave) dP/dt = (h/2πi)(δΨ*/δS - δΨ/δS*) De Broglie/Bohm pilot waves model particles as singularities carried by integrating the total wavelike dynamics, resolving the duality paradox. 8) The Mind-Body Problem Contradictory: Cartesian Mind-Body Dualism Mental = Non-Physical/Non-Extended Res Cogitans Physical = Extended/Geometric Res Extensa Descartes' proposed a paradoxical bifurcation between thought/subjective and physical/extended realms, which remains intractable from classical premises. Non-Contradictory: Leibnizian Monadology Monads = Perspectival Meta-Points Phenomenal = Rel. State of Monad's Perception Subjective mind and extended matter co-arise as complementary aspects of the pluralistic interaction among relativized monadic perspectival origin points. 9) Quantum Field Infinities Contradictory: Quantum Field Theory Feynman Diagrams with infinite terms like: ∫ d4k / (k2 - m2) = ∞ Perturbative quantum field theories rely on renormalization to subtract infinite quantities from equations, which is an ad-hoc procedure lacking conceptual justification. Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal Regulator QFT ∫ d4k / [(k2 - m2 + ε2)1/2] < ∞ Using infinitesimals ε as regulators instead of adhoc renormalization avoids true mathematical infinities while preserving empirical results. 10) Cosmological Constant Problem Contradictory: Λ = Observed Value ≈ 10-122 QFT Vacuum Energy = ∞ General relativity's cosmological constant Λ represents vacuum energy density, but quantum field theories produce infinite unobservable values. Non-Contradictory: Nonlinear Cosmological Monadic Functor Λ = βα(Uα , SαNS , n) Treating Λ as a relational parameter from a flat nonlinear monadological functor between curved physical vacuum states and number of monadic elements resolves the infinite discrepancy. 11) Computational Complexity Contradictory: Halting Problem for Turing Machines There is no general algorithm to decide if an arbitrary program will halt or run forever on a given input. This leads to the unsolvable Turing degree at the heart of computational complexity theory. Non-Contradictory: Infinitary Lambda Calculus λx.t ≝ {x→a | a ∈ monadic realizability domain of t} Representing computations via the interaction of infinitesimal monads and non-standard realizers allows non-Church/Turing computational models avoiding the halting problem paradox. 12) Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems Contradictory: Formal Arithmetic Theories T ∃ φ: Neither T ⊢ φ nor T ⊢ ¬φ (true but unprovable) Gödel showed any consistent recursive axiomatized theory lacks the means to determine truth/falsehood of certain statements, exposing incompleteness. Non-Contradictory: ℒ Infinitesimal Topos Language ∀φ, ℒ ⊣ V(φ): φ or ¬φ (internal semantic completeness) Representing propositions internally in an infinitesimal-valued topos logical environment avoids incompleteness while retaining semantic consistency.
"Newtonian Fluxional Calculus dx/dt = lim(Δx/Δt) as Δt->0 This expresses the derivative using the limiting ratio of finite differences Δx/Δt as Δt shrinks towards 0. However, the limit concept contains logical contradictions when extended to the infinitesimal scale." Already this is wrong in two ways at once! (1) Newton did _not_ use limits. (2) Newton did _not_ use dx/dt, that actually was the notation of Leibniz! Since you make such two fundamental errors already at the start, I don't bother to look at the rest.
Newton's calculus is about functions and there's a limit built into every operation. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints and the limit is a separate operation. You're unaware of this?
@@MaxPower-vg4vr You misrepresent both Newton's and Leibniz's methods. I've read extensively about that. You are simply wrong. In multiple ways at once.
No one knows exactly what a black hole singularity is made of, it's not even clear if such singularities actually exist. But if they exist, they are _not_ made of carbon. Carbon is an element made up of stable atoms. But atoms can't be stable under the conditions existing in the center of a black hole.
Well, judging from the previous step from a blackhole, which are neutron stars.... There's no atoms anymore, there are only neutrons, really. And who knows how matter would behave in infinite levels of pressure... So, probably not... But we don't really know even that.
Windy Freedman should replace Tyson as our main communicator. Exaggeration and click bait is a bad way to put complex topics forward. And science deniers take the click bait literally.
Good Souls, my gut feeling is telling me from my minds eye to toes to rest, that there is an option, o rarelyhear of. Quantum Mysteries might originate from something in the particles we do not observe, yet. Or assuming spooky layer that covers everything everywhere. Each individual known matter of human reality whilst different have an Entity we cannot and have no record. To assume quantum entanglemnt is an atmosphere or dimemsion, we have yet to measure, shrinking expansion theory, novelty to my ears.
I'm thinking the problem is probably within our definitions. As we impose light as the relative speed limit, light also has limit to itself which is faster than relative (c). This is indicated by the cosmic event horizon and the event horizon of a BH. As space expands, light moves faster than we measure it locally. I think the discrepancy lies there. The definition of (c) is relative to the point in time when it was made. This relative measurement changes over time as the accelerated expansion of space isn't constant. This cannot be properly understood within the confines of Relativity. We need a new model. Maybe the AI can speedup the supercomputers and we'll have an answer soon. I know MIT is running sims.
"As we impose light as the relative speed limit" We don't actually do that. The actual speed limit is that of causality. That this is the same speed as the speed of light is simply due to the fact that photons are massless. "light also has limit to itself which is faster than relative " Huh?!? That is incomprehensible. "This is indicated by the cosmic event horizon and the event horizon of a BH. " ??? How does that follow? "As space expands, light moves faster than we measure it locally." No. For every local comoving observer, light always moves at the speed c. "This cannot be properly understood within the confines of Relativity." Yes, it can.
Not exactly. think about a black hole. The violent curvature of space beyond the event horizon is akin to our universe expansion at its own “horizon” where the space is moving faster than c. Inside the black hole, the light is not moving faster than c because of space, rather it moves at c in the DIRECTION of the singularity. It can’t move in any other direction is the issue. So in the portion of the universe “bubble” past our horizon light is moving as normal but we over here can never observe it.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Yes it is incomprehensible. The Lorentz transform does not work across the event horizon. The universe can not be understood within the confines of GR. The universe has not expanded at a constant rate since the beginning of time as GR postulates. The speed of light and the speed of causality is only relative to the time it was measured. GR cannot account for that. You can't even begin to comprehend it. And don't even try act like you can.
@@MatrixProbability"The Lorentz transform does not work across the event horizon." Duh. The Lorentz transformation is a part of Special Relativity. So of course it does not work properly for Black Holes, which only can be described by General Relativity! "The universe can not be understood within the confines of GR. " That's simply wrong. If you think your previous sentence proves that, then your argument is wrong, see above. "The universe has not expanded at a constant rate since the beginning of time as GR postulates." GR does _not_ postulate that!!! Where did you get that idea from?!? :D "The speed of light and the speed of causality is only relative to the time it was measured." It is the same for every comoving observer. "GR cannot account for that." Yes, it can. The problem is only on your side: You have no clue what you are talking about. "You can't even begin to comprehend it. And don't even try act like you can." :D :D :D Look up the Dunning Kruger effect.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Wrong. Relativity does not explain event horizons. There are billions of dollars being spent on future studies and satellites put into orbit to reconcile this fact. I'll invite you to call those people who are building this stuff and tell them you have it all figured out they can all go home now.. "The universe has not expanded at a constant rate since the beginning of time as GR postulates." I made this statement in reference to the fact that the expansion rate has changed before and after the big bang and before and after the accelerated expansion. This is the standard model of cosmology. LamdaCDM it is not reconciled by Relativity. I think you got some bad information from chatGPT or something. You can stop pretending now. Thanks for the feedback though.
If we could measure the age of light 😢 I am woundering if neutrino can be used since they have mass. (Allowing for future tech, currently we have no resolution, good enough luminosity)
![Did JWST Just Solve the Biggest Crisis in Cosmology? Wendy Freedman [Ep. 461]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
