Sabine--I am a lifelong astronomy hobbyist and absolutely love your outstanding science videos. The content of your presentations are clear and easy to understand. They are suitable for both science pros, and beginners. You have the gift of being able to take complex topics and make them interesting to a wide audience. Please never quit!
@@robertanderson5092 They are indeed cool, and smarter than most - though not necessarily correct. She goes in straight lines, but risks being classified with Greta, in my view. Just saying :)
I think it's great that you discuss the challenges and limits of standard cosmology. Too many science communicators imply that our knowledge of distant galaxies or the nature of the universe is settled or fixed when in fact we know almost nothing.
Can you indicate a few of said scientific communicators? I've pondered this a bit recently and it seems more plausible, based on the scientific communicators I have watched, that it is actually the general society that implies scientific knowledge of the universe is fixed hence why you can see critics in the media accusing scientists of, "changing their mind so how can we trust they are correct this time?". But i share that as pure speculation, am happy to see evidence to the contrary!
@@stretch8390 Every time you hear NDT, Michio Cuckoo, Brian Cocks, Larry Krauss speak with certainty about the mass of a distant galaxy you can laugh a hearty laugh. It's roughly like listening to an ant explaining a fighter jet.
@@atomicsmith well if the ants had tech then that would be valid. We actually know a lot. We have collected a ton of data. Knowing is not the same as understanding. We know a lot about the universe we live in we understand very little of it. But much more than you give us credit for. Also, you are talking about celb physicists. If that is the place you are getting your info might be why you think that. Maybe get outside of the celeb bubble and do some actual research. Pop culture science is almost always wrong, and way behind the actual science. It is also slow to accept what many scientist had already accepted. Take E=MCsquare for example.
@@HollowWeird The majority of the population gets their science knowledge from "celeb physicists" because they're the most visible members of the scientific community. When some new and exciting research is published, it's usually celeb physicists who make rounds on all the news channels, and the knowledge is usually presented as gospel or at least with a level of confidence that gives people who aren't as knowledgeable about science the impression that this is settled science even when their hasn't been enough time for the research to be properly peer reviewed. Most people don't have the time to research and read scientific papers. You must realize that by being a viewer of this channel you're already a part of the very small "scientific bubble," and have a level of interest in science that most of the population doesn't have.
@@stretch8390 PBS spacetime, Neil Tyson, Bill Nye and just about any other talking head scientist I've seen on RU-vid talks in absolutes and.as if their interpretations of data are the only ones that are correct. This lady running this channel is by far the least biased science communicator I've seen so far. Thunderfoot is alright but he can be biased and closed minded sometimes too
I was never happy with the use of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain observations and phenomena we couldn’t otherwise explain. While some studies have suggested these hypotheses might be correct I believe they remain placeholders for yet to be determined explanations. It’s encouraging to see analysis that might lead us to better hypotheses and hopefully more valid explanations.
The problem with dark matter and dark energy is that we cannot see it, we cannot measure it. There are calculations that tells us that it got to be there but we have no observations. That make belief in those things awfully close to a religion. A bit harsh to require religious people to quantify and measure God if science have its own faith based beliefs.
I think the evidence for dark matter is strong - galaxy rotation, galactic clusters - evidence for missing mass across a significant scale. I've never felt as sure for dark energy, it depends on careful measurements of 1 type of event - type 1a supernova. Do we understand these catastrophic events well enough, also distant supernova happened in a younger universe - denser, hotter, less metal rich
Was dark matter/energy ever meant to be anything other than a placeholder? All dark matter hypotheses say is that our observations are best explained by a type of matter that does not interact with EM. No one is saying that answers the question completely-hence why scientists are trying to determine if dark matter might be axions or WIMPs or etc.
Plesee don't put dark matter and dark energy in the same category. We have very strong empirical evidence about dark matter (look for gravitational lensing), but dark energy on the other hand, looks like a big encompasing term to fill multiple unknow factors. PS: I think we should rename the two things, using a really down to earth approach to discourage sensationalist journalism.
Everyone is thanking Sabine, which she deserves, no doubt, for the really great presentation. But you should be thanking Prof. Subir Sarkar too, who is a key figure in the discovery of these things and also lead author of those papers shown in this video.
The reason everybody thanks the person who made the video and not the person who made the discovery is because the person who made the video is somewhat likely to read the comment, whereas the person who made the discovery is not. Do you expect everybody to send this professor off an email or something? I don't understand.
In physics, there are many dudes and dudesses who make discoveries and write remarkable papers, including Sarkar. The thanks for this video is explicitly for making difficult concepts easy to understand. THis is easily udnerstood by everybody in other videos. When we see a good video on evolution, we don't write in comments saying we should be thanking Darwin too. Remarks like this make us Indians look really desperate for vindication and approval. And that is something Sarkar and other remarkable Indians did not ask for.
"Well, of course the universe does not look the same everywhere. There is more matter under your feet than above your head [...] and so on. Physicists have noticed that, too." Lmao
@@peanut71968 She meant locally, and the "above your head" thing meant directly above your head, in particular, not outward from the center of the planet.
@@peanut71968 No. if we take the universe all around us, there is half a universe above your head and half a universe PLUS the mass of earth below your feet.
"This paper has been almost ignored by other scientists". It has 66 citations! For others: this means that there are 66 other academic papers that refer to this work. Sure, that is not the same is it being a famed paper the world over, but it is nowhere near "almost ignored". It's a good solid paper. Significantly better than the average astrophysical paper for sure.
How many citations does the average astrophysical paper have? How many astrophysicists are in the world anyway? What is the quality and context of these citations?
@@Juxtaposed1Nmotion bruh... what part of that comment was even remotely related to being a misogynist? Comes off a bit delusional there Juxtaposed1Nmotion
Or maybe there never was expansion, just remember the philosophical reasons Hubble chose the expansion model as opposed to what red shift indicated ! Imagine the horror !
@@paulpurdue5963 Sorry I am sleep deprived at the moment and have trouble following your reasoning. Do you mean to imply that there never was any expansion and the red shift is due to the light photons losing energy on their path through the universe?
@@braaaaaaaaaaaaaains Dark energy only implies the expansion is accelerating, there is still evidence an expansion is happening if we got rid of dark energy.
Your channel is probably the single best science related video collection ever created. Almost all others either focus too much on sensationalism (as is the case with most documentaries), or they intertwine their own bias to some degree. The only channel that gets close is PBS Spacetime, but you edge them out by a non insignificant degree. Love your content, keep up the amazing work.
@Roberto Vidal Garcia Yes, you should question the shape of the earth. Everyone should learn the physics and understand for themselves how and why the earth is round. Don't take it on faith, understand everything for yourself
@@laurentmaquiet5631 Did you watch the video? The second half of it was questioning the validity of the cosmological principle. 5:58 Trouble for the Cosmological Principle
@@m3rify nah g.... dark energy was invented to explain the speed/velocity of outer solar systems rotation in a galaxy but we might be able to explain it without it... its a lie!! THE AETHER EXISTS!!!
This was the most informative video I've seen on this subject for a year! Thank you so much for not holding back with the technical details. I can't wait for the updates!
I love how you introduce questions and challenge assumptions! That's so fascinating. What could be?? There's a huge open field full of discoveries!! Thank you for opening those possibilities!!
@@throwawayuser9931 bah-ben-how-ser-high-duh, I think. I want to go to Germany at some point so I'm trying to learn more than the 10 or so German words I know.
This comment makes me wonder what having her as a science teacher would be like but also as a mother or as a romantic interest would be like as well. I think about other noticable qualities about her of which she did not actively choose to possess like her hair her voice her enunciation. Things outside of her incredible intellect. She's incredibly intelligent and an amazing intellectual and one oddly enough even someone as dumb as me can comprehend and understand. She's the shit essentially.
The closing bit about the possibility of a paradigm shift in the next decade(/s) is incredibly exciting. I'll be straight here the following Saturday when it happens 😆
We already have a paradigm shift - The Electric Universe. thunderbolts project: ru-vid.com/show-UCvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA Mainstream science haven't realised that yet. When they do, they will claim to have started/discover it..
The bit I love most about science is that knowledge shifts and adjusts to work with the most up to date evidence and the scientific community welcomes the possibilities that come with new ideas and information. Another great vid Sabine, cheers
True, but this shift will be very difficult. Could you even count the number of papers that assumed dark matter in a form of cold matter, dark energy etc.? These scientists will not agree to the paradigm shift easily as it would ruin the work of a big chunk of their lives. Probably few people would find out that their nobel prizes were for nothing. Can you imagine a nobel prize winner admitting that the work for which he got nobel prize was actually false? What about the money and the fame that they got? Will they not be afraid that someone will take it against them that they got that award? Even without paradigm shift I already see hundreds of physics scientists not admitting to the weakness of evidence for standard model of cosmology. They make speeches as if the proves were undeniable, while they actually are very deniable. It is called "cognitive dissonance" and you have to be much more than an average scientist to beat that.
@@SylwesterKogowski You are talking as if a person with a phd and dedicated to research is still human with its biases, interests, stubborn blindness, rationalized emotional drive and so on. If that were true some changes may require a generational replacement 😜.
@@SylwesterKogowski It would be no different than the thousands of physicists who have wasted their time on string theory and still continue to do so after its utter failure in making predictions. Honest string theorists will tell you they do not even know what string theory is. Only brutal honesty can stop this loop of stupidity and dishonest science. This problem is even more prominent in the other scientific fields, the less 'hard' sciences. Paradigm shift is a terrible terminology created by Thomas Kuhn, which isn't appropriate here. For Kuhn the shift implies a newer interpretation that is not necessarily better at making predictions than an older one. This is why he cites Copernicus as example of a paradigm shifter because the heliocentric model was not actually superior to the geocentric model and it wasn't necessarily rejected either. Special relativity was also accepted rather quickly in the mathematical physics community, it was already being discussed few years before Einstein's plagiarized 1905 paper (of Poincare and Lorentz), Poincare who in particular had a more complete understanding of special relativity as spacetime symmetry, established constancy of speed of light years before Einstein, and extended it to all physical phenomena (Einstein only applied it to electrodynamics, as his understanding was only on par with Lorentz at the time). In this scenario, we are gathering more and more evidence that conflicts with the cosmological model. We have demonstrated the inaccuracy (and horrible statistical methodology) of supernovae data by these noble laureates that suggest existence of dark matter. This is not a paradigm shift, it is just scientific progress.
That's essentially what the Western type of cosmology has been doing, clinging to its dogma of the "Big Bang". Soviet astrophysicist Victor Ambartsumian already in the 1960s pointed out that one cannot assume a homogeneous Universe and therefore cannot extrapolate a "beginning". Nevertheless, you'll still be seeing many stubborn cosmologists defending the "standard" model for years to come, until it becomes impossible to disregard empirical evidence.
@@orchdork775 I haven't seen any good candidates. I consider it highly unlikely that we're ever able to build a comprehensive model of the Universe. On the other hand, we can always learn more as we go on, digging deeper.
@@myothersoul1953 That part of his thinking may totally be dogma, but his cosmological ideas can still be compared to observations to move science forward. We can, for example, notice Isaac Newton’s obsession with alchemy without discounting his contribution to optics.
“There‘s more matter under your feet than above your head“ Joke‘s on you! I always watch your videos while doing a headstand just in case you‘d make such a rookie mistake. Finally it paid off!
You were exited too soon (rookie mistake?)... You just change your feet from being under your head to being over your head. You do not change the direction of above and below. So you may make a tiny change to the relation of what is above your head to what is below your feet but you certainly do not affect the truth of the statement.
Under your feet is the Earth and, beyond that, an extremely large volume of space. Above your head is an extremely large volume of space. Therefore Dr. H is correct.
@@HaukeLaging I was expecting this objection and you fell right into my trap! While you could define "up" and "down" objectively by Earth's gravity, Sabine clearly defined it subjectively in terms of the viewer's orientation. Instead of saying "under you" and "above you" she specifically referred to body parts ("under your feet" and "above your head") which clearly indicates a subjective context. Checkmate! Right again, this is the best day of my life!
@@tpog1 Now you're thinking with vectors! I was lying down: same amount of matter under my feet and head, same (smaller) amounts above. So, from my inertial frame, Sabine was clearly right again. Thanks to that guy...
@@reppich1 Ya know it's funny, scientists always claim we're in the milky way galaxy when actually part of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy which is colliding with the Milky Way...True
don't think that would work because we would need to find the eigenvalues of an Antares for that... but thinking a bit more about it actually we could quantum chronodab on an Einstein Rosen bridge in a measure space of negative probability density implying a unified gauge theory under the assumption that tachyons move slower than speed of light that could work... *Gotta Quantum Entangled with Joe Mama real quick!*
@@davidarvingumazon5024 - I know all those words and concepts, and you have abused them to make word salad with MANY assumptions as croutons. Maths are not reality, they are a symbolic representation of it, and reality has a habit of telling humans their assumptions led by their maths are wrong. It is a simple mater of empirical observation and minor extrapolation because we are looking at the past. Bottom line: The Milky way is a Composite galaxy that has been absorbing other smaller ones. It is not big given some things we are seeing in Deep Field Observations.
@@babyrazor6887 - Yes, tthe evidence is building that the Milky Way is a Composite galaxy and has been absorbing others since the beginning. Don't forget there was a prior 'collision' with Andromeda and they will eventually merge too. There are much bigger composite galaxies than the MIlky Way and there will be a "pluto" style classification issue soon.
Got to love those classic "Hm. That's odd..." moments. It wil be an exciting 10 years to see what the new model looks like, and what types of "unknowns" it does or does not require.
They found out about 6 months ago that they've been measuring inter solar distances wrong. Apparently stars like betelgeuse are a lot closer and smaller than once believed.
It's great to hear from a scientist who really embraces the Scientific Method. Most scientists seem to overly value the opinions of fellow scientists in an attempt to protect their professional reputation and therefore their career. The Scientific Method says when the evidence from an experiment contradicts your theory you change the Theory! Thank you Sabine for valuing the Scientific Method over the current Scientific Consensus!
@@shazk21 Exactly my point. New discoveries and experimental results are calling into question some basic suppositions of Science. Many of these suppositions were made in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Most mainstream Scientists won't question them. But that's what real science is about. If your Data doesn't match your Theories you change your Theory and then do more research. You don't do complicated mathematical analysis to make the Data fit your Theory.
@@garysnewjob i totally agree. What I find is there is often confusion between real science and the doctorin by the name science. Real science can be identified by the proper implementation of the scientific method and a clear differentiation between supposition and repeatable observations
The thing about scientific consensus is that it is changing all the time. A new idea comes along and it seems so obvious that we wonder why we believed otherwise. The problem is that the general public is then confused. The general public would think that scientists are either right or wrong and thus if they weren't right then they were wrong and if they were wrong before then what makes them think they are right now. That is actually a good point but we don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. A good example is singularities. Singularities come up a lot in physics. I had a religious person complain that elemenatary particles could not exist because if such particles are pointlike then all their mass would be concentrated at a single point and they would have infinite density and infinities in physics are nonsense. My response? "We know." It turns out that quantum mechanics actually simplifies our understanding of the universe. Particles are wavelike. They are spread out and not concentrated at points. The same logc should apply to the singularities in black holes and the singularity that presumably preceded the big bang. Physicists know that singularites are nonsense but the general public insists that physicists believe singularites are real. Similarly, I don't imagine physicists are too upset about the cosmological principle being literally wrong. It actually makes sense that at larger scales we would have larger structures. Why should the universe be exactly the same in all directions? That is boring. The cosmological principle is an assumption and why should we expect something we assume to be true to actually be true? Sabine doesn't meantion though about the fact that when we look at distant objects a billion light years away we are looking at how they were a billion years ago. Chances are the clumpy parts of the universe are even clumpier "now" because if their density is so much greater than the local density then gravity would cause their individual parts to move even closer together. Here in our local area we have Andromeda moving towards us. As Andromeda gets closer future cosmologists are going to see a local area that is clumpier and yet surrounded by empty space. Maybe the structure of the universe provides evidence that Roger Penrose is right. Perhaps there was a universe that existed before this one and the big bang happened in a universe that wasn't actually completely empty after all. The question would be whether or not such structures are consistent with inflation.
it kinda sounds like; appeal to mystery fallacy, which at that point if that fallacy is the basis for a belief, that makes it seem like the basis of said belief then is more consistently explained by faith than logic
ya except the actual thing that exists and can be made in a lab is antimatter. and antimatter has antigravity, while unstable in the pressence of matter as matter and antimatter annialate each other upon contact, antimatter is repelled gravitationally by matter, and both matter and antimatter are attracted to neutral matter such as blackholes. When a blackhole forms it looses it antimater, or matter charge and gains a neutral charge. As a result both matter and anti matter orbit neutral singularies such as galactic black holes, and because they repel each other, they form giant spiraling arms of stars. which is exactly why galaxies look the way they do.
For me it always was like a story of men sitting in a campfire, talking about mysterious ongoings in the woods. After not finding a rational explanation, they agreed, it must be some kind of dark monsters you can't see.
Hossenfelder is the only one I know communicating to us about the edges of Physics, the problems, limits, etc. We cannot progress without knowing the problems!
I've been wanting to watch this one again, when I could sit down, uninterrupted, and really soak it in! Like I said the first time, I love new things that don't fit into standard models, because _that's where new science is born!_ (Edited for clarity)
Hannes Alfvén about the Big Bang theory: "To try to write a grand cosmical drama necessarily leads to myth. To try to let knowledge substitute ignorance in increasingly larger regions of space and time is science." First there was the theory, then the experiments seeking to verify the theory. Classic example of pathological science.
don't think that would work because we would need to find the eigenvalues of an Antares for that... but thinking a bit more about it actually we could quantum chronodab on an Einstein Rosen bridge in a measure space of negative probability density implying a unified gauge theory under the assumption that tachyons move slower than speed of light that could work... *Gotta Quantum Entangled with Joe Mama real quick!*
Sabine, I'm glad beyond 5 sigma that you inhabit this place at this time. Thank you for the most thoughtful and disciplined content. Your candle burns brightly and elevates my heart😁😁😁
Interesting to see the evidence accumulating since I wrote an essay on this very topic back in the early noughties for my cosmology course. The course teacher, a physicist, gave me a distinction for it.
The following proves Spinor Theory is correct. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
For inflation -- nothing because that happens far earlier (and it's unclear whether that theory is correct anyway). As to the accelerating expansion. It might actually be that the tension in the Hubble rate contributes to the illusion that we need dark energy, so it could be they'll both disappear together. It's all rather murky at the moment though, some people saying this, others saying that.
@@SabineHossenfelder How would you address the counterarguments proposed by Matt O’Dowd on the supernovae data of Sarkar? From this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7UNLgPIiWAg.html
That's because she is an actual scientist in the field she is reporting on. Many channels are just people with education in an unrelated field that overestimate their knowledge and competency in the field they report on.
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 Not true, there are plenty fully certified physicists who spread the "we know it all" story. When in reality we know very little about cosmology. I once knew a very smart physicist and we asked him about all the stuff we had read and watched, he just said it is all speculation and he did not even want to talk about it anymore.
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 Let me exemplify what 0MoTheG is saying. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0T--WC4D1C0.html timestamped for you - just watch 20 sec. "pretty complete understanding" .. From the mouth of the so called "scientist" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbert_Dijkgraaf
@@0MoTheG In my experience, physicists who study stuff like Solid State physics and nanoscience adjacent fields tend to consistently go "We know nothing" on the big cosmological/fundamental theory questions. I haven't met many people deep in the theory world, but I have met CERN people who seem very opinionated about certain theories.
Sabine, I am not a professional astronomer or physicist, but I have always had doubts about dark matter and energy. It is difficult to contemplate that almost 3/4 of the Universe is made of something that does not interact or be detected, like the ether when they were discussing the speed of light. I think we don't have a complete understanding of gravity.
Well, it's not necessarily that dark matter is weakly interacting, but that it's simply the case that something is holding some galaxies together when they *look* like they should expand to a much larger size. It could be that there's literal, normal matter we're not seeing, for mundane reasons. It could be that the "thing" is a phenomenon, like... some quirk of gravity we don't know. But it could, indeed, be that there's something wrong with the math we use for gravity.
I don't fully understand all this, yet I get a good basic idea of physics. And I want thank you for bringing this to the world. Always ask questions, always review, always test the standards! Reach for a greater understanding! Thank you.
Too make things short : Today's cosmology revolves around a good homogeneity of energy/matter distribution across the universe......,it is called the cosmological principle. From this principle, various theories like inflation have been made to explain an homogeneous universe. But this cosmological principle......seems more and more to just be wrong the more we observe the universe.
Hi, if you are not saved, and would like to be included in the rapture of the church. Believe that Jesus's death on the cross, was enough to pay for ALL your sins , yes ALL ,(past, present and future) That is what the Gospel is about. We are saved by GOD'S amazing grace, through our faith in Jesus's sinless life, death on the cross and resurrection 3 days later . No additional works needed. It is literally that simple. Do it today, don't delay. Time is short. Ephesians 2:8-9 Romans 10:9-10
Hossenfelder is extremely conniving and slick. She's not a genius. Check around. Check out the hundreds of scientists and physicists that already agree with the following. She's lying. HERE IS THE PROOF. WAKE UP. THE ULTIMATE (AND CLEAR) MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION (AND PROOF) REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW DEMONSTRATED, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Consider THE MAN who is standing on what is THE EARTH/GROUND. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) then sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (including WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/energy is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE DOME of a PERSON'S EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND the Earth is blue. THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIVERSALLY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY in what is a mathematically unified fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The middle distance in/of/AS SPACE AND the full distance in/of/AS SPACE are NECESSARILY linked AND balanced. MAGNIFICENT !!!!!!!!!! INSTANTANEITY IS thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
I find this just so incredibly fascinating. Makes me wonder how these very large structure could've formed, if we ever get a better answer, and what that will tell us about the universe. Great presentation as always, Sabine.
These super large structures are formed because the Universe is much older than currently assumed. The answer to all these questions you can find in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" There is the long waited "Paradigm Shift" in Cosmology.
@@m.c.4674 The CMB is coming from other rims of the observable Universe and cannot be the remaining glow of BB, because BB happens in the center of the observable Universe. The CMB is coming from the exact opposite direction of BB. Only the traveling tome of CMB is 13,7by, but where is the time for inflation? The CMB is the glow of the Universe beyond the range of the observable Universe.
Many many years ago I've started saying that dark matter is not a physical thing but just a concept trying to explain things that are caused by something that we don't know yet. Like some unknown gravitational phenomenon, for example. And look at where we are going now.
I've always thought the Cosmological Principle was a stroke of hubris on our part. When we look out we are looking into the past. Data is always dated. Yes, we can extrapolate, but that not the same as knowing - as you so pointedly demonstrate. I love how you keep them honest Sabine and remind people that science explanations are always provisional. We are lucky to have you.
Just found this channel through this video today. You are such a good teacher. My interest in astronomy and astrophysics had been waning because I’ve seen that academics can be really hard headed. This has been nice to peer in and see. Have subscribed
These "structures" don't represent a discrepancy in the expected homogeneity imo. They are just randomly clumped groups of galaxies bound by gravity at exactly the distribution we expect. Some scientists choose to view them as a "structure", that's fine, then they must view the voids of the same size as "structures" as well. For every mega cluster of galaxies there is a mega-void without them. Those "structures" don't require any new physics to develop nor a new model of formation, it's not restricted in the current model. Even 1/100,000 chance, if it were true, wouldn't make me bat an eye in a potentially infinite universe. Not saying the standard model is infallible but a couple swirls in my coffee creamer isn't enough to convince me i didn't stir it
To paraphrase Sarkar, getting rid of dark energy will allow us to re-engage with the cosmological constant problem based on the cosmological model assumptions. "Just playing games with it and calling it dark energy and quintessence is just completely pointless"
My first though upon learning we live in the "local hole" is that this hole may be the spot in the universe in which life can flourish. Think about it - the universe is hostile to life. You may need to be in one of these "holes" to have the background radiation sufficiently low enough to allow for the evolution of advanced life.
Sabine i found your channel a few weeks ago, and it has completely re-ignited my love of physics. You are so amazing at explaining things - thank you so much!
Uniformity seems to have been a good approximation so far, but it's time for a change. My guess for a better approximation is matter distribution would be fractal.
I would think, given the low density, that statistical fluctuations in the density would be expected, and that gravity would accentuate such fluctuations on all scales.
That's really interesting. The cosmological principle seems to have a lot riding on it. I'm just a bystander watching this from the sidelines, but even so it seems that a post-cosmological-principle model could reopen some interesting arguments that currently are treated as settled.
Interesting that such great mathematicians can't agree on the definition of the set of which they are trying to calculate the mean. Cantor has a lot to answer for.
A cosmological principle, in the form that "something" is the same in all the Universe, is absolutely necessary to talk about far places in the Universe, and about the Universe itself. Without such a principle, scientists could say nothing about cosmology at all.
And who are we to tell the universe how it should look like just to be able to apply some of our math on it?* The simplest assumption - as usual - seems to be: by oversimplifying complex matters we will make one progress for sure... in fooling ourselves. (x)
@@andsalomoni I agree. It would be fair to say "we make this assumption because without it there would b nothing to talk about". But that doesn't make it true. The universe is not obligated to be comprehensible.
Yet another, still another, again another, fantastic mind-expanding presentation. YES, I do want to stick around to see the replacement for the standard model.
During my undergrad work in the 90s it was obvious the principle was a cognitive bias grounded in Newtonian minds. Abandoning it makes the math folks unhappy because now they will have to add complexity to account for variation, just as soon as they can assess what it is.
@@nenmaster5218 - you can't get what I am pointing to and then trail off with a "but...", without a cogent counter claim or problematic evidence. Your comment is unnecessary, perhaps some kind of 'in crowd' gesture, like spinning a finger near one's ear. But I will pretend there is no 'poker tell' in your user name.
@@fermansmith6042 The history of science shows that evidence that challenges our understanding (or belief) leads to better science and better understanding. For example, it was widely believed for thousands of years that the Sun travels around the Earth. But by studying the movement of the planets it became apparent that Earth and the other worlds orbit the Sun. This lead to new inquiries: Why did the planets orbit the Sun? What natural laws explained it? To answer such questions we had to develop new tools like telescopes and new analytical methods like Newton's laws.
@@paulmartos7730 I am not really sure exactly what point you are trying to make. I have not been to Sabine's website in some time. Either way you are correct in your history of science. For me , with all due respect to Ms. Hossenfelder, I know some things she does not. Simply because of this : My academic training did not prohibit me from experimenting in areas that a Phd in Physics would. I have discussed this in the past-- it sometimes has caused lengthy and sometimes rather heated debates.
This channel is so amazingly professional, but every once in awhile I chuckle at the sound quality. It's fine, certainly very serviceable and better than most randomly-selected videos on RU-vid. I just have to chuckle though. It's relatable noticing a bit of sibilance and whatnot is all, makes the channel feel a bit down to earth I suppose, instead of feeling like it came from someone who spends boatloads of time and money on making the presentation 100% sanitized and "perfect" instead of being passionate about what they're actually presenting. :P
Years ago the then-Australian Prime Minister said that Australia is 'the arse end of the world'. That we are also living in The Local Hole is pretty appropriate, then. I cracked up there. Maybe I should start writing that as my address. XD
"Box Jellyfish, Crocodiles, Snakes, blue ring octopus, redback spider, funnleweb spider, great white shark, just some of the things that put me off going to Australia. Every creature is bigger and angrier than anywhere else on the world, I put it down to one thing. Spiders and snakes and the like hide under rocks. The Earth is one big rock, Australia is at the bottom of the big rock and they are all trying to hide under it." -Karl Pilkington, philosopher.
@@theq4602 It's not all danger, all the time. Also, you've forgotten the magpies, they swoop during breeding seasons to protect their nests. They're not cute little birds like elsewhere, they're corvids with sharp, pointy beaks.
I've spent some time in physics. Dark energy, inflation and some quantum effects will get some rethinking. And I think it all will happen relatively soon, so I am going to see it. The change in conductivity in quantum Hall effect is hiding some interesting answers. It might not be as discrete as one might think.
Ever since the discovery of the CMB I have often wondered if the differences we see within the CMB are indeed the differences at around 400,000 years after the big bang....or if some of those differences could be attributed to the distribution of matter that is currently in the path of those microwaves that are just reaching us now? Is the intervening matter causing a distortion effect like looking into a carnival mirror? And possibly those distortions are what we interpret as temperature differences 13.4 billion years old (if we assume the universe is 13.8 billion years old). It makes me wonder if we used super computers to correct for those "mass distribution" distortions would the corrected CMB look smoother...or just as clumpy? If a massive galaxy can create a gravitational lens effect that allows us to see what is behind it...it is reasonable to assume massive clusters of quasars and galaxies would also have this "lens" effect that could possibly effect what the CMB looks like. Or am I just thinking about this all wrong and the CMB is a perfect "snapshot" that needs no correction? This video seems to be the closest thing I have found that comes close to discussing my "crazy" theory...if you know of any other please let me know.
@@michaeljorgensen790 The picture by Halton Arp showing a quasar sitting in front of a galaxy shot down the big bang theory. Even Hubble started questioning the big bang in 1937.
@@prioris55555 Well this comes as a surprise, seeing as how it was and still is the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe. I must have missed the monumental news that the "Big Bang" theory has been completely shot down by a picture of a quasar in front of a galaxy. I trust you implicitly that the theory is now dead and will immediately adjust my thought process accordingly. Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention.
@@michaeljorgensen790 Quasars can't be sitting in front of a Galaxy in the BBT. They are much further out. It was pictorial evidence. The news happened decades ago. They promptly took away Halton's telescope time and could not get employment in the US. That picture was a threat to scientific establishment because even children in grammar school could start asking questions. As soon as they took a picture of a comet close up, the icy snowball comet went out the window. The biggest feather in the BBT was the discovery by Hubble in 1933 to support the expanding universe but Hubble began to doubt the BBT due to empirical evidence of what he was seeing in the telescope. The James Webb Telescope will just puncture more holes in the BBT.
It is mind blowing that we as humans have forgotten that what we once knew. Base 10 is a recent (archeologically speaking) construct. We have forgotten that many cultures with technology unknown to us used Base 12 instead. It makes the numbers of the universe which we live in easier to understand.
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects.” Einstein
An extremely important topic that has not only scientific, but ideological significance for all Earthlings! Thanks a lot! Is the "Standard Model" standard? How to overcome the conceptual- paradigmatic crisis in the foundations of fundamental science? We need a new look at matter and, accordingly, at space. Then it is necessary to build an ontological basis of knowledge and a model of the "Self-Сonscious Universe". "Moving from different directions, we come to the same conclusion: we need an all-encompassing holistic philosophical thought." (Vasily Nalimov)
did real engineers *get anything new they can actually use* to make real 'stuff' from this hypothetical dark energy mathamagic -engineered abacus based simulation- made up stuff
@@paulmaydaynight9925 If you knew what is the density of the supposed dark energy, you would not ask. When our operations will cover groups of galaxies, we may find an use of this extremely rare (as opposed to dense) energy field.
@@arctic_haze @Arctic Haze "we" your engineering something real ,to use uncollected hypothetical 'improbability drive' dm potato fields ! does it use the 'seen' electromagnetic intergalactic plasma 'web' tracks to navigate & reclaim/recycle that localised massive energy just 'flowing there' m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UIUIO1ImtJo.html Infinite Improbability Drive:
@Science Revolution We can successfully model the tides with circulation models which include the gravitational tidal forces. So no. Also your hypothesis fails to explain why tides are highest with full moon and why they have a 19.2 year cycle in intensity, which is easily explainable in the "mistaken" model of tides we have. Also you cannot explain the 12-hour tide component with diurnal temperature changes. Good try but no cigar.
@Science Revolution Who am I? A head of physical oceanography department. As to the other questions, buy a textbook on tides like "An introduction to tides" by Theo Gerkema, and if you cannot afford it, go to a university library. You may also download many freely available papers on tide modelling. I am afraid you will do none of he things that can help you learn but that will be your choice.
Amazing! I understood the whole video! And this is a HUGE discovery, ground breaking deduction! Definitely my astronomy video of the year. Maybe the decade.
😄😄 So finally cosmological theories are starting to evolve at the rate of iPhone development... Hold tight everybody, it's going to be one hell of a roller-coaster ride 🎠😄 Many thanks Sabine for *another* great presentation. Actually, it's just dawned on me that you must be one of the most experienced Scientists at presentations around. Your output is considerable!
Wrong. The only development of iPhones is the name of the newer version 😂 Atleast some thought get put into the cosmological theories as you named them.
Hi, if you are not saved, and would like to be included in the rapture of the church. Believe that Jesus's death on the cross, was enough to pay for ALL your sins , yes ALL ,(past, present and future) That is what the Gospel is about. We are saved by GOD'S amazing grace, through our faith in Jesus's sinless life, death on the cross and resurrection 3 days later . No additional works needed. It is literally that simple. Do it today, don't delay. Time is short. Ephesians 2:8-9 Romans 10:9-10
@@Jona7Fer If you're referring to the religious fantasy author *Jesus of Nazareth,* then His real name was *Colin of Bethsheda.* He specialised in modern religious fantasy and was not that popular until his publicist Paul *'The Roman'* toured the Med with the heavily edited work. Once the Roman public started to 'spread the word' on the novel, it really took off. Then other authors jumped on the band wagon and added their books to the original one. It was a massive shekel making venture that lasted *far* too long for its own good - some folks even believe it to be *true!* Crazy...
What I believe should have been done, was that when we realized the “axis of evil” problem of the CMB dipole aligning with the ecliptic and sun’s direction of travel, we should have known that there was a local component (explaining the alignment), but that the same structures appear elsewhere in the universe (explaining why the CMB is as homogeneous as it is). In other words, if the CMB truly belongs to the cosmological scale, then obviously it should be uniform. If it were due only to some local structure, that would explain the dipole yet not the fact that this background radiation is seen in all directions, and distances. Once you realize that microwaves are generated anywhere that a hot sparse plasma meets a wall of cooler gas and dust, and that we are in such a structure, then you see the reason for the dipole. When you realize that similar structures appear throughout the universe, you see why the uniformity. None of this though, is due to this being “background radiation from the Big Bang”. Doesn’t even match the original predicted temperatures of 17ish degrees. Another reason to expect that we’ve made a mistake somewhere, is that we interpret redshift as expansion on the scale of the universe, yet redshift as temperature when considering the CMB. The “hotter and cooler lobes” of the CMB are determined by differences in redshift of the peak radiation.
The original predicted temperatures between 1948 and 1965 by Gamow, Alpher, Herman and Dicke were between 5-50k, often fudged or changed after the fact to adjust for new observations. Hoyle, McKellar, Burbidge et al. had a 2-3k range, right to where Penzias and Wilson would detect in 1965. Not surprisingly, dark energy in recent years has been cited for why the CMB temperature has been much lower than anyone predicted - the accelerated expansion results in a diffuse, cooler universe. And of course, it was such an embarrassment when dark energy was announced in 1998, but for mainstream cosmology, it has become a critical lifesaver: without dark energy, the universe cannot be older than 10 billion years, much younger than the oldest known objects, meaning no big bang without dark energy.
This is a metaphor I got flamed one time because I didn't preface what I'm about to say with this is a metaphor but you could pretty much look in any direction you want and you're looking at the center of where the Big bang started The cosmological center where everything went and expanded from now this is a metaphor again I'm not trying to say that any of this could be observed from outside of what makes it possible for observations to happen no what I'm trying to say is I think it is quite fascinating when we're talking about cosmological scales that the farther we look back the smaller the relative scale happens to be to the point where you get to the point where anywhere you look and you're staring at the tiniest bit of universe that we can observe after the Big bang
In an uneven distribution of matter, I'm grateful that this region had the Sabine Hossenfelder to explain all this to me. I'm going to wait and see, but this sounds like it could be one of the bigger changes in cosmology in my lifetime.
The hard thing about watching videos on cosmology when you have ADHD, is that you keep getting lost in thought about the size of the universe and associations to science fiction
I don't have ADHD but I struggle to finish videos because I hear a term or concept and need to research it. When I start a pbs spacetime video I end with like 5-15 open tabs 😑😂
Usually when "big" discoveries goes public, you always discover that some ignored precursor already discovered it ten or twenty years ago. Maybe this is the case, so this is the reason why Sabine put the paradigm shift ten years in the future.
Another excellent episode, thank you! I find your explanations of even the most abstruse of topics to be wonderful. Even I can understand them, and I'm no expert. Cheers!
GUT-CP explains this as well. The WEBB might detect large galaxies that formed much too soon, by billions of year to fit into the BB. GUT-CP predicts exactly that. But for some reason Standard Model Cosmologists and SQM proponents are squeamish to even consider those predictions, as if that would make the theSMC and SQM very wrong. So what if they are wrong; that is how science progresses, by noticing what is wrong and dealing with it, not ignoring it.
Huh, I guess I thought the cosmological principle was that the laws of nature don't vary across the universe. It seems a bit weird to base it off of matter instead. Why not at least use density of energy? Is matter really that special?
I think the reason they look for that is because regular matter is more easily detectable by us and we have a nice understanding of how it behaves. If it doesn't follow our deductiond is indication of other factors unknown are impacting regular matter. That's how dark matter was discovered after all: gravitational anomalies altering the movement of regular matter that didn't fit models.
Your hair looks good today! Interesting video and topic. Do you believe that there will be a lot of resistance to dropping the standard model and dark energy? Seems like a lot of cosmologists are staked to dark energy being real.
Let us hope the trend of trying to masquerade philosophy as science doesn't continue because the field of astrophysics is rife with it currently. If it cannot be verified or proven false it isn't science, its philosophy! (Many Worlds proponents are you listening to me?)
@@DrJens-pn5qk if you think about what you just asked me, you'll see how that question further proves my point about what is to be considered science and philosophy. I call it like I see it. And what I see now is a lot of philosophy being masqueraded as science by a lot of so called "smart" people who seem to have little to no actual common sense. aka "eggheads"
@@michaelfried3123 When I made several of the points Sabine makes here as a philosopher of science I was told to STFU by scientists. This was nearly 20 years ago and it would seem the evidence just keeps mounting. You hafta laff :-)
The new model is the video on my profile. Just a very minor tweek to quantum electrodynamics gives everything we observe. I originally posted it about 6 years ago (then resposted a couple years later). Not many people have taken notice. I'm 100% confident it is correct. The fundamental law of the universe is *not* conservation of energy, but rather, conservation of *distance* (Feynman paths).
SABINE : I believe you need an assistant.... not like those five Physicists you hired to answer technical questions that get paid $150 per hour minus your cut but an assistant to give some blunt answers to some of these NON SENSICAL questions !
