Puzzling Mysteries of the Universe 

Sabine Hossenfelder also awesome !!!

He is THE host, others are boring :)

@@sokolum - She is OK, pretty good for the most part. She does have some more fringe ideas about a few topics if I remember right, but still with watching.

Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?

No, this is science for children. Real science channels don't shy away from the math.

rugby ball would've made more sense though. 😅

If a lay person can understand something, it is probably "un-scientific".

@@hidgik Such nonsense.

@@metcas Apparently you have absolutely no idea of what used to be called sarcasm or irony. Good luck.

@@hidgik Use /s then. This is the internet lol

I read somewhere that this cold part of the universe may be the result of a severe energy exploition of entire galaxies or even galaxy clusters by a type 3 civilization. Any comments on that? I personally find it a very likely explanation.

It might also explain the hot ring around it. As the civilization expands like a bubble turning its frontiers hotter than normal and leaving at his path a drained from energy part of the universe.

@@petrosgitsidis295 I am not expert in physics at all (engineer here), but I don't think so. By one side the concept of a 3rd level civilization is highly speculative already and do not extends (as far as I remember) to more than one galaxy, and in any case it would generate a signal signature identifiable in some way (as energy is only transformed). By other hand, the CMB radiation was originated about 380 000 years after big bang, in an epoch in which galaxies still didn't exist.

My head already has a super void in it.

Penrose 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦

I had the exact same thought

Actually when we look at our own feet we see them as how they looked in the past, when light got reflected by them and started it's journey up to our eyes.

Actually the alignment is exactly what would be predicted if the measured dipole in the CMB is *cosmological*(i.e. caused by an inherit asymmetry in the distribution of matter/energy at the time of the reionization epoch) rather than kinematic (due to the motion of our solar system) as has been typically assumed for simplicity (without any supporting evidence) and to allow the analytically solvable Friedmann solutions to be able to be assumed to be approximately applicable for our universe (and thus avoiding the nonlinear domain of the Einstein field equations) Thankfully Ellis & Baldwin (1984) devised an experimental test which would be able to check the validity of the assumption of a kinematic dipole by measuring a large sample size of over a million cosmologically distant i.e. high redshift sources one could construct a dipole measurement which if the assumption of a kinematic dipole was true should be identical in both direction and magnitude of the CMB dipole. If it is not identical then the purely kinematic dipole assumption is falsified, i.e. there is a large real cosmological dipole component in the CMB which can not be removed by a relativistic reference frame correction to allow one to shift to a supposed CMB inertial frame. In what is probably the most important breakthrough in cosmology in recent years which sadly has been largely ignored this was finally tested with over a million sources by Nathan J. Secrest et. al (Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 APJL 908 L51). Using a final sample size of 1.36 million quasars after the removal of possible sources of contamination from the local universe they were able to show that the measured dipole while similar enough in direction (only off by 8 degrees so not statistically significant enough) the magnitude was more than twice that of the CMB dipole which is a 4.9 Sigma significance discrepancy from a kinematic dipole. This *is* significant enough to falsify the kinematic dipole assumption while also solving a number of cosmological mysteries, the apparent dipole quadrupole octupole etc. alignment, the measured acceleration of the rate of expansion(without requiring the existence of dark energy), the discrepancy in observed rate of expansion over time(again without requiring the existence of dark energy). Basically about half a dozen mysteries/discrepancies in cosmology just go away just by removing the cosmological principal which hinged on the purely kinematic CMB dipole assumption to avoid falsification by the CMB measurements since all these discrepancies under Lambda CDM are natural predictions of the general Einstein field equations in a universe with a significant initial anisotropy and inhomogeneity. Occam's razor strikes lambda CDM dead in favor of an anisotropic and inhomogeneous general solution of the Einstein field equations without the assumption of dark energy. It is just about as big of a simplification as the Heliocentric model of the solar system(with Kepler's laws) were over the Ptolemaic model except that the math is of course much harder since there are no nice neat analytical solutions anymore.

Bingo this is a critical point that has often been missed in the discussion. In particular the data clean up is largely dependent on our *assumptions* In particular a really big assumption is that the dipole in the CMB is purely kinematic allowing us to perform a relativistic frame shift to an *assumed* frame where the CMB is isotropic and uniform. If part of the CMB dipole is not kinematic i.e. not due to the net motion of our frame of reference then the assumed frame where the CMB is isotropic and uniform does not exist and all conclusions dependent on that assumption (in particular the supposed existence of dark energy as a major component of the Universe and the validity of the cosmological principal) fall apart like a house of cards in the wind under the weight of huge systematic biases that swamp out any signals in the data. Luckily this assumption can be tested as proposed by Elis & Baldwin in 1984 (G. F. R. Ellis, J. E. Baldwin, MNRAS, Volume 206, Issue 2, January 1984, Pages 377-381, doi.org/10.1093/mnras/206.2.377) The tricky bit is that you need a very large sample size to show this with any degree of statistical significance i.e. you need more than a million sources. Last year however Nathan Secrest and collaborators (Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 APJL 908 L51) finally performed this test on a final sample size of 1.36 million quasars measured by WISE over its initial and extended mission phases. The results show that distant sources have a significantly larger dipole which while "only" 8 degrees off from the CMB dipole is more than twice as large in magnitude and thus is at 4.9 sigma discrepancy with a purely kinematic dipole (i.e. only a 1 in 2 million chance of being a statistical fluke) Things are consequently looking pretty bad for a lot of cosmological results it looks like Cosmology is going to have to come to terms with the general nonlinear domain of the Einstein field equations.

@@Dragrath1 thank you very much for the information

As far as I know the CMB is the boundary of the "observable" universe, 46 billion (1E9) light years away, which arrived to us from all directions after travelling almost 13.8 billion (1E9) years. This is possible because the universe expanded, allowing the light to seems as having travelled more than possible in an stationary universe. The universe could be even much bigger than this 92 billions light years diameter bubble, but that is the further we can see.

The origin of the CMB was the Big Bang. The CMB was about 380,000 years after the BB. So technically it's 13.7 Billions - 380,000 Light-years away and ago. I'd guess you could say it's at near the boundary of the visible universe and yes all directions. Although it's about something like 45 billion light-years away today because the universe has been expanding ever since. The whole universe may be at least 500 times bigger than the visible universe. Something like that.

@@tTtt-ho3tq Thanks, that's what I presumed. I was just wondering if we developed any tricks to measure the distance the way we can to some stars. In other words does the CMB reveal or confirm anything about the uniform shape of the universe?

@@alanr3705 Oh, those are the details. I don't do details or windows. The details are hard. You really have to know to study the details. Sorry I've no idea. Even Einstein's special relativity don't make no sense to me already. I'm sure they have methods to measure all those things. I'd think someone would come up with some good ideas if there's something better. I just follow blindly. Physics is universal worldwide. Einstein's, quantum mechanics, etc are all the same to every scientists around the world. And remember physics is everything. That's why I watch this or others.

Rush!

It isn't surprising given that it has been proven that any differentiable function can be broken down into an infinite series decomposition. The issue is of course with how these terms are interpreted for example it has been traditional to assume the dipole term is kinematic but this is just an assumption a cosmological dipole due to significant matter asymmetries back during the CMB epoch would for example naturally predict an alignment between the dipole quadrupole octupole etc..

@@Dragrath1 - What do you mean any function can be broke down infinitely? It's been a long time since I have take Calc, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance. Take x^2 for example. The derivative is 2x. The second derivative is 2. Where do you go from there?

@@ElectronFieldPulse any function can be reproduced from a weighted sum of infinitely many sine waves of different wavelengths. He tried to explain this at 1:40.

@@ElectronFieldPulse Ah sorry for the confusion yes that has a finite Taylor series decomposition there are no other terms in that particular case. The value of series decompositions has more to do with much more complex functions, such as those which are solutions to a system of partial differential equations, as it means that there is a series decomposition that can be fitted to it which becomes exact with infinite terms. Though generally you don't usually need more than a few terms to approximately fit many such function solutions. It usually is a bad sign that you likely made an error if it doesn't dampen out with subsequent terms. It is an example of such a non terminating expansion that leads physicists to consider GR and Quantum Field Theory incompatible as the terms blow up to infinity.