Three BEWILDERING Cosmic Controversies | George Efstathiou [Ep. 436]

Подписаться 271 тыс.

Просмотров 14 тыс.

50% 1

Join my mailing list briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN!
Modern cosmology is full of controversies, challenges, and unresolved tensions. This can, of course, be very frustrating. But it’s also extremely fun!
Especially if we approach these challenges with brilliant minds who aren’t afraid to tackle them head-on.
One such luminary is the renowned George Efstathiou. George is a British astrophysicist and Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. He was the first Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge from 2008 to 2016.
George joins me today for a cosmological episode in which we look at cosmic acceleration, Hubble tension, Sigma-8 tension, inflation theory, BICEP2, Planck collaboration, and more.
Tune in!
Key Takeaways:
00:00:00 Intro
00:04:18 Baseless claims in cosmology
00:13:47 Solving the Hubble tension
00:23:02 Axion-like early dark energy
00:27:54 Primordial magnetic fields
00:30:27 Solving the Sigma-8 tension
00:38:27 Inflation and the Multiverse
00:48:20 BICEP2
00:54:30 Existential question
00:56:32 Outro
Additional resources:
➡️ Learn more about George Efstathiou:
💻 Website: people.ast.cam.ac.uk/~gpe/
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 RU-vid: ru-vid.com...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #georgeefstathiou

Наука

Опубликовано:

16 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 63

@DrBrianKeating 9 дней назад

What’s the biggest mystery in the universe?

@PearlmanYeC 9 дней назад

That the missing Dark Matter and Dark Energy are massive fudge factors was solved a decade ago with SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model. JWST data just more confirmation of the SPI = Stars Preceded Inflation (Hyper-dense Proto-Galactic Formation Preceded Hyper cosmic 'inflation' Expansion. Start study at ResearchGate that is just recently starting to gain traction.

@PearlmanYeC 9 дней назад

assume a creator as described by Moses, and SPIRAL cosmic distance ladder and visible light (including CMB) departure max of SPIRAL LY radius i , if/how could help explain Baryonic Asymmetry?

@CircoVega 9 дней назад

Why can't something travel faster than the speed of light? They say it's because the mass of the object grows as it accelerates, but that's been debunked. I think it's possible in deep space where gravity wouldn't affect acceleration. Who knows?

@nunomaroco583 9 дней назад

Hi, I think various, if dark matter exist, the origins of the Universe if there is one, origine of life, the end or not of the Universe, gravity itself, one or more Universes...

@hongkongtennis 9 дней назад

Why people listen to you 😊

@isonlynameleft 9 дней назад

Thank you Brian for recognizing my brilliance in being one of the most intelligent audiences in the universe. The humbly accept 😌 🤣

@rajeevgangal542 9 дней назад

New scientist is always the sensational one. Love George. Need someone like him to take on Erics of the world. Maybeba a friendly sparring session with profs Gupta , Penrose on cosmology. interested on his pragmatic take on Neil Turoks new model which seem data driven.

@advaitrahasya 9 дней назад

It's not about a mathematical model being "wrong". It is about fixing the paradigm through which all the models are interpreted.

@trucid2 9 дней назад

He fails because he's unwilling to step out of the box. The alternate realities he mentioned with such disdain is exactly what we need to welcome.

@RWin-fp5jn 9 дней назад

It is interesting to listen to George. As I am no expert of Lamba CDM, I got only parts of the discussion. But I do see genuine concerns about current models and genuine efforts to better understand the universe. What I can say, is that from a problem solving perspective, all discussed issues of Lambda -CDM cosmology have a single point of failure (SPOF). Meaning; once this SPOF is corrected, all issues would disappear; from the unconfirmed Dark Energy to troublesome Hubble tension to multiverse to mature early galaxies paradox, what have you. This Single Point of Failure (SPOF) in this case is the human INTERPRETATION of observed redshift. There is sufficient supporting evidence that higher redshift is indeed related to further distance. The suggestion however that galactic redshift is in addition is related to higher speed via a doppler effect (however perfectly logic that sounds) is problematic, given recent observations. If not caused by a doppler effect (for which astronomers use the auxiliary fix of hypothetical emerging spacetime in between), then furthest galaxies are not to be associated with old age or high speeds relative to us. Just distance. I would solve all. Doesn't mean there was no big bang. I bet there was. It just means that the redshift we see is not the result of expansion, even though the universe might yet be expanding. I actually think it is net-moving (contracting) towards the great attractor, that much seems defendable. Ok, this begs the question; is there known physics that would link photon redshift to only distance? Well yes of course there is; Quantum Physics is full of it. At CERN they know that venturing the smallest distance possible requires extremely energetic particles as established distance is inverse related to established energy (dXdP>=h/2 is Heisenberg’s Law for that). But so would the reverse be true; to venture the furthest distances, photons with extremely low energy would be associated with furthest distance. So if our intra galactic fabric has properties of the QP world (spoiler alert; it HAS) then incoming low energy photons (thus more redshifted) would be photons associated with further distance. No extra galactic doppler effect needed. Eventually the furthest photon’s wavelength would stretch beyond the visible light, into the radio-wave frequency (think CMB). As for the importance of our intergalactic fabric; isn’t the angle of our solar systems relative to the galactic plane visible in the 360 polarization modes of the CMB. Why do we guess that is? I would go with the obvious solution solving all paradoxes. But then again, who am I…

@shawns0762 9 дней назад

Sounds like you know your stuff. The fundamental phenomenon of dilation explains dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass is all around us. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.

@RWin-fp5jn 8 дней назад

@@shawns0762 So we need to make a distinction here between the issues of dark energy and dark matter. Dark Energy is the hypothetical stuff, needed to produce the hypothetical expansion of spacetime between galaxies, which in turn is needed for creating the hypothetical accelerating universe, which is the result of our (arguably flawed) assumption that increased redshift is linked to increased speed and age of furthest galaxies. I explained above why this is likely incorrect. Interestingly, the human invention of Dark Matter appear to have a similar fate. You correctly mention that observed erratic galactic rotation curves are at the root of this subject; 100 years ago we already saw stars at the outer galactic spiral arms rotate way to fast, relative to their distance from the centre and should be ousted at these speeds. So, it was thought there was missing gravity (i.e. missing ‘dark’ matter) that should account for them yet to stay put. Makes perfect sense. Except there is an alternative, and much more elegant explanation; Not a lack of gravity, but a lack of spacetime; If spacetime within the confinement of our galactic plane is only emergent around the stars themselves, then the area between the spiral arms would contain little to no spacetime (since almost no stars there) and hence the outer spiral arms would be a lot closer to the centre in spatial terms then they appear. This would also mean far less rotation speeds, solving the entire issue. It may sound weird, but in reversed engineering, presuming the lack of a known (spacetime) is always preferable to presuming the presence of an unknown (‘Dark Energy’). Moreover; in quantum physics the absence of spacetime is an observed fact! Inside the area between an atoms’ nucleus and outer electrons, we know there is no spacetime. We never observed subatomic motion in terms of space and time there. Never! What we DO observe are electron ‘quantum leaps’ where electrons move in terms of electron orbits defined in ENERGY (eV’s) which are time instant ; meaning they cost ‘mass’ and not ‘time’ to cross. It is no coincidence that Sir Roger Penrose stresses that in the QP world, mass is the clock (Substituting E=hf Planck into E=MC2 Einstein). So again; this fits beautifully with the earlier alternative explanation for Dark Energy; Our galactic plane appears to have traits, similar to a QP setup. QP is KNOWN physics, as opposed to the ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ fixes. We just need to flex our mind that the QP setup is not reserved for the smallest scales; but appears to alternate with the spacetime grid setting on larger scales. Quite basic. If only we open our minds and embrace the obvious. I would…But then again; who am I..?

@shawns0762 8 дней назад

@@RWin-fp5jn I don't believe in dark energy either. There is only one reason to postulate it, to explain the exponential expansion rate of the universe. The expansion was discovered in 1929. In 1998 it was discovered that the expansion is accelerating, this is when the concept of dark energy became mainstream. If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster. If a ship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would achieve about 95% light speed in 1 year. Electricity is drawn towards potential and the universe as a whole behaves the same way. Electricity comes into our homes because the neutral circuit provides the potential. Electricity is drawn towards grounding rods for the same reason. Physicists in the last century did not postulate dark energy because they understood that the expansion is a fundamental property of the universe. The fact that the expansion is accelerating does not invalidate their reasoning, it's what the known laws of physics would predict provided gravitational forces are not strong enough to counteract the process. All studies to find dark energy have been fruitless because it doesn't exist. To say there is dark energy is to say there is 5 fundamental forces, there is 4

@RWin-fp5jn 8 дней назад

@@shawns0762 So the main problem with current day cosmology is that it is based on conflating two things; 1) The FACT that 100 years ago we observed redshift in furthest galaxies and 2) the mere human ASSUMPTION that this means the universe is expanding. All mainstream cosmologists keep claiming we see the cosmos expanding. No we don't. We just see redshift. the rest is human interpretation of redshift. I think the rational mind will see the idea of a QP setup of our galactic plane is vastly superior, as it can explain away BOTH illusions of redshift of furthest galaxies and the too fast rotation curves of galactic arms, making both dark energy and dark matter obsolete follies. Again; QP is KNOWN physics. As for the origin of of the QP dominated fabric; It would be be pushed out fabric of the ring shaped Sag A* Kerr singularity, which would have become a naked singularity, the moment the first star's formed (exceeding the local energy density threshold) and their emergent spacetime extended beyond the BH's event horizon. As such, also the CMB radiation may have a galactic origin (Galactic Microwave Background). We are reminded that the quadrupole and octupole axis of the CMB are PERFECTLY aligned with our solar systems' angle to our galactic plane (which shouldn't be possible according to lambda CDM). And orthogonally to that; the CMB dipole is perfectly aligned with our Sag A* rotation axis (even though we see it heads on as per EHT image) This can NOT be coincidence. We badly need experts like Brian to take up the gauntlet and to boldly go where no man has gone before and refocus his efforts to explain the polarization deviations in CMB / GMB in relation to the QP fabric of our galactic plane. We spent too much time trying to link CMB to cosmic birth origins. Time to reboot cosmology. Make it so I say...

@rhbruning 9 дней назад

Spot on with the "alternative realities" you can't engage. It's kind to describe these different realities as different perceptions when they are really perpetuated and imposed.

@CircoVega 8 дней назад

I was watching a presentation from Caltech. They said the universe is too complicated to explain with General Relativity and you can't actually do the math by hand. You have to do it on a supercomputer. And they have new models of the universe being rendered, eta 5 years. It takes into account permanent gravity wave transforms and its local effects versus that of the entire universe.

@rockfordlow571 9 дней назад

Hate to say this , loving these shows about our brief reality , but

@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546 9 дней назад

Eureka! The CIG Theory moment.

@mattm6178 9 дней назад

Props Brian.

@DrBrianKeating 9 дней назад

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

@ready1fire1aim1 10 дней назад

Cosmological Information Dynamics: a) Information-Based Cosmic Inflation: Model cosmic inflation as an information expansion process: dΦ/dt = HΦ + √(H/2π)ξ(t) where H is the Hubble parameter and ξ(t) is a noise term representing quantum fluctuations. This could provide new explanations for the observed homogeneity and flatness of the universe. b) Dark Energy as Information Potential: Propose a model of dark energy based on the information content of the vacuum: ρ_Λ = (ℏc/16π²G) · ∫_0^k_P k³ tanh(ℏck/2k_BT_0) dk where k_P is the Planck wavenumber and T_0 is a fundamental information temperature. This could explain the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion.

@nunomaroco583 9 дней назад

Hi, just brilliant talk amazing George..... don't need to be the most know scientist, many work in the shadows and they are equal great or even more, all the best.

@shawns0762 9 дней назад

The fundamental phenomenon of dilation explains dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass is all around us. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.

@dosesandmimoses 9 дней назад

This was a great conversation .. thank you gentlemen

@user-vq5tv1zz4c 9 дней назад

concomitant ... concurrently ... present in understanding from multiple disciplines .. .fascinating

@ekkemoo 9 дней назад

Nice, engaging discussion, as I was there listening to it.

@DrBrianKeating 9 дней назад

Thanks very much

@Thomas-gk42 9 дней назад

21:00 - he is talking about a "cosmological conspiracy"? That´s funny, since the same term is used in quantum mechanics as a battleterm against superdeterministic approaches.

@stephenconliffe6575 9 дней назад

Undersranding Pri.mordial magnetiism...is a key imo...stay with it🤔...why .. magnetism is fundamental..first principle...then electricity...all of Creation is magneto electric?🙄cheers.

@jeremymahrer1832 9 дней назад

The Dog seems very nice.

@alex79suited 10 дней назад

Hey I like the beagle, good dogs. Peace ✌️ 😎.

@3zdayz 9 дней назад

There was a new paper on time dilation in supernova. Sabina just did a quick summary of it... That would actually indicate that add a billion light years are redshift 1 that the universe is already moving away at the speed of light oh really one light month per month or rather three light months over 3 months... I thought the universe was only going the speed of light at like 5 billion light years...

@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546 9 дней назад

How about CIG Theory?

@michael-4k4000 9 дней назад

Didn't Terrance Howard solve these problems? Howard discovered the theory of everything at age 6...

@alex79suited 9 дней назад

Primordial EMFS won't be there until they are excited. So in a void say the fields will be undetectable unless you figure in the whole of the system. But if introduced matter would entice the fields underlying and produce a new EMFSYSTEMS. Each galacty is a result of this occurring. The CMB may be a single event but if that's the case, then others would certainly have happened. Or the CMB is a collection of smaller events that effect each as a whole. Peace ✌️ 😎. Great video

@Frrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt 9 дней назад

Dr Keating, I think the reason for this attitude in contemporary scientists, finds its roots in our history. Expecially in the western societies where religion was extremely strong, and destructive (both of people and ideas). Untill 100/200 years ago, going backwards until religion in the western world was born (so let's say 2000 years), if you were to write about mathematics, you would have been considered a witch or a wizard and then burnt alive. So strong this religious influence was, historically speaking, that it also influenced the scientific research, or the way science is intended. There was a huge "retaliation" from science against religion (also rightfully we could say, right?). I think the biggest problem nowadays is that science has become the new religion. It's become very very difficult to have a logical conversation about any topic (not just science). Just to give you a straight forward example of this attitude, I'll just mention that we call it "theory of everything" and we don't know what consciousness is. I'm attacking the very basis of science (bold and risky move by me!). Consciousness is excluded (almost completely) by the scientific method, yet science calls it theory of everything.... It's a bit presumptious in my opinion. Just a bit. Call it "theory of external, observable things" and then it would make sense to me. But no, let's call it theory of everything, because science is everything. Nah thank you, I don't fall for that. If consciousness is part of this reality and you discard it, and then you call your theory "everything" it means you're delusional or too full of yourself. What the scientific community lacks, in my opinion, is a bit of common sense. Reality is proving to you to be quite magical and unpredictable, with particles/waves appearing and disappearing in and out of existence. If that isn't magical I don't know what is. Harry Potter is way, WAAAYYY LESS MAGICAL. I mean, try to move an object through space from point A to point B... It would require an almost infinite (if not just infinite) number of processes to do that. Right? If you make something disappear and then reappear somewhere else (like harry potter does), you have skipped all the points/processes in between..... and that's just too easy. Reality is way more complex and magical than magic itself ahah. So true. Seems to me, that the scientific community has to make a leap forward, in terms of approach, if it wants better results to come or even just better discussions to occur. You have to realize that you're not as important as you think you are, being the scientific method just a few hundreds years old... compared to a little 200.000 years of human evolution... I mean, ahah, it's almost comical to be giving yourself importance after such a small amount of time using this method. It works well, yes, but it's still very young, and maybe it needs corrections. No? 200.000 against 400 years... I mean, fly down little human ant. The general mental approach is of superiority, and it reflects itself on almost anything you try to explore; that's the reason why so many "scientists" can't do what your guest today was instead very capable of doing, or else being opened to the FACT that some things, you just don't know. I loved that he said that he was agnostic, as any truth oriented seeker should be if he/she wants to be called a "scientist".

@TheMemesofDestruction 8 дней назад

“Any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” ^.^

@jonmurphy776 8 дней назад

When you peer out into space you see the past as it was . No one knows even where the nearest star is. We see where it was years ago! For the sake of modesty we should assume that the furthest away galaxies are probably experiencing what our galaxy and about 100 others closest to us are experiencing. That is contraction in the form of blue shifted galaxies!🎯

@veganbutcherhackepeter 9 дней назад

Audio is unbearable, unfortunately.

@rachetgear 9 дней назад

💯🔥

@hakiza-technologyltd.8198 9 дней назад

Hahahaha... I liked this one

@innerfield5481 10 дней назад

I have a question. How many more stars would there be if dark energy became stars ?

@isitme1234 9 дней назад

@simesaid 9 дней назад

Well, stars make up about 1.5% of the regular matter in the universe, so multiply the dark energy percentage by this figure, then multiply by the speed of light squared (to convert the energy into mass), and then multiply the total by the 10²⁰ stars we can see... aaaaand, well, I can't do math... but I'd guess there'd be quite a few more! At least a dozen, anyway.

@panmichael5271 9 дней назад

None. Because they would not shine since no nuclear reactions would occur. Rephrase your definition of "star"?

@simesaid 9 дней назад

@@panmichael5271 ummm, I don't think they meant for the question to be taken that literally. But, while we're here, why is the cosmological constant required just in order to make nucleosynthesis possible? After all, Albert invented GR _before_ he added Lambda to his field equations...

@bryandraughn9830 9 дней назад

Yes.

@Dobviews 9 дней назад

You need to stop making claims about what atheists think/believe. Atheism is not a religion just like "OFF" is not a TV channel.

@DigiBluntt 9 дней назад

of'course it's theory wrong...like any other....whake up

@alex79suited 9 дней назад

I thought you did very well Brian when you gave your opinion on what's happening on campus. Peace ✌️ 😎.

@user-xq8mk5qu8n 6 дней назад

Timestamp 7:00. Kind of disagree with the mode of presentation. Strays from topic and diverts from the subject-matter. Biography? I don't care. I prefer that you get to the point and not waste my time with irrelevant noise. So, thumbs down on this dumbed down presentation.