It's also possible that this again indicates that there is something wrong with the way that we are measuring distances to these distant galaxies, and that better methods of inferring distance could cause the discrepancy to disappear.
Universal constants are only constant in close proximity in space and age of the observable universe. Recent acceleration of the universe is an indicator that some if not all universal constants we hold today are transitory by the very nature of reality.
Even if there are errors in the measurements, they shouldn't favor left or right handedness. Theoretically, the errors should be symmetric and cancel out.
The speed of light has never been measured one way. It can't be. It has only been reflected and that speed divided by 2 is the presumed speed of light. I'm not saying that I believe reflected light is faster or slower than direct light. It is just something I find interesting but, I'm number dumb and can't even begin to know those calculations.
@@gypsyjengypsydogs9320 but it has. The amount of time light travels between two points has been measured. That's not a "there and back" situation. Unless you claim the synchronization of the clocks at the source and the detector would somehow invalidate the measurement, which I would strongly disagree with.
If true, this is a truly profound discovery. On a lighter note, you've got to hand it to Anton for keeping us so up to date. I am really chiraled out about this!
Ive noticed every rehashed discover is profound these days. They declared every rock in orbit around Saturn a moon and called it a profound discovery. Now they say they've discovered thousands of new moons.
These days I have trouble sorting through the new 'discoveries'. They all mean different things depending on who you ask. "Oh, our entire system and understanding of the universe is thrown out the window!" "Oh, Dark matter explains it... therefore it must be real!" "Oh, this means we have multiple universes!" "Oh, this means our universe is infinitely expanding!" "Oh, this means we have a single universe that is expanding in an already infinite space!" >.> I mean sheesh. Cosmology these days is just one big fallacy for jumping to conclusions by applying the "discovery" to only our current understanding of things, instead of considering that our current understanding is obviously incomplete and can make no such determinations as of yet. And enter... the perfect youtube bait. I mean shit... what if it only looks like its not symmetrical because we havent yet observed the *insert random particle name* yet and it bends our measurements out of wrack in certain areas of the universe where it is more densely concentrated? *Shrug* Who knows! The reply would surely be "But thats impossible as it would mean so and so" And how teh fudgecakes would they know that for sure? Because of the behavior of another particular? Well that tells us a whole lot of nothing! So yea... youtube bait discovery... nothing profound about it until we connect more dots.
Well, even a confirmed Directional Non-Locality of Non-Symmetry on galactic scales would be a very huge discovery. Thanks Anton! You always seem to bring to us the most interesting of the most interesting topics for us to consider and chew over a bit, in the very best of ways. Very much appreciated!
@@takanara7 According to the info that I've searched, there are types of galactic alignments to intergalactic filaments due to magnetic field stuff intermixed with gravity stuff, but the clockwise and counterclockwise galaxy rotations are still basically 50/50 from any random location in space one might choose to view from.
Something Peter Watts said in his novel Echopraxia really stuck with me, basically that we see conflicting experimental results all the time while assuming the experiment was conducted in error at some point even if that’s not the case.
Alright, and how do you know there was no error? Thaaaat's right, by conducting the same experiment numerous times, trying to understand why predictions don't match the results. You know, as science does.
@@KnightspaceORG That's in a perfect world. In reality, experiments may be repeated by the original team some number of times, but are infrequently reattempted by others. Replication is important, but it doesn't bring in the grant money.
its not just a matter of confirming something with the same experiment,... but also a matter of performing other experiments to provide more context to what is being observed. Oftentimes we do not even have any idea of what that context might be that would either confirm or debunk the predictions it suggests. Sometimes we do not even realize we need this additional means of observation. Not only assume any result is in error.... but also assume the result can suggest incorrect predictions without the context of other observations.
Or maybe the symmetry we do see is there for decorative purposes. The human body looks symmetric from the outside, but when you consider the internal organs you find all kinds of asymmetries. It seems the human body wanted to LOOK symmetric. Maybe the universe wanted to LOOK symmetric too.
Anton, every time a new discovery is made, invariably, we end up with more questions than we had previously known. As you say, we will know more when we know more. Thank you for keeping us close to the loop!
At any point on a random walk on the line with 50/50 prob to move left/right, you are almost certain not to be at the origin. You will be either to the left or to the right of the origin... you would need to be pretty far out to have a 3-sigma confidence against the 50/50 rule.... There can be tricky pitfalls in the math trying to do the analogous thing with galaxies... I'd like to see a bunch of math simulations with symmetric probabilities and see how many right/left-handed tets there are in local regions... The unobservable universe could possibly contain the "missing" tets, but like a random walk, we are currently locally biased...
Here's an idea. At the moment of the big bang as a reference point the antimatter traveled backwards in time and is symmetrical with what we see which we consider moving forwards in time. This preserves global supersymmetry. Here's a better question. When a carbon atom bonds with four different atoms or molecular chains they form optical isomers. They are mirror images roughly tetrahedral in shape and cannot be superimposed. One isomer rotates polarized light clockwise and is called dextro-rotary or D and its mirror image rotates polarized light counterclockwise called levo-rotary or L. the prefixes come from latin. Every living organism on earth has L amino acids and D sugars. Had they been the opposite there would be no difference apparent to us but if we create the opposite kinds in a laboratory that are otherwise identical in every other way they are incompatible with living organisms. Unless all life on earth evolved from a single cell there is no reason why it should be this way. If we ever encountered alien carbon based life there's a 50-50 chance they are the same as us and a 50-50 chance they are the opposite of us unless we both evolved from the same root.
@Commerce USA I took the course three times I loved it so much. It's necessary if you want to study biochemistry. My major in college and much of my career was centered around electrical engineering but I have many other interests.
@@markfischer3626 Biochemist here! I loved O Chem, I even tutored it for 3 years in undergrad. I wish I actually used it more since my work tends towards the Molec Cell side of things, but I deeply appreciate the stronger understanding it gave me of biological systems. And made biochem courses much easier for me than peers who had struggled with O Chem.
Hi Anton and other wonderful people, this episode called to mind, physicist, Marcelo Gleiser’s ‘ A Tear at the Edge of the Universe’ -highly recommend giving it a read if you haven’t yet. He does a great job explaining the asymmetry of the universe and CP violation in the early universe. 🥂cheers! 🖖🏼
Stephen Hawking, during his university years, proved with a very simple experiment that the universe came into being due to asymmetry. If the universe was perfectly symmetric at the very beginning, then it would simply become standstill and there wouldn't have been any change there. There were movement and everything now we can see around us came into being due to the asymmetry. I have seen it in an video made of Stephen Hawking in a TV channel.
If there are multiple universes, this could mean that symmetry exists among all universes as a whole system but each universe could be non symmetric itself. Also, our universe could be much bigger than we think, and we are actually looking at a smaller part of it than anticipated making it look non symmetric
The farther out you go, the easier it is to have everything equal out. Since we generally accept that the universe is probably bigger than it appears to us, our field of view can’t get big enough to see everything at the same time…so who’s to say that any asymmetry isn’t just an artifact of our constricted field of view?
Sounds like a result of stochastic fluctuations at the beginning of the universe. Like how ising models will spontaneously break the local rotational symmetry at a certain temperature and will settle on all up or all down spins. If there is no preference for up or down, the stochastic fluctuations will "pick one". In this case it seems that maybe the universe was expanding so rapidly during the phase transition, that the interactions between the galaxies became negligble, putting the brakes on the phase transition and leaving some percentage of left and right handedness. Idk if this is actually the idea, but seems reasonable to me. Just a guess...
I like your reasoning Stochastic behavior could arise on different spatial scales, from the subatomic quantum level or macroscopic far from equilibrium level
So basically instead of hyperinflation being a single, unified and homogenous phenomenon it was myriad "bubbles"" of localized instances of inflating spacetime of various volumes and thus varying densities and temperatures. In turn causing differing properties of the energies (and eventually matter)contained within as their chiralities and helicities conform accordingly. Am I in the neighborhood?
I think something like that makes sense. If you just map it as a wave of the universe favoring matter over antimatter and it symetrically orbits zero, then consider that maybe the fluctuation was positive at the moment of recombination then suddenly the universe would be full of matter despite most of it being annihilated.
@@noahwig500 It's not subjective, it's objective. The Universe would not exist if it was perfectly balanced. Matter and antimatter would cancel each other out so there would be nothing. Therefore imperfect balance is not only perfect for our existence, it is required. I could go further into entropy, gravity, matter distibution yada yada.. Yes there's duality but the imperfection of it is almost too perfect. Either way, I hope you enjoy your conscious observation of this wonderful universe (no matter how flawed it may be!) Have a great existence!!!
@@aaroncamren691 Hmm, yes i get how you look at it and i agree. I just wanted you to elaborate. Good talk. Imperfectly perfect or perfectly imperfect. Same to you!
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Wow! This one really blew my mind. The thought of using early observations to observe quantum level properties we might have no other way of noticing. 🤯
This comes as no surprise the mapping done of the universe so far plus the find of the great attractor and huge voids imply this topic. Anton your channel is fantastic for those amateur astronomers just getting into the hobby keep up the great work.
Oh, it's way more than 80-20! Chirality, the handedness of molecules, owes its name to the direction it twists light. Dextrose, a type of sugar, was so named because of its property of shifting light counterclockwise (to the right). All biologically created molecules exist in only one form. There may be a mirror image molecule, but it Never occurs in nature. If you produce the molecule in the lab, you get a 50-50 distribution. In nature, it's 100% one way. This begs the question, was there a form of life after the big bang that spat out only one form of mater, living on the gradient between energy and matter? It would have died out as the universe cooled, much as chemosynthis is now a footnote of modern life (like clams living on deep sea hydrothermal vents).
TY Anton for shaping things up for us. Perhaps the poet William Blake should have written: Universe univese, burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
What implications does this have in terms of chirality? We understand that rotational components are extremely important in quantum physics, so could this potential revelation in symmetry give us further understanding on why fundamental particles have 'preferences'?
Crazy idea with symmetry breaking.... wonder if the parity breaking of the weak force is involved? Or sadly it may turn out to be like the muon g-2 experiment that turned out to be insignificant/error-prone...
We do not have technology to see the entire universe. Scientists need to justify their salary raising crazy theories like the big bang or the symmetry of the universe. They should solve more mundane problems and use the money they spend on their delusions to something more productive.
Its thought that the weak and electromagnetic force were the same, and the W+ W- and Z boson used to be separate particles as 3 other higgs particles, and as 3 other photons. So back in the electrowrak unification era there were 4 higgs particles (2 charged, 2 chargeless) 4 photon particles (2 charged, 2 chargless), there was still quarks, gluons, all the leptons but there wasn't w or z bosons since they were split into photons and higgs
I've suspected for much of my life that the universe was one giant fractal. You can even seem to see it in its filaments/superclusters and general sponginess/brain-tissueness. Fractals, if understood correctly, are self-similar and independent of scale, and not exactly symmetric. They are sort of 'off-center', so to speak, maybe ultimately chaotic in an ordered sense. Like trees, maybe, or Italian broccoli or even what feeds landscape generation in 3D computer graphics, and so forth. Besides, you can't grow things from symmetry, can you?, because it doesn't seem open-ended, but, rather, it seems closed once you get the symmetry/ mirror-image.
That is exactly my idea of what is going on here. The universe acted like one object at some point in time, regardless of how tiny or huge or how short lived it was, even regardless of which stage in the development it was, expecting it to be symmetrical is a fallacy to begin with. When you confine mass and conserve mass, the angular momentum increases like an ice skater contracting their arms. It may be that the universe stopped spinning because of the big bang, but any mass that clumps together regains the angular momentum. My only question I would ask reality would be, did the first particles move with absolute impunity, or were they slowed down by the particles behind them or also slowed down but by the particles they bashed through?
@@Yezpahr : Angular momentum is conserved. If you think the angular momentum of an ice skater increases when s/he pulls in his/her arms, you don't understand angular momentum. It isn't the same as rotational speed.
@@brothermine2292 Ah snap, I did some 'corrections' after reading it through before posting, but replaced **all** "rotational speed" with angular momentum for some reason ... I brainfarted... Note to self, don't attempt science when sleepy.
From order comes chaos, and from chaos comes order. What does that have to do with a spinning top? It wobbles, which gives variations to symmetry. I'm convinced the entire Universe is both wobbling, and rotating. (In what I can't even guess.)
@@tinkerstrade3553 Even the tiniest of wobbles can be inflated to cosmic proportions... my ex-wife used to demonstrate that particular principle frequently and often! ;-)
The universe is geometric, not fully symmetric. And a top wobbles because the forces our planet exerts on it. In space, in the absence of gravity, it spins forever on it's axis, wobbling only when another force is applied
it could be like virtual particles, or it could be completely removed from the concept of time because the symmetry can exist beyond it. as long as everything equals 0 in the grand picture, all positive and negative possibilities can simultaneously exist in spacetime. so maybe after the heat death of the universe where time means nothing cause nothing is happening anymore, gears shift to the other side and energy coalesces into a symmetrical mirror image big bang or something of the sort. it's like going from 1 to -1 on the number line, only the number line is actually a circle and you take the long way around from 1 to infinity then from infinity to -1.
Human beings, that of course includes scientists, love symmetry, our minds just love it! But with the formation of the universe, and expansion of the universe, and with many unanswered questions existing around Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, it could just be a universe of cosmic asymmetry - even though we do find so much which is symmetrical at a smaller scale. Thank you, Anton, for this intriguing video.
Thank you everyone. I appreciate what Anton has to tell us. I also appreciate the comments. I appreciate the intelligence, creativity and Imagination that the commenters bring to the discussion.
@@obsidianjane4413 with that logic in mind matter and antimatter couldnt have been the only things there at the beginning. else we wouldnt be here, like he said. maybe we should try to fill the triangle. matter and antimatter would be 2 points of the 4 points we are lookin for. dark matter could be another point and maybe spacetime the other? its really complicated to think about.. we should go step by step.
you should watch thad roberts . he derives the nature of clifford algebra (and its relation to physics) and all the physics constants using geometry (the hyperbolic figure 8 knot), really smart guy , triple major and ex nasa employee
There are so many domains that, statistically, the local universe can't be perfectly uniform in all of them. If not tetrahedral galaxy formations, then some other pattern.
It could be the result of a pseudo random algorithm. If you generate points with a random generator it can happen that they form patterns because their coordinates are not fully random but depend on an algorithm. In nature this pseudo randomness could be coming from existing laws of physics that does not allow everything. Just as an idea.
Was thinking the same thing, or some other hidden bias in how it connects these galaxies together. After all it is basically just creating constellations in effect and humans have a way of always finding patterns in noise.
Over time many random generated sets will organize into pseudo low entropy. Patterns just emerge. I was playing around with the visuals of this on a time dilation clock. 2 second hands, one shows observer time, the other shows the time dilation on the second hand due to velocity.. Over time the entropy on clock face will form into all manner of clusters of patterns.
A python code to get handeness of distribution of points in space. Ratio obtained from a random distribution is 50/50. Ratio obtained from a cubic distribution is 66/33. This method is a simple measure of randomness/symetry. Too many sensationnal papers today ??? import itertools # Set galaxies number N = 40 foo_indexes = [n for n in range(N)] # Compute the permutations of 4 elements among the galaxies set perm = list(itertools.combinations(foo_indexes,4)) import random # Create 3d coordinates of random points integer_list = random.sample(range(1, 1000), N) x_list = [x/1000 for x in integer_list] integer_list = random.sample(range(1, 1000), N) y_list = [x/1000 for x in integer_list] integer_list = random.sample(range(1, 1000), N) z_list = [x/1000 for x in integer_list] import numpy res = [] # Iterate over the total number of tetahedra for i in range(len(perm)): # get the index of the ith tetahedra a = perm[0] b = perm[1] c = perm[2] d = perm[3] t = [b,c,d] # compute sides lenghts l1 = ((x_list[a]-x_list)**2+(y_list[a]-y_list)**2+(z_list[a]-z_list)**2)**0.5 l2 = ((x_list[a]-x_list[c])**2+(y_list[a]-y_list[c])**2+(z_list[a]-z_list[c])**2)**0.5 l3 = ((x_list[a]-x_list[d])**2+(y_list[a]-y_list[d])**2+(z_list[a]-z_list[d])**2)**0.5 # sort sides lengths s = numpy.array([l1,l2,l3]) sort_index = numpy.argsort(s) # compute coordinates of the base vectors v1 = [x_list[t[sort_index[0]]]-x_list[t[sort_index[1]]], y_list[t[sort_index[0]]]-y_list[t[sort_index[1]]], z_list[t[sort_index[0]]]-z_list[t[sort_index[1]]]] v2 = [x_list[t[sort_index[2]]]-x_list[t[sort_index[1]]], y_list[t[sort_index[2]]]-y_list[t[sort_index[1]]], z_list[t[sort_index[2]]]-z_list[t[sort_index[1]]]] # compute coordinates of the vector formed with the vertex and one of the base point, namely main vector v3 = [x_list[a]-x_list[t[sort_index[1]]], y_list[a]-y_list[t[sort_index[1]]], z_list[a]-z_list[t[sort_index[1]]]] # compute the cross product of the two vectors v1xv2 = numpy.cross(v1,v2) # compute the dot product of the cross product with the main vector v1xv2v3 = numpy.dot(v1xv2,v3) # store result res = res + [v1xv2v3] # check the signs of the dot products and count negatives and positives x = sum(1 for i in res if i >= 0 ) print("Number of Combinations is :", len(perm)) print("Number of Positive tetrahedron is:", x) print("Length of Negative tetrahedron is:", len(res)-x)
While perfectly random coin flips tend towards 50:50, the number of particular flips at perfect parity is quite small. So even if the chances of a given particle being matter or antimatter are identical, when you run out of particles to create, you are almost guaranteed to end up with more of one than the other.
Could this be explained by the very geometry of the universe itself not being symmetrical? As in, rather than being a 4-dimension sphere, flat, or hyperbolic, maybe it's more like an amorphous blob where some locations have a positive curvature and others a negative curvature, and what we're observing is just a slightly twisted-up region of our local cosmic event horizon.
The CMB is remarkably homogenous. Even the infamous "cold spot" is only a fraction of a degree colder than the CMB average. The homogeneity of the CMB is one of the major reasons why we believe inflation must have happened - we have no other theory that explains how temperatures could have averaged out over distances much greater than light could travel, other than everything blowing up so fast that temperature differentials didn't have sufficient time to form.
@@chriscrumly As far as I know there is not. The unique aspect about the cold spot is not its temperature (which is colder than average, but other areas in the CMB have similar and probably even lower temperatures) so there's not really anything to be its "opposite". The unique aspect is how large it is, suggesting that something possibly caused particles to be pushed out of that area. But its also possible that its just a far outlier in the smoothing process that took place before and during the cosmic inflation period. Unfortunately we have very little data regarding how inflation proceeded (and most of what we do have comes from the CMB itself) so its a lot of educated guesses and hypotheses that are not easy to verify, and many are not even easy to refute. Doesn't mean those hypotheses aren't worth making - you never know when we'll discover something new that could tie in and give us some direction - but we're still in a situation where its easier to rule ideas out than to confirm the ideas that can't be ruled out.
Friend. I can't even consider that prospect. Not because it's too unbelievable. But because it's already been strongly considered. So like. Bon voyage party at your simulation or mine after big light light go bright bright?🎉
Chirality has absolutely nothing to do with this subject whatsoever. Why would you think that asymmetry and chirality are the same thing? Seems to me that it's *you* who could do with being taught what "chiral and chirality" mean, and not "lots of people". 🙄 🍄
@@plateoshrimp9685 This is a science channel. Dealing in science. It's not a bullshit channel dealing in bullshit. You've heard of the phrase "exact science" I'm guessing? What I'm guessing, is that you *haven't* heard of the phrase "let's put random words together that have no relevance to the topic in question so I can appear clever science" And if you *have* heard of that phrase, then the Internet is more damaging than I thought. There's no room for sentimentality and 'feelings' in science, there's only precision and exactitude, so why *shouldn't* I point out when somebody is wrong, hmm? Pointing out errors is how we advance- if someone pointed out an error I'd made I wouldn't cry, or piss and moan about it, *I'd thank them* for putting me straight and helping me to get closer to the truth. But I'm not a little kid with a fragile ego to hold me back- my pride will allow me to be wrong, and more importantly, will be happy to have my mistakes pointed out so as to avoid making the same mistake in the future. 🍄
@@Heartford The world’s best theoretical physicists aren’t busy pondering religion and wars. The pastors and priests can spend their brainpower doing so without a significant setback to humanity’s scientific progress
To use an analogy, if the universe has 'chirality' and there's an abundance of one kind of 'handedness' over the other? I would suggest: 1 ) The obvious one is this is an artefact of methodology or mismeasurement. 2) If 'handedness' is a thing then as in chemistry and biology you start small with a random chance that one direction of 'handedness' dominates and everything will follow suit. In biology a consequence of how enzymes work, in chemistry simply how chiral crystals grow. Why not the Universe?
What if, since we believe there was something here before The Big Bang, could the interaction with various existing particles change or cause this CP variance?
@@portalmanHUN hello friend. You are wrong. Well-used science is beautiful and necessary, but science placed at the service of an egocentric scientist is dangerous. look at hiroshima and nagasaki or all the countries destroyed by the usa. Resources are spent trying to solve theories that are raised as a religious raises his belief in God. Like the big bang. Proposing that a universe was born from a dot is stupid. The big bang can be seen through a telescope but from there to say that before there was nothing and now there is a universe is like saying that God invented the world in 6 days. What's more, we don't even know how the solar system was formed. Millions are spent to justify the follies of self-centered people while the planet is falling apart. The science of medicine, architecture, engineering are wonderful. What is not wonderful is the obsession of some who believe they own the truth. Science today is used to take advantage of adversaries instead of solving problems of humanity or the planet. and people like you don't have much difference with a religious fanatic
I read the transcript to help me follow along with Anton. The transcript can give some very interesting results. For example at 1:04 Anton says "parity" while the transcript says "parody."
I think the question is worth investigating, but it's important to consider the difference between being in a black hole and like being in a black hole
@@tomenza well it's videos like this which affirm that while we may know much. In the grand scheme we don't know donkey dick. That said. I am not sure if I am stuck in one that exists within the event horizon of a higher dimensional black hole. Or like. This isn't where I parked my car... My car meaning I may have titanic'd my SpaceWhip into the wrong and most unglorious hole man...☆♡
@@tomenza and to be fair. Who could blame the universes most known magnetic force somehow getting itself sucked right into an ornery black hole. Seriously though, I wonder how THAT would play out.
What exists outside of "everything"? That which isn't? A perspective from "that which isn't" is perhaps impossible, so how can we contemplate ourselves within a black hole within nothing? A black hole within the cosmos makes more sense to me than this, but beyond that my contemplation begins to break down. However, this is not to say that the "totality" does not function like a black hole
I've been telling you, Anton, the big bang started with a rotational ellipsoid giant black hole explaining at least near all of these cosmological "mysteries".
It's not an elipsoid, it's a toroidal and we exist on an energetic gradient plane in that torroid. We can see through the infinite loop though and that creates infinite
@@brainretardant No, that's nonsense. But yes, the Hubble "constant" riddle has been solved already. Apparently you aren't up to date on cosmology, as the crisis has been resolved by myself already. The Big Bang was a hyper-massive rotation-ellipsoid-shaped, extremely fast rotating (which explains the direction-dependent Hubble constants, i.e. the Hubble tension, namely depending on the angle between equator & pole of the black hole and the associated minimum required internal pressure to eject matter with different resulting propagation speeds & accelerations) black hole (without event horizon, like Einstein & Hawking have predicted it, and thus without singularity through infinite mass density and without information paradox) with rupture of quark pairs (and thus the numerous, sufficient for the entire mass of the universe, creation of new quark pairs) but also rupture of itself at some point as a whole, which also caused the baryonic asymmetry (because even in a universe initially balanced between matter & antimatter, with fluctuations, can black holes tend to form only in regions of greater imbalance and mix their contents highly compressed for astronomically long times), the (observed by scientists) uniform rotational movement of all galaxies in the observable universe (by conservation or at least transmission of the angular momentum from the compact Big Bang black hole to the gigantic far out spread matter content in our universe), the big filaments & walls & arcs (logically more likely to be found in equatorial directions), the (super-)voids like the cold spot in the cosmic microwave background radiation (more likely to be found in polar directions) all together in one fell swoop.
"Might have discovered something really new about the Universe." This is becoming a daily occurrence. I wonder when we'll discover something really old.😊
Maybe the default state of a universe is asymmetry. That is to say, a standard Big Bang tends to produce only 'L' or R' versions of all particles. Or that you should expect to see only electrons or positrons, but not both. And the the slight asymmetry we see in out universe is essentially 'contamination' because the initial process isn't perfect.
Anton, question for you to think about: Knowing light is both particles and waves, is light subject to harmonics like sound is? If yes, how does that work?
Yes, light interferes just like sound does, and as a result, optical resonators (just like strings), feature longitudinal "modes" if those light frequencies are entered into the cavity, whilst the other frequencies are diminished!
Was the primary imbalance in symmetry during the very early universe during the phase transition from quark-gluon plasma? Apart from the profound curvature induced by the intense density of energy, presumably the cooling was not a uniform event. Would that mean that variations in temperature were inevitable? Even the slightest variation in temperature would have induced an energy gradient, and if even the tiniest of gradients manifest prior to inflation, then is it reasonable to assume that a preferred "direction" had been introduced into the system? Regardless, even if there were more antimatter than matter, we would simply call the more prevalent stuff "matter" and the scarce stuff would be the exotic option...
My head cannon is that the amounts of matter and anti-matter when the universe started were... almost equal. And the two sets did annihilate each other... almost completely. We are living in the small, small remnant of matter from the tiny, tiny difference between the two amounts. Our universe is the error bar.
I wonder what the handiness symmetry to asymmetry would look like for different regions of the universe via spherical harmonics? Lion Shamir's work showing the spherical harmonics of spinward asymmetry of spiral galaxies produced dipole and quadruple maps similar to the CMB dipole and quadruple giving evidence of a universe in rotation. Rotation implies that there is a preferred direction of rotation; be it clockwise or anticlockwise. By my reasoning, via Big Banh Kilonova hypothesis, this direction of rotation came from the direction of rotation of the two Super-neutron stars in towards each other and this would then could translate into this observation of handiness. But it would be interesting to see if this is handness is istropic or is anisotropic with an imprint matching the CMB dipole and quadruple.
It always perplexed me that scientists assume the big bang exploded outward symmetrically. Wouldn't it blow up like an hour glass, the way stars do? So one jet is spinning one direction and the other jet is spinning the other direction. And the space-time created by that explosion therefore wouldn't curve even if the crystalline universe theoretically does
@@NitpickingNerd "An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume associated with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases."
It can be both single sided , closed and symmetric. Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size. From this we can evolve a plane of the present using Kuramoto synchrony. Matter is on one side and antimatter on the other. But it's actually two parts of a single sided surface. Ones pose risk to time determines energy density. All things aspiring to maximal density, motion towards the plane of time. Which is an event horizon. The vacuum potential laid bare. A sheet of photons 90° to us. Surfsce(cos(u/2)cos(v/2),cos(u/2)sin(v/2),sin(u)/2),u,0,2pi,v,0,4pi The symmetrical Klein bottle
someone PLEEEEEEEEEEEEASE teach Anton when to use “the” and when to not use “the”! Such a smart guy, such a well developed show, that it really is a shame that he makes such basic errors all the time!
To me there are several related mysteries that all come back to why for example angular momentum is perpendicular in one direction rather than the opposite direction. I mean why do we live in a universe with a right-hand rule instead of a left hand rule? what's the difference? what makes it more fundamental?
It would be even more surprising if any human being on Earth had the remotest ability to evaluate or judge the symmetry of the universe. I'd say we have at best the chances knowing the shape of our universe as a bacteria comprehending the spherical shape of Earth. The bacteria is better off not giving a sh*t, and we probably are too. If we're being honest.
@@Synathidy ....but the degree of curvature or shape of the Universe has been measured even though the uncertainty in that measurement is not precisely known. Let me try and get this straight Mr Stupidity, are you saying that the only difference between a bacterium and a human being is size? Is that your contention Mr Serendipity? If it is, you may well owe everyone in here an apology my friend.
Seems like big assumptions on a small sample, but interesting to think about. Maybe the fringe theory of the Universe being an alien arcade prize purchased for playing 100 perfect games of Skee Ball will gain some traction again.
The integration of the tetrahedron in the early universe is what easily gives away the fact that we are a nothing but a simulation made by an alien species so more advanced than us that anything they do looks like magic even for the most intelligent specimens of our species, they really are simulating a simpler universe which they modified in a specific way that made our birth possible even though that could have not ultimately their purpose at all and we were not much more than a happy accident in their own Bob Ross-Computational canvas
I would suspect a Boltzmann Brain to simulate its original universe that led to conditions like itself. We are a consequence, not the purpose of the simulation.
But does that alien species also live in a simulation? So we live in a simulation inside a simulation? Where do the simulations end and the reality begin? :)
The real problem might just be our preference for symmetry. It is WE that need symmetry. The correct question might be, what USE does the universe have for symmetry? Thus, no symmetry at all until matter condenses. Symmetry is just not useful until the most important stuff gets done.
What if the antimatter is all here, but for some reason it’s expressing itself as dark energy, pushing stuff apart, rather than directly colliding with its counterparts?
Well, even if that were true there’s vastly more dark matter than there is “light”, visible matter, so we have the same problem again, that being there’s way more of one kind of matter than the other
@@kermanguy1877 He's saying that what if it's symmetric with spacetime as well Antimatter can already be modelled as normal matter that travels backwards through time meaning it could have reversed gravity. From it's perspective it normal matter attracting things gravitationally. From ours it's antimatter that's repulsed by gravity. So what if in areas where the electromagnetic force is stronger, it attracts normal matter.But in areas with more gravity than electromagnetism, it reacts away from matter.
These discoveries are cool. I’m just hoping I’ll be around for the big discovery. What if spacetime is endless discoveries? I watched Antares and Spica stars last night Vega shining bright too
Why do you think the Standard Model misses that? Well, apart from the fact that it is a matter (no pun intended) for quantum mechanics and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Standard Model... 🤔 🍄
It's most bizarre that science would expect the universe to be symmetrical - on what premise of evidence did they base that theory? I would expect the universe to be non-symmetrical because matter is random - even earth is not symmetrical.
I don't think the fact that SDSS has only surveyed part of the sky could falsify this finding. If it were the case that one big chunk of the sky is disproportionately right-handed, and the other disproportionately left-handed...that's still significant, it doesn't matter that it balances out. Or have I misunderstood something?
Seems like people aren't aware that 'space' is a substance. Einstein originally refuted that, but later thought he may have been mistaken. Considering 'space' as a substance, worm holes are easier to understand as eddies or 'tornadoes' in space. The inner worm hole is a 'space vacuum' with less 'spatial' distance between objects. Thinking this, other areas in space, and especially around large masses, space can be thicker or thinner. Causing variation is 'spatial distance'.
but like if the cosmic web has an overarching gravitational effect on matter in the universe it would kinda make sense that it would tend towards that, maybe its not necessarily random
Two things: 1)Does anyone else see weird faces in the Nebula Anton has in his backgrounds? 2) Holy Moley, Roley Poley!!!! - A million observations with a million trillion combinations? Well that blows my tiny little mind. Thanks Anton.
7:28 this and the big red radio signatures of Blazars look like "breath blown out of a mouth" like the patterns formed when I exhale what I'm currently smoking
That raises the possibility that it is symmetrical. If the universe is the debris orbiting a black hole, and what we see not symmetrical, then we are looking at what is moving towards us. Whats moving away from us is not visible because its on the other side of that black hole.
Interesting Anton thanks. Do you think the sample size of i million is too small? It seems like a lot. Also why should position make a difference if the Universe is homogeneous and Isotropic? Over there rather than over there should not alter things too much. Will Webb be able to see over there? Anyway, lets wait for the new launches and new studies.
I mean there is also the glaring question of how big everything actually is? We know 100% we can not, and will not, ever! see the entirety of everything. and in fact we also know we are loosing the ability to see things as time passes since its expanding. this is just because of how light works. so even if EVERYTHING we CAN see is asymmetrical, who's to say that's the norm for everything else? If I had to guess the greater cosmos probably flows like a fluid, since reality likes to repeat. from where we are it seems to be expanding, but we are in a high density area, dispersing to a lower density area..... just over such a long time we probably will never see the full affects. nor would it actually affect us.
Wait. Which “distance” are authors talking about? If it’s “proper distance” - this statement means that our universe is non-Euclidean, if my intuition is correct? (If you throw random points in a 3D space and calculate pairwise distance vectors - there will be no bias in any direction) Speaking of spaces: do they take into account expansion of the Universe? Given that we measure these distances from very far away, we cannot “measure” distance from one object to another - we approximate it using estimations of distance to them, and angle between them; but difference of distances to them is large enough (1billion LY, for ex.), these weird expansion effects become dominant. I have a hunch that it’s hard to get good numbers here. *Wait, that’s why they used so many stars? To average error out?.. Must read the paper
Thanks for another great video. The universe is always expanding and we’re turning on our own axis as well as orbiting our own star so how did their model include the universe’s expansion and our motion into the correlation points?
