Hacking The Cosmological Distance Ladder
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- There is a disagreement in measurements of the Hubble constant often referred to as The Crisis in Cosmology. One way to solve it is to observe redshift drift. However, it requires lengthy observations. But my guest, Dr Geraint Lewis, has a hack up his sleeve - gravitational lensing.
👉 Redshift Drift story on Universe Today:
www.universetoday.com/162845/...
👉 The Redshift Difference in Gravitational Lensed Systems: A Novel Probe of Cosmology:
arxiv.org/abs/2308.07529
👉 Dr Geraint Lewis' website: www.geraintflewis.com/
👉 Twitter/X: / cosmic_horizons
🦄 Support us on Patreon:
/ universetoday
📚 Suggest books in the book club:
/ universe-today-book-club
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:41 Understanding the expansion of the Universe
00:03:10 Hubble Tension and Crisis in Cosmology
00:05:53 Cosmic ladder of distances
00:17:30 CMB measurements
00:24:47 The Boring Solution
00:31:10 The Exciting Solution
00:37:25 Red Shift Drift
00:48:05 Time machine for free
00:54:14 Perfect solution with unlimited funds
00:57:05 Advice for young astronomers
01:03:44 Outro
📰 EMAIL NEWSLETTER
Read by 60,000 people every Friday. Written by Fraser. No ads.
Subscribe for Free: universetoday.com/newsletter
🎧 PODCASTS
Universe Today: universetoday.fireside.fm/
Astronomy Cast: www.astronomycast.com/
🤳 OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter: / fcain
Twitter: / universetoday
Facebook: / universetoday
Instagram: / universetoday
📩 CONTACT FRASER
frasercain@gmail.com
⚖️ LICENSE
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to use my work for any purpose you like, just mention me as the source and link back to this video. - Věda a technologie
appreciate you saying "facts don't care about your feelings" without saying it 😂
No alternative facts zone
My nephew Henry is in 8th grade. I explained to him how today's telescopes are true technological marvels, but the telescopes he'll see in his lifetime will be almost unimaginably powerful, allowing astronomers to see all the way back to the beginning of time and the edge of the universe. "What do you think people will say then?" I asked him. His reply: "They'll say ,"Oh crap, more universe!'"
Each telescope creates more questions than it answers. 😀
Ignorance is the ultimate elementary force of nature! Knowing more means knowing how much more your ignorant.
Just found this channel. I'm blown away that I haven't seen it until now. Great stuff.
It is always awesome to hear from Dr. Lewis! He does a great job of making these huge topics a bit more understandable by tiny brains such as myself.
Yeah, he's a terrific person to interview for topics like this.
Fraser Cain is one of the best of making his and guests voices the same volume. Other similar channels are so bad at this and make listening almost impossible without raising and lowering the volume ever few seconds
The key is recording your audio and the guest's audio separately. Then you can change their levels separately.
@@frasercain20+ years as a science communicator is a fact that goes a long way into making good videos (both in form and in content). Keep it up, man 😊
David butlers playlist "how far away is it" really helps understand these vast distances
Yeah, that's an incredible series. The distance ladder is one of the most incredible achievements made in science.
@frasercain you guys make youtube such an incredible tool! Another excellent & informational interview once again
Everything you put up is a gem.
Thank you, Mr. Fraser ❤
Thanks a lot, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I really enjoy it when Fraser geeks out with the scientists on the front lines of discovery. Always a good time.
These interviews are some of the most fun that I have in this job. I get to be the curious one. :-)
Ohhh I can feel the hubble tension in the room
This was one of the best seminar - symposium - dialogues on astrophysics that I have ever seen by a far
I wondered why I didn’t see this topic on the poll. Thanks for making a separate vid! Interesting AF🎉
Glad you enjoyed it!
An amazing conversation. Thanks!
Want to say thanks to Dr Lewis, I really love these discussions, this is fantastic.
I've only recently discovered your channel, working my way through your videos.
You've earned a new subscriber, great content Mr Cain,thanks.
Thanks!! Great guest Fraser. I'm watching this at 3am here...not a good stimulus for addressing insomnia..for me anyway. Cheers.
Either it puts you to sleep or you learn something. Either way it's a win. :-)
@@frasercain definitely learning!
I've been looking forward to this interview. Dr. Lewis has a really nice perspective on cosmology. His ideas relating to the application of these new instruments in measuring the Universe's historical expansion rate are fascinating.
I used to be obsessed with The Great Attractor but now I'm into The Axis of Evil (and I don't mean Iran, Iraq, and North Korea lol) and I wish a channel with rigorous ethical reputation like this one would cover The Axis of Evil some day. 🙏😁
I don't think there's much there. An underdense region in the CMB with a cosmic void in front of it. Nothing cosmology breaking.
Try curiosity stream.
So you know sometimes teachers may chastise students for apparently daydreaming in class… when actually the topic of the class is so fascinating the listener’s mind wa(o)nders inescapably past some black (rabbit) hole’s event horizon… that’s me listening to this 😊 (thank goodness for pause & rewind buttons & well produced, thought provoking interviews like this :-)
What a great conversation! Learned a lot today. Thank you, Fraser! 🔭
Great interview Fraser! Keep up the amazing work!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Incredible interview & discussion w Dr Lewis. Thank you Fraser.
He's always an amazing guest.
What a great guy! What a great interview! Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it.
Excellent and informative interview. Thank you!
Fascinating conversation, as usual :)
Henrietta Swan Leavitt, a human computer who was not allowed to use a telescope because she was a woman, discovered the period-luminosity relationship for Cepheid variables, called Leavitt's Law. The accomplishments of Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer who established that the universe is expanding, also were made possible by Henrietta Swan Leavitt groundbreaking research. Hubble often said that Leavitt deserved the Nobel Prize for her work.
I was going to jump in and add that, ,but people always say I shouldn't interrupt my guests.
@@frasercain I like to note women in science, but also kudos to Pickering (her mentor) for giving her the credit and Hubble and others too. Many women in Europe and the US were not credited even decades after this.
Lots of people deserved a Nobel Prize. Almost all of them are men.
Great interview, It cleared up some things for me personally.
Oh great, it helped me too.
Awesome talk, learned a lot!
Great one! Thanks, Fraser.
Wow, I didn't know there was so many ladder steps on the distance ladder. Thanks for another great video. Enjoyed it, and learned!
There are dozens of varying accuracy.
Thanks a lot from Barcelona for this super-interesting interview. I have a very simple question about cosmology: The CMB is the farthest thing we can see, as the radiation we receive today has been traveling for 13.7 billion years.
From what distance did the CMB light that we receive today started?
Thanks a lot!
@~58 min Taking ideas from many different perspectives is the key to solving really big problems.
Regarding the sephid variable stars, could there not easily be other properties of the stars that influence the measurement, such as metalicity and rotation for instance?
red shift drift is an amazing idea. I hope we have a chance to see the results.
Great talk
How much did the density fluctuations and ripples affect the time that atomic hydrogen started forming? Were there places where there was hydrogen condensation and then rereionization?
I won't watch it now, but I like the thumbnail
Sounds familiar. Most of my teachers were worried about my intrinsic brightness
Thank you. 👍
Once again a great interview! One variable we don’t understand what is the CMB xpanding into.. thats unknown physics. Maybe something is sucking the universe out as opposed to dark energy we can’t see.
Dumb question here, I’m trying to wrap my head around a couple things. I always here how everything is accelerating away from us, this makes it sound like we are not moving which I understand we are. Is there anything that is just flying through space just parallel with us or our galaxy etc? Or possibly coming right at us? Like another galaxy or solar system heading right at us like a freight train??
Supernova explosions are not uniformly circular. Some areas are denser and move outward faster than others. Perhaps the Big Bang was similar. Did some areas expand faster? Could a non-uniform expansion give different results depending where you look?
I still can't get my head around the fact that a Galaxy, far, far away, has been taking a million years to get to us and jet we can send Radio and what ever type of waves out and get info back in months.
If the gravity wells in the early universe were deeper than we thought (time dilation from quasars) then the total time since the CMB measurements is not uniform from then until now. If dark matter condensed causing rapid galaxy formation then began to evaporate once stars ,AGN, etc were formed
The problem in essence is that we don't understand quantum gravity. The gravity that we sense here in ourspace time is a dynamic equilibrium of field flux that to us seems as flat as a pancake. But in the earliest universe particularly as the transition between inflation and expansion occurs, our only sense is that space settled down after 300,000 years (which if you think about it after the light cone expanded 3 x 10E20 meters we can see CMBR. In general relativity the spacetime variances propogate at c, in all directions all the time, which means even by the time we get to CMBR its pretty flat.
But there's a problem CMBR is a relatively low resolution view of the heavens. And that snapshot was taken when the universe was (13.8/.0003)^3 or 100 trillion times more dense and at a time when things like dark matter effect would be much higher in small areas. We see that massive blue stars are forming much larger than thought possible. And so the problem is that we have been used to examining stars within 9 billion ly from earth, but this secondary inflation begins after 9 billion ly. And so the new telescopes allow us to see stars and star formation.
So we can boil this down to a simpler statistical problem. If you are extrapolating something, lets say we fire a cannon ball from say a high place earth, we can extrapolate its path based on fixed surface gravity and a flat earth, but beyond an elevation of say 500 km, that balls motion will begin deviate, also if the ball moves futher away its course will deviate. We can correct for that by modeling a curved surface and using newtons gravity. But at some point far enough away from the surface that objects motion is going to be effected by the moon, then the sun, the other planets, the objects in the local star cluster, then the galaxy itself. Extraploting gravitational effects is therefore adding into the equations known parameters and then crunching out answers. But at some point N-body problems are beyond the computational ability of the best computers.
And so for objects at great distance we cannot see the parameters, and in particukar we cannot see dark matter, only its effects. If we go back to the CNBR universe when the density if everything is 100 trillion times greater, hiw good is our ability to extrapolate backwards.
And so with new instrumentation the errors of old measurements become more clear because the new instruments are seeing the actual data the old instruments extrapolated into. Those instruments need time to explore the nuances. But there is a secondary problem that as you peer outward in space you reach a point that as the c*t = c(13.8 - x) t in billions of years where x is the age of the universe when that objects light is generated but the problem is that a t approaches 13.8 billion years red shift rapidly increaes and so does density. Thus extrapolating into that curvature, say 12.8 to 13.8 bly , will have more error than extrapolating into the the region 8 to 9 bly away.
And so the hubble tension is not so much a problem in that it means that as the instruments become more precise, we are seeing new things we previously guessed about. And so now as anomalies are seen people will look for new pieces of the puzzle and try to fit them together and eventually they will find a few pieces (parameters) that cause errors in the old observations that can be added to the equations.
My problem is this however. Spacetime appears to be a self stabilizing flux, its able to expand or contract based on its state . This all make sense when D = mean density of space and dD/dt is very small. But what happens when dD/dt is changing rapidly, can we use our experiences and observations of spacetime to extrapolate backwards in time and predict how all of physics is going to work.
What bout measuring g-ripples of one frequency within the multiple alternate g-ripples and quantizing the frequencies in order to range the sources in a multiple triangulation mode ?
How does one know the error bar? How is it measured and calculated? How does "I'm not certain" translate to a specific number?
plot twist: the Hubble constant has some variance to it, so it's not a constant; it's a variable, varying through the twisting and turning of the expansion of the universe.
I'm confused by the statement at the beginning of this video. You stated that as we look at objects that are farther away they're moving even faster away from us. Isn't that exactly what we should expect?
I wonder if these things could affect the accuracy of Cepheid stars, dust and gas occlusion and Quantum electrodynamic effects on electromagnetic waves which could also affect redshift and the perceived expansion of space time…🤔
In the early universe would dark energy not be less dense relatively to matter? Could that not account for it having a different effect on the universe at early time?
Fraser, I appreciate that you've cut out the introductions (who are you, what do you do). It wasn't bad or anything, but I prefer the current brief intro by you, and then the jump straight into the interview.
I trust this doesn't come across as criticism...I mean it wholly complimentary!
Yeah, I like this style. It gives people a good overview of what we're going to talk about and then jumps right into it.
How "wide" is a gamma-ray burst? Is it a beam, like a laser, or more like a cone?
If we assume for a moment that hyperinflation (or similar foundation) of the early Universe theory is wrong and something else explains our observations. Would this change the expansion calculations from the CMB?
That theory, whatever it is, will not only have to explain the things hyperinflation does specifically, but also everything else our current cosmology does as a whole: it is BECAUSE the CMB looks the way it does that hyperinflation is generally accepted as a working theory in the first place.
To answer your question directly, under such a theory it may not even be useful to talk about "CMB calculations," since it would probably give a very different explanation for the origin of the CMB itself, not just why it looks the way it does. =)
@@R.Instro let me rephrase my question. Does the cosmological constraint computed from the CMB depend only on the visible compression wave patterns or does it depend on any other assumptions of how it formed?
Yes I know trying to replace the current theory is a big deal. But the disagreement gives reason to question all assumptions that go into the computation. Given the lack of ANY actual measurements before the CMB, it is reasonable to consider that some variation of the the current theory might still explain all observations and remove the conflict.
L Krauss did speculate that redshift may change historically due to proximity of matter.
A spectrometer can always be calibrated to atomic lines whose source is here on earth. I don't see how even replacing a spectrometer entirely is a valid concern.
Nature rarely if ever repeats itself - I think it is really ballsy to assume such a thing as "Intrinsic brightness". That's one hell of an assumption that the region of space (density of fuel available etc.) around each Cephid Variable will be the same.
One of the things that has always bothered me is the number of significant digits the age of the universe or the distance to the cosmic event horizon you hear from popsci sources. I routinely hear 3 or 4 sig fig estimates and I would guess it's more like 1 or 2.
Why would you guess it's wrong? Planck measure it to this: 2.72548±0.00057 K
It was an entire spacecraft built to make this one measurement with this level of accuracy.
What about building a machine that measure distances to stars, and we send to mars, so we measure both from earth and from mars, wouldn't that make measurements much more accurate?
It would give you a longer baseline for that parallax method, but you wouldn't get much additional accuracy. You could make Gaia able to measure distances a little farther with a little more accuracy.
Fraiser, I have a question you cannot answer.Talking about the constants of the universe, "Are they actually constant, or are there variations over various areas, distances, timelines?" We have not seen any significant variations of these constants over our investigations. But were we looking for them? If we can seek ( in LIGO )a fraction of the diameter of a proton, yet we're discovering continuity in the WAVES OF GRAVITY? we're about to observe variations in gravity waves with periods over thousands or millions of years, to see orbits of mega black holes of similar wavelengths. "ARE THE CONSTANTS OF THE UNIVERSE ACTUALLY CONSTANTS, AND IF SO WHY ARE THEY SO STABLE. What answers for the stiffness of the constancy?" Maybe the universe is not expanding, but maybe TIME is imperceptibly slowing down, and we just haven't seen it yet.
Physicists have run many experiments to see if theyre changing over time and it's never been seen. They do seem to be constant.
Not understanding black body radiation would be a far bigger crisis than the Hubble tension, since if BB is wrong, then thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, special relativity are not compatible.
TRGB for the win!
11:33… Gaia! What took so long Fraser? 😂
All the time if there is all the time, I try to connect all areas of science and philosophy but this creates serious problems in communications with specialists, especially those who think there is only one way to think or not think.
Does Universe Today / this channel sell any pins? I love this channel and would love to add a pin to my pin collection on my backpack
We don't sorry. :-(
@@frasercain aw man. Well, thanks for the answer
51:00
"Set out" or received at different times? The light leaves when the light leaves. How long it gets here is the difference.
The photons from each lensed image of the same object are received at the same time by the observing instrument, however they appear in different spots on the sky, giving us two or more images. The photons of those images reached us at the same time, however to have made separate images, the paths taken by the photons from each image must be of different lengths, and thus must have been emitted at different times by the object. Now, Dr. Lewis believes that the light from the more distant version of the object should be more red-shifted in all cases, rather than that the red shift of the longer *path* would be greater. I need to listen again to see if he explained why this should always be true.
couldn't the cosmic background scientists look at the waves (that are analogous to the CMB waves) at every stage of the universe were we have data (from light) and show where the ladder is off?
The CMB is a single sphere and we can have high confidence about the age of that sphere. We don’t have the same kind of data for the more recent “stages” of the universe, not at the moment at least. It’s like the CMB is a thin sphere of “fog” but once the fog “cleared” all we have are photons from stellar bodies, which is the “ladder” from the interviews.
Is it possible dark matter and energy is a part of a higher dimensional level, influencing our 3D space/time dimension ?
The best way to resolve the Hubble Tension is to light some incense and play a little smooth jazz.
That'll relax any kind of Hubble tension.
Figuring out the exact amount of quantum drag a photon has will make all possible speeds, distances and curvatures calculable.
It's a simple solution we can solve with in the next decade. ;O)-
Looking through a lens of physics always suffers from the particulate crystallography imbued by the inherent model characteristics. Try twisting that crystal, nematic, cholesteric or otherwise.
If you need to look at distant things you need a lot of polishing of your lens. If, on the other hand, you can "grow" a pre-programmed lens to impart the precise characterics you require, then you can observe your target. Just need to differentiate this attitude towards the Fourier conclusion as regards the physics principle.
Every ruler has an error bar +/- 50% of the smallest increment.
'jus 'sayin
Ok map out all the mass clumps/dark matter and then calculate the "de blooping" or calculate the corrections for all of that einsteinian lensing that shows very distant objects taking in many cases a much longer time to reach us because of all the twists and turns that the mass made it do then you're hubble tensions will be in finer agreements?
There seems to be a consensus that space-time is not flat; it has slight negative curvature. This means that spherical shells have more than 4pi steradians of solid angle. Since the distance ladder began with parallax angles, it concerns me than none of you describe how space-time's negative curvature has been corrected in your distance measurements. Sol's and earth's gravitational acceleration will also affect the light's trajectory and this GR effect also doesn't seem to have been considered. Possibly even Sagitarius A's black hole needs to be considered.
The scientific consensus is that it's flat, from my understanding. Did you have a recent paper that scientists are citing?
At the Planck scale the universe is flat (as far as we can tell), at a lower scale it may well be curved but that does not affect on the energy scale we operate at and can measure with our current understanding of physics.
@@frasercain Pretty much everything that considers the supernova candles.
1:23 - where is that animation from? - how do we know the gravity is in that shape?
We don't understand red shift as much as we think we do. Halton Arp wasn't all wrong...
Halton Arp made predictions about tired light that don't match the observations. When that happens, you have to discard the theory.
What if there is no red-shift drift at all?
That would be a really interesting result.
What Will happen when the expansion rate Will exceed the Speed of light?
There are many galaxies seen where they've moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Light always has to be moving at the speed of light, so the wavelengths get redshifted. The fastest galaxies will just redshift into the wavelengths so long we can't observe them without monster radio telescopes.
Einstens left over math used to pre program cmb input to image may not even be a constant it could be something else no one knows
Dear.. Atom.. Now you know distance.. Univers diameter. Size not 97 - 98 bly.. 7000 +- BLY.. Imagine.. Jago Baramand.. Arun Jagoji JaMBhuLKaR.. 15/5/1969..DhaRMapUR Bhiwapur Nagpur MaharAshtra
What's wrong with staying on X?
Its not a great experience right now, and the science community has mostly abandoned it. I'm finding Mastodon has a much better vibe.
If everything is expanding away from each other. Please explain why the the Andromeda galaxy is heading our direction? To eventually join with our galaxy.
We're close enough to be bound by mutual gravity. There are about twenty galaxies in the local group and we're bound for a merger. Everything else is accelerating away.
The same reason your body is not smeared across the surface of the earth by gravity.
The bonds the hold your molecules together are stronger at that distance than gravity.
So too, the gravity that attracts those close galaxies together, is stronger than the dark energy expanding the universe.
It's just lazy language to say everything is expanding away from each other.
@nihlify It's no more lazy than saying rain falls down, when updraughts are a thing.
There is a very similar balance of forces within atoms.
Protons repell each other electrically the same way electrons do, and would normally fly apart due to this, and not allow any atoms with atomic number greater than Hydrogen.
However, there is another force that attracts protons (and neutrons) to each other. This is called the strong nuclear force, and it is in fact much stronger than the electric force.
So why don't all protons and neutrons just suck together as one giant atom containing all protons and neutrons?
The answer in both the atom, and cosmological motion, is that not all forces behave the same as distance changes.
The electric force (and gravity), fall off in strength according to the inverse square law. The strong force falls off even faster as distance increases. So within a small distance (on the order of say, the radius of a Uranium nucleus), the strong force will dominate the electric force, but because the strong force is fading faster with distance, beyond that the electrical force has more effect.
The tug of war between gravity (obeys inverse square like electricity), and "dark energy" is something like a mirror image of what happens between the electric and strong forces within the atom.
But in this case gravity is the stronger force. Whatever "dark energy" is, it is inherently much weaker than gravity. But while the force of gravity is falling off with distance, the 'force' of dark energy is GROWING with distance. Instead of obeying an inverse square law it may be following a 'linear' law, or even a 'square' law.
Brightness is NOT a conclusive measure of distance.
The strongest force is magnetic which is electrical.
If everything is flying away from everything else at the speed of light, htf do galaxies collide?
Gravity
And, is there really no "wear & tear" on photons? It can "fly" trough space for billions of years and be as fresh it was on the day it escaped an atom when it arrives to us?
If we could measure somehow some deterioration of photons that will be like a "time-tag" telling us when it was created?
That appears to be the case. A photon is emitted and then travels until it gets absorbed by an atom. It could take a nanosecond or 10 billion years.
Mind you that a photon travels at C, so they don't experience time themselves
@@fep_ptcp883 - the optimal way to stay fresh in other words, move at C
Twitter is number one ☝️
It used to be a lot better. I hope they can turn it around.
IT'S MUCH HARDER THAN YOU THINK 😋
❤️ Journalism. ^.^
FRAZIER IM UR BIGGEST FAN BROWSKI
Thanks!
Every video dust potentially a source of error. Every video gravitational lensing gives us the answer 😂
Didn't a probe at edge if soler system measured the darkness outside and it didn't match the prediction? Sounds like it says something about how much light we see.
Frasier Cain's first words: "A lot of our understanding of the Universe depends on our ability to measure distances..."
And for that we have depended on our present interpretation of cosmic redshift.
Last year when the James Webb Space Telescope produced the deep field images, we discovered that the 'Dark Ages', an epoch consisting primarily of primordial particles right after a supposed Big Bang, does not exist. Instead, that cosmic volume turns out to be full of galaxies.
If the Dark Ages - a realm predicted by cosmic redshift - was wrong, then our interpretation of said phenomenon is not fully understood.
Sadly, that doesn't seem to bother the majority of cosmologists. Instead of tackling this obvious problem, they devise unprovable handwaving explanations that cannot be verified.
JWST has not proven the dark age doesn't exist. Where did you hear that?
@@frasercainThat's a very polite "citation needed' 👍😃
@@frasercainFully formed galaxies 13.4 million LY from a Big Bang? In what fantasy universe does one go from primordial particles of the 'Dark Ages' (supposedly ending 300 million years after a big bang), to galaxies 100 million years later?
And incidentally, looking around on the subject, I'm not seeing any recent articles referring to the 'Dark Ages'.
Have you?
I'm going back to your original comment. You said JWST disproved the Dark Ages. Can you direct me towards this research?
So dark matter is everything we can’t measure or justify in anyway 🤔
Almost sounds like a desperate term?
It's a collection of measurements that don't match existing theories for how matter is expected to behave. Either the theories of gravity are wrong or there's an invisible matter.
The high redshift of CMB is supposedly because the assumed denser gas clouds in early universe that we have no proof of?
The CMB is the proof that the early Universe was once dense enough that light couldn't escape.
Webb telescope reveals BB cosmology is likely not correct.
Hi Fraser, what is this agest thing about your Mum? She was probably around when there were mainframes only, and punched tape or cards, things were more difficult then. No CZcams videos to show you how, you needed a good understanding of the maths structure of a problem and a keen understanding of how numbers work (factors etc). I think you need to buy her a really good birthday or christmas present (which ever next) !!! Great video though, thanks.
My Mom died about 10 years ago from Alzheimer's, sadly. But before that she was a technical writer for an aerospace company. She inspired me to become a technical writer and eventually that led to me becoming a journalist.
We are about to have UAP disclosure so it's a bit of a moot point to aspire to be a chimney sweeper but that aside, if we trust parallax to a significant extent, how about yeeting a few very light 7 meter mirror telescope out with a vasimr engine to whatever max speed we can get. 100AU in 10 years. Comparing to Gaia measurements out to 20kLY, such a scope should be able to range out to 10MLY which is perhaps a pretty good baseline. Still subject to new physics but should be so information rich as to rule a lot out. Since it's enough to span our galaxy it might shed a lot of light on the galactic spin anomaly, maybe rule out dark matter.
Uh, thats what he… oh never mind.
So at 1:1:35, you say that your mother was surprisingly good at technology for someone of the previous generation, but I feel like you're falling into this trap of thinking that old people somehow don't understand technology, when in fact they have far more experience with it than you do. What's actually happening is that we younger folks have been exposed to newer technology more than the older generation have and whenever an older person doesn't know how to deal with a new tech, it's because they have no experience with it. This is exacerbated by the fact that many older people don't wanna put in the work to learn something new, for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean they don't understand technology. Most of the time, those older people will have a very strong understanding of the technology that is now ubiquitous, but was novel in their time or was commonplace in their time and is now on its way out.
A perfect example of this is that episode of Star Trek: The New Generation where they visit a Starfleet space station and Captain Kirk asks Wesley Crusher to come with him to visit the Admiral. Now Wesley has never left the Enterprise, as he was born there part of the way through their multi year mission. When they come to the Admiral's office he walks right into the door, because growing up on the Enterprise that has automatic sliding doors everywhere, he has literally never seen a door that wouldn't just open up for him and Captain Picard is forced to show him how a door knob works.
If you've been around long enough, you have seen multiple examples of this, where young people are completely clueless about a piece of tech that predates them, but older people are experts in it. For instance, my mother couldn't install an operating system to save her life, but she can take apart and service any type of sewing machine you put in front of her, from hobby machines to industrial and highly specialized models. I can get into Unreal Engine and put together a video game, but I see an overlook machine and I'm completely lost. She has the opposite reaction, due to, of course, life experience, which I feel we tend to downplay when looking at older people. The truth is that our world has been "high tech" and evolving rapidly faster than a human generation since the 19th century. The vast majority of people alive today have personal experience with high technology, its just that i might not be the type or generation of technology that YOU have experience with.
Why has cosmologists not acknowledged the fact the Hubble constant is not really a constant but instead an average?
Example; Edwin Hubble measured many galaxies that didn't fit the dark energy or Hubble constant postulates, here are just 4. Galaxies A & B were 16 megaparsecs away while galaxies C & D were both 93 megaparsecs away.
Galaxy A was moving at 500 km/s = a velocity of 500 km a second / 16 Mpc = 31.2 km/s per megaparsec
Galaxy B was moving at 6,500 km/s = a velocity of 6,500 km a second / 16 Mpc = 406 km/s per megaparsec
Galaxy C was moving at 3,500 km/s = a velocity of 3,500 km a second / 93 Mpc = 38 km/s per megaparsec
Galaxy D was moving at 10,200 km/s = a velocity of 10,200 km a second / 93 Mpc = 110 km/s per megaparsec
The interesting thing is even though galaxy B was much closer to us than galaxies C and D it's velocity per megaparsec was much higher. This clearly indicates there is no Hubble constant. The Hubble average is evident a single cause like dark energy is not responsible for the accelerated expansion of space.
The only way dark energy can be remotely considered as a cause is if the expansion rate throughout the universe was a constant. But that's not the case.
Just because the Hubble constant is labeled as a constant doesn't mean anything if it's NOT a constant. When I did the calculations I could not come up with a constant value. There is no Hubble constant. It's an average of 70.5 km/s per megaparsec. As you can see, not one of these galaxies are moving away from us at 70.5 km/s per Mpc. There's no single explanation for the accelerated expansion of space because it's not a constant. The Hubble constant is an average, which completely debunks the dark energy postulate.
The evidence for dark energy comes from the Type 1a supernova measurements. If you've measured the expansion rate of the Universe at different rates at different times to a level of accuracy that tells you that dark energy isn't necessary, you should be publishing it in a journal, not posting a CZcams comment.
That would possibly be interesting if you supplied any sources.
I'm just an interested layman, but are you saying redshift isn't coupled to the distance of a galaxy because galaxies are themselves in motion relative to the expansion of the universe as a whole? Does what I say even make sense? Are galaxies like those firework particles which accelerate after the initial explosion? Could galaxies or the super massive black holes in them be ejecting matter and rocketing around the universe or is that just silly talk?
@@AbAb-th5qe Redshift is somewhat tied to distance but it's not accurate. Hence the Hubble tension.
Astrophysicists currently use the Hubble constant 70.5 km/s per Mpc to determine distance according to redshift. The idea is the higher the redshift the further the galaxy. Which I've shown above the Hubble constant is not really a constant but an average. The margin of error at 13.5 billion light years away can be as much as +/- 500 million light years because the Hubble constant isn't constant.
Space is said to be expanding because of dark energy. If dark energy was causing the expansion then it would be the same everywhere, one action, one reaction. All galaxies would be receding away from us at a constant per megaparsec. That's why Hubble came up with the rate of acceleration per megaparsec and then called it a Hubble constant. But the accelerated motion of galaxies is not a constant with distance. Clearly indicating one single action is not responsible. Something else is causing galaxies to move at different rates per megaparsec.
Yes sort of, "rocketing", a slow but constant ion propulsion. I call it AP theory for accelerated propulsion in my books. Basically, stars and galaxies propel themselves like spaceships towards a point of least resistance. You know, towards a location in space where there are no other stars or galaxies to produce a repulsive reaction. In the books I published I proposed the slow acceleration is produced from constantly spewing energy and particles from the star or galaxy. Every action produces an equal yet opposite reaction. The reaction is a slow acceleration of about 0.00000482 in/s² (0.0000122 cm/s². It equates to an increase in velocity of 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) every 10,000 years. The older the star or galaxy is, the more momentum they will have gained over their life. This slow acceleration happens to stars and galaxies at the same rate. Space isn't really expanding. Stars and galaxies slowly propel themselves over time.
Also in my books I proposed the action causing all this motion is the same action causing gravity. Thus the bodies that produce the most gravity would in turn be producing the most energy. I then proposed supermassive black holes would be producing massive amounts of energy and matter around them. They too would be propelling themselves just like stars. The ion winds flowing away from the black hole would slow down and convert into elementary particle. Protons cool and form into massive clouds of gas from where stars are born. I then proposed young stars would be birthed close to the supermassive black hole and slowly migrate away as more and more matter formed around the black hole. The youngest bodies would be close to the black hole while the oldest bodies would be located furthest away. The old bodies will have gained considerable velocity over time. Then explaining why the stars and satellite galaxies furthest from the central black hole are orbiting so fast, to which they currently blame on dark matter.
@@ronaldkemp3952 That's a very interesting hypothesis. What testable predictions are implied by all this? BTW the effect I was trying to describe is called a flying fish firework apparently
time we stopped thinking so small, and instead start to speculate on the forces at play on our universe from outside, we might be in a universe acted upon by external sucking forces more relevant than internal pushing forces, this could also replace the problems associated with the goldilocks theory and the ludicrous solutions posited to solve them
by dealing with all these issues simultaneously we might begin to get some idea of what our reality really consistes of and so start to understand a much bigger picture universe