Scientists are unsure about the age of the universe. Two methods of measuring the universe’s expansion have yielded different results, leaving scientists in a crisis of cosmology. The discrepancy in the two different calculations is known as the Hubble tension. Recent data has only further widened the gap between the two values. This means the math might be wrong or our current understanding of physics is incomplete.
Biographics: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClnDI2sdehVm1zm_LmUHsjQ
Geographics: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHKRfxkMTqiiv4pF99qGKIw
Warographics: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9h8BDcXwkhZtnqoQJ7PggA
MegaProjects: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0woBco6Dgcxt0h8SwyyOmw
Into The Shadows: https://www.youtube.com/c/IntotheShadows
TopTenz: https://www.youtube.com/user/toptenznet
Today I Found Out: https://www.youtube.com/user/TodayIFoundOut
Highlight History: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnb-VTwBHEV3gtiB9di9DZQ
Business Blaze: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYY5GWf7MHFJ6DZeHreoXgw
Casual Criminalist: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCasualCriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZdWrz8pF6B5Y_c6Zi6pmdQ
source
So, they tried with red giants, and it fixed everything
This is new physics, it shows hidden variables to study gravity, with a rational demonstration of the non-existence of dark matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5TU-YJrMVE
Too fast. I know it can artificially slow the video down. Fast for some, slow for others! However, its all a human construct.
I don't know how big the universe is but i don't believe it is "infinite". .how can it be? I don't think it's even possible. . Just my opinion tho.
MMMM LETS THINK WE CAN ONLY SEE AS FAR AS LIGHT CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IF WE GOT TO THE EDGE OF THE CURRENT VISIBLE UNIVERSE WE CAN SEE, HOW DO WE KNOW WE COULDN'T SEE 13 BILLION LIGHT-YEARS FURTHER? the SIMPLE ANSWER IS WE DONT KNOW
I have invented a new web search platform, which I call 'Whistler search', ask it anything and it will take you directly to the video where Simon explains it in detail…
So what's the calculated age of the universe using the Plank/red/giant data?
This guy is an AI
Cosmology is constantly "surprised" by new discoveries by updated instruments, which means it's failing as a theory, which predicts future observations. It's time to rethink the underlying theory. Perhaps the gravitational/mechanical model of a collection of autonomous objects needs to go.
The only way to defend Alex was just saying that he was just a little bit of a viking and he was just saying that the words that you can find out that they are just a little bit of a thing for the purpose of being able to get rid of the time they were manipulated and black. But not in a racist way.
I'll go with option 2, "there's new physics out there to learn". The ego of human beings is only matched by our ignorance. We are so certain that we know what we cannot know.
I would like to note that not only did we used to believe that the Milky Way was the entire Universe – we believed it less than 100 years ago! It was 1928 when it was finally realized that the Andromeda Nebula was actually a galaxy. My grandfather was 8! That's so bonkers to me, that not even 100 years ago we knew NOTHING of anything outside the galaxy!
A crisis occurs when a previously acceptable set of conditions are rendered completely unacceptable by a change in (or the addition of) one factor.
Think of the Missile Gap in the 1950s, or the reaction to the Fukushima earthquake/tsunami.
What we have with cosmology is not a crisis. It's just a curiosity.
We're missing physics.
And not only that – who would've imagined that we can't just sit on a rock and know everything there is to know about eternity? Including how old it is?
What is the chanting music you use in your transition slides (e.g. at 8:54)? I always want to hear that song play out. Many thanks for the videos; most of which I enjoy.
The double conclusion (the farther away = the faster it moves away from us) of the Hubble Constant keeps bothering me. We don't see it in our local environment – the Andromeda Galaxy moves towards us for example – but only at those debilitating distances. One tiny error correction at the upper end of the Distance Ladder and the Universe is a lot more, if not completely, static.
I'm no astronomer, so I probably overlook some basic principle, but I just wanted to say it keeps bothering me. I've not yet seen a satisfying answer on this question.
"Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." Bernard Shaw
200 trillion dollars and endless Brony conventions later…."we don't know shit"
The map at 7:14 looks like a map projection of earth. Maybe we're just looking at ourselves all the time.
the scientists have been making this universe size/age stuff up since before I was born. It's crap science, akin to morons saying all the matter was created in less than a second. They have no idea whatsoever.
You don't know how big the universe is and you NEVER will, because it has to be infinite and man cannot comprehend infinity. It's bigger than anything our minds could ever conceive. The Heavens declare the glory of God, NOT the glory of man. Only God is everlasting and infinite in all things. So, science's attempt to answer questions like these is in vain…God made sure of that. It's His way of saying , worship Me. love Me, and obey Me, but don't even try to understand Me.
It's called GOD idiots
Why accept the conclusions of individuals that mostly failed calculus?
Measuring the universe is like measuring God it's impossible it's illusionary..
Universe is like a woman. Mysterious.
A very well-written presentation. Easy enough for any lay person.
Conclusion: there's no consensus of opinion on the age of the Universe.
So, is 13.7 billion years roughly correct? Watch this space for an update…
The closest cepheid variable is one of the most famous stars in the night sky. See if you can answer it off the top of your head.
Polaris. The North Star. Not that most people could actually point it out in the night sky as it is not exactly all that bright. But I have always found that little fact rather amusing. That fact always pops into my head whenever using the polar alignment scope built into the GEM I use for my little Newtonian (150mm f/5).
The age of the universe was calculated based on the big Bang theory a theory that has pretty much been disproven since the fifties. The most recent addition to this pile of evidence being James Webb finding galaxys at a point in time when we should barely have been able to form proto galaxys
The further we look in space, the farther back in time we look. Doesn't that mean that space expansion was faster in the past?
The fact that objects further away are moving away at faster speed in nothing to do with the increasing speed of expansion.
It's simply that the expansion is uniform wherever you are.
Take two objects in opposite directions in our sky bit tge same distance away.
If they are moving away from us at say, 100 km per second, then they are moving away from each other at 200.
In other words, the speed they move apart is directly proportional to their distance apart.
How is this particular thing a crisis when our ignorance of the universe is so vast?
Prior to 2015 there was no Hubble tension, because each of the calculations using the CMB techique had resulted in values close to the values that resulted using the Distance Ladder technique. In other words, the CMB results changed after 2014. We're told the CMB results after 2014 are more accurate and more precise than the earlier CMB results, but the fact that all of the CMB results after 2014 disagree with all of the earlier CMB results is a hint that a systematic error may have been introduced in 2015, causing the 2015+ results to be wrong, despite their smaller error bars (improved precision). Perhaps greater scrutiny of the changes of CMB methodology that occurred around 2015 is warranted, to verify no systematic error was introduced, particularly if the Webb telescope reinforces the Distance Ladder value instead of resolving the Hubble tension.
If local time everywhere is modified by local gravity then isn't the constant going to seem both constant locally and at a great distance across multiple gravity systems despite the photons themselves having been 'delayed' relatively by frames of 'heavier' time?
Fascinating with such a limited snapshot of the universe we can estimate it on the whole. Even if there persists an error.
I hope you feel better soon Simon. Have some soup
11:50
Looks like: H=(2/π)w(relict)^2/w(pl).
P.S. Details are here – "GR was QG": https://docs.google.com/document/d/11WwQMj7cJt5pfJYSr26DwUCzelkXlyHd/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=110286572639581187540&rtpof=true&sd=true
Just core the universe and count the rings.
Job. Done.
Mind the gap!
We don't know because the answer is too complex for our current way of thinking…what if the universe has always been and will always be, it's our tiny brain that tries to tidy it up with a beginning and end
Big Bang theory is ganna be flat earth theory.
Yea its like we are on ocean planet in a boat and we have a spy glass and we can only see to the horizons