Astronomers claim universe has 'cosmic glitch'

#cosmology #physics #BigBang
Science news outlets around the world have reported a possible "cosmic glitch" in the universe.
We chatted with one of the authors of the paper that made this claim.
Niayesh Afshordi and I discuss what motivates it, how it was tested, and how it might be further tested in the future. Most importantly, what impact it might have on the very origin of the universe. Might we have to rethink cosmology and consider what was before the Big Bang?
00:00 Introduction
2:23 motivation
5:32 Hubble tension
9:15 Return of the ether
12:00 Quantum gravity
13:25 observations
15:40 S8 tension
18:00 Big Bang
20:00 future tests

[Bob-of-Zoid]

You never fail to impress Skydivephil! Coming right out of the gates with one of the big guns in current science, and such a great communicator Niayesh Afshordi, and always taking on the most pressing issues of the day. Before I discovered one of your videos a few years ago it took me a few "Who the f*ck is Skydivephil, how does he get from skydiving to climate change, and why should I click on this and find another moron selling false beliefs or woo, or another incompetent making a fool of themselves caught in a dunning Kruger vortex before I watched one and was blown away for your straight to the point and right to the core approach, add the professional presentation and production...

You are not just a true gem for a social media find, but real potential to be a force to be reckoned with in the connection of scientific reality and political ongoings on a world scale! I really think you qualify as Nobel prize (Peace) candidacy, and hope the PBS's and BBC' of the world take notice, and put you out there and give you some reason and resources to advance this!

Knowledge, more so and even first and foremost education, more specifically being taught and given the tools for how to think (not what to think) is the essential key to the survival and advancement of the human race in a universe with the odds so highly stacked against us, to the point in light of that, that we ourselves are so freaking flawed that most of us go through life with no concern about actual reality, no desire to believe in as much truth and as little untruth as possible, no attention to our own influence on others and the ever so present complaints about having to sleep in a bed you help make standard issue... so all the stuff you seem to be fully aware of; The human condition, or may I say conditions as there are a vastness of them, and you are a rare breed for it!

Also: If I ever catch you in a mistake (fat chance), I will point it out, if you ever change face (shit happen), I will try to pull you out of the rabbit hole, and if you ever lie and to me expose a nefarious agenda, I will pounce, but until than I won't miss a video of yours unless it's tech's fault out of my control, because you and whoever works with you rock big time!

[ArtemisFaulken]

Wow I’ve seen interviews with Niayesh before and his ideas were “novel” but I am not sure what point he’s trying to make here.

He says that their current data suggest a 1% difference at a 2-3 sigma confidence. That sounds like science but it’s not.

A difference in what? He cited a plethora of things that GR theorizes that “might” be wrong… maybe non constant G, maybe preferred reference frames, maybe scale dependent, maybe no big bang singularity.

Seems to me like he’s throwing a handful of darts and making it sound like there is something novel he has found.

Everyone knows that there are disagreements in H0, just as with large scale gravitational observations but at least the scientists who put forth theories like Dark Matter, MoND, etc actually verbalize what they are going to measure to validate the theory.

It seems to me that he doesn’t really have an answer except that they are going to look at Euclid and DESI data.

While he’s at it, maybe he can check if having pancakes on a weekday changes G.

[zebrachess]

Just give the universe a slap, like an old valve tv, no more glitch.

[andystewart]

So cool! Thanks for keeping us up to date on these exciting possible findings!!

[Triring]

There is a ether for gravity, it's called space. Gravity is a result of interaction between energy(mass) and space, as suggested within general theory of relativity. The one thing Einstien did not suggest is that I postulate is that there is a saturation point in which there is a limit amount of energy that can be stored within a certain unit of space resulting to a plane of space not a singularity.
If you work this postulation backwards, the amount of gravity should work differently within a galaxy compared to what you see in the void since within the space in a galaxy the space is some what occupied compared to space within a void.

[cameron]

She's a strange beast, this universe of ours! Great video, thank you++

[Naia]

I realise this is utterly trivial in context, but I am quietly delighted to see that Dr Afshordi still uses a blackboard and chalk. When I started my teaching career, back in the Dark Ages, this was the norm, and I was rather sad to move to OHPs, white boards and smart boards.
I'll get my coat ...

[ellyam]

This was a very interesting conversation!

[Supernova_sapiens]

This channel is a hidden gem. Thanks Skydivephil!

[JayCross]

Here's an idea for fiction-writers: The glitch is not space/distance based, but rather happened when early cultures all over the universe (a few billion years ago) first started using time travel.

[KoiinaCup]

That glitch is the reason we will always get the age of the universe wrong … it could be much younger or much older …

[realcygnus]

Great content as always ! Just imagine the celebration mode of the EU & flat erf crowd if some form of "aether" does make a comeback. 🤪

[robotaholic]

This glitch is in gravity not in the universe and it's hypothetical. Title was sort of disingenuous

[MaxPower-vgvr]

To prove that quarks (subatomic particles) are more real while protons and neutrons (atomic particles) are less real, we need to establish a clear definition of what we mean by "real" and then provide evidence or logical arguments that support this claim. Let's approach this step by step.

Definition of "real":
For the purpose of this proof, we will define "real" as being more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality.

Proof:
1. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter:
- Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark, while neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks.
- Quarks are not known to have any substructure; they are considered to be elementary particles.
- Therefore, quarks are more fundamental than protons and neutrons.

2. Quarks are indivisible:
- Protons and neutrons can be divided into their constituent quarks through high-energy particle collisions.
- However, there is no known way to divide quarks into smaller components. They are believed to be indivisible.
- Therefore, quarks are indivisible, while protons and neutrons are divisible.

3. Quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality:
- The Standard Model of particle physics, which is our most comprehensive theory of the fundamental particles and forces, describes quarks as elementary particles that interact through the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.
- Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, are composite particles that emerge from the interactions of quarks.
- Therefore, quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most fundamental scientific theories.

4. Quarks exhibit more fundamental properties:
- Quarks have intrinsic properties such as color charge, flavor, and spin, which determine how they interact with each other and with other particles.
- Protons and neutrons derive their properties from the collective behavior of their constituent quarks.
- Therefore, the properties of quarks are more fundamental than those of protons and neutrons.

5. Quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons:
- Without quarks, protons and neutrons would not exist, as they are composed entirely of quarks.
- However, quarks can exist independently of protons and neutrons, as demonstrated by the existence of other hadrons such as mesons, which are composed of one quark and one antiquark.
- Therefore, quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons, but not vice versa.

Conclusion:
Based on the above arguments, we can conclude that quarks are more real than protons and neutrons. Quarks are more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most advanced scientific theories. They exhibit intrinsic properties that determine the behavior of composite particles like protons and neutrons, and they are necessary for the existence of these atomic particles.

It is important to note that this proof relies on our current scientific understanding of particle physics and the nature of matter. As our knowledge advances, our understanding of what is "real" may evolve. However, based on the current evidence and theories, the argument for the greater reality of quarks compared to protons and neutrons is strong.

[imwelshjesus]

Anybody ever tried turning it off and back on again.

[edstauffer]

Phase transitioning dark matter means different ratios of gaseous to liquid dark matter in different gravity wells and in different times

[thenumbernine]

If they haven't figured out how to apply GR to galaxies in the last 40 years then I don't have much faith in them applying it to the universe at large

[frankshifreen]

ALSO, since we know that the Hubble Volume, observable universe is probably a tiny part of real Universe

[SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

See there is no expanding universe: All systems have some kind of power of expantion just like say our sun, next level are groups of stars wich will have a higher order of expansion, after comes super clusters of stars that must have a higher rate of expansion, maybe then all form the galaxi that has a much gratter out put of expansion, then come clusters of galaxies, super cluster of galaxies and so on but as the system grows so the out put of systems. and by that power of expansion is the need of space separating one from another - NO EXPANDING SPACE NEEDED.

[NondescriptMammal]

Why would scientists use a decidedly unscientific term like "cosmic glitch"?