The search for a single number,
the Hubble constant,… …the rate of expansion of our universe,… …has consumed astronomers for generations. Finally, two powerful
and independent methods… …have refined its measurement
to unprecedented precision. The only problem…
is that they don’t agree,… …and it’s causing to question… …some of the most basic assumptions
about the universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble…
discovered the universe. He gave us
our first incontrovertible proof… …that there are galaxies
outside the Milky Way,… …by measuring the distances
to the spiral nebulae They were many millions
of light years from us,… …far outside the Milky Way,
and so must be galaxies in their own right. Combined with the Doppler shift
velocity measurements of Vesto Slipher,… …Hubble revealed that the galaxies
are not only receding from us,… …but they are receding at a rate
proportional to their distance. An impossibly vast universe
had been discovered beyond the Milky Way,… …and at the same time
that universe was revealed to be expanding. The galaxies appear to be racing away from us,
because the intervening space is expanding. We encapsulate the expansion of the universe
with a single number, called the Hubble constant. H-naught (H0) It tells us how fast the galaxies appear to be
retreating from us, dependent on their distance apart But, more fundamentally, H0 tells us
the rate of expansion of the universe… …in the modern era. Ever since Hubble’s great discovery,… …the search for H0
has been the all-consuming obsession… …of thousands of astronomers
across the generations. And, understandably,… …the rate of expansion of the universe,
combined with the gravitational effect… …of the matter and energy it contains,… …can be used to determine
its entire expansion history,… …from the Big Bang to its final fate. And it’s fundamental for interpreting
our observations of the distant universe,… …whose light has traveled billions of years
through this expanding cosmos. You can imagine the alarm
when the two most powerful methods… …used to measure this fundamental parameter,
the Hubble constant,… …gave different results! But before we get to that, let’s talk about
the great quest to measure the Hubble constant. Until the new millennium, the best we could do
was to estimate H0 within a factor of 2,… … somewhere between 50 and 100
kilometers per second per megaparsec. These strange units
warrant some explanation. Km/s, that’s for
the recession speed of a given galaxy. Megaparsecs is for its distance,… …with 1 megaparsec being
around 3.3 million light-years. If the Hubble constant were, say,
75 km per second per megaparsec,… …then for every 1 mega parsec distance,… …we’d expect the galaxy to be retreating from us
at an additional 75 kilometers per second. Historically,
measurement of the Hubble constant… …meant measuring the recession velocity and distance
for as many galaxies as possible. The velocity part is relatively easy. Just do as Vesto Slipher did,
and measure redshift. This is the lengthening of the wavelength
of light from that galaxy,… …which was stretched as it travels to us
through an expanding universe. The distance…
that’s tricky. Hubble used Cepheid variables,… …giant stars,
during the last phases of their lives. They pulsate with a period… …that’s related to their true brightness,
as discovered by Henrietta Leavitt. Measuring Cepheid periods in other galaxies
gave Hubble their true brightnesses,… …as though undimmed by distance. Cepheids became what we call “standard candles”,
objects of known luminosity,… …whose observed brightness, therefore,
tells us their distance. But this calculation
involves assumptions and uncertainties. For one thing, the Cepheid
period-luminosity relationship… …first had to be calibrated,… …based on nearby Cepheids,… …whose distances can be figured
using stellar parallax Tracking their tiny motions on the sky,
as Earth orbits the Sun. This stepwise determination of astronomical distances
is called the cosmic distance ladder. With each step on the ladder,
uncertainties compound. Add this to our uncertainties in the behavior and observation of Cepheids themselves,… …and the precise measurement
of the Hubble constant… …has been a slow laborious process. As larger telescopes
and more expansive surveys were completed,… …we gradually whittled down
the errors in H0. An important advance was
the development of new standard candles. Cepheids are good, but can only be seen
out to a certain distance. Supernovae can be seen much further,… …and type 1a supernovae are the key. These result when white dwarfs,
ancient remnants of dead stars,… …absorb too much material
from a binary partner Runaway fusion
causes them to detonate. The resulting explosion
has highly predictable brightness,… …making them
excellent standard candles. In the 1990s,… …astronomers were using these supernovae
to better nail down the Hubble constant. They inadvertently discovered… …that the expansion of the universe
is actually accelerating,… …revealing the existence of dark energy. One of the Nobel Prize winning researchers
behind this discovery is Adam Riess. Riess has continued the quest… …to refine our measurement of H0
to ever greater precision. A big part of his work is to improve the calibration
of type 1a supernovae as standard candles. Riess’s Supernovae H0 for the Equation of State
project, – SHOES -,… …uses the Hubble Space Telescope
to match old supernovae observations… …with new, more reliable Cepheid variables. By improving this run
on the cosmic distance ladder,… …all past supernovae distances
also improve. Recent teams have now narrowed down the Hubble constant to 73.5 ± 1,7… …kilometers per second per megaparsec That 2%-ish uncertainty… …is a hell of a lot better
than the old factor of 2 uncertainty. So, where’s the crisis? Well, in order to fully believe
a measurement like this,… …we prefer it to be made
through independent methods. The SHOES project measures the recession of galaxies
up to around 2 billion light years away. So it’s a more or less direct measurement
of the CURRENT expansion rate. But there’s another way to go. What if we could measure the expansion rate
of the universe at the very beginning? Then, we could figure out what its current expansion rate should be, given our best understanding… …of all the gravitational influences
that affected that expansion since the Big Bang. So, we’d better hope
that it does give the same result,… …or there is a big problem,
with either our supernova measurements… …or with our understanding
of how the universe evolved. Spoiler: …
there IS a problem. There’s another reason to try to calculate H0 from observation of the early universe It’s that that observation I’m referring to
is far more reliable than Cepheids and supernovae. I’m talking about the
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the CMB. This is a topic we’ve been over,
so, for now, just the TLDR. The Cosmic Microwave Background is the remnant
heat glow of the universe’s initial hot dense state. Released around 400,000 years
after the Big Bang,… …when the universe had finally cooled down enough
to become transparent to light. We still see it today,… …now stretched by a factor of 1,100
by its near 14 billion year journey… …through an expanding universe. This is the map of the CMB across the entire sky,… …created by the Planck satellite. The speckles are
tiny differences in temperature,… …corresponding to tiny
differences in density. The blue regions are a factor of 100,000
cooler than the red regions,… …and also slightly more dense These over-densities… …would go on to collapse into the vast
clusters of galaxies of the modern universe. So,… how can the CMB
tell us the Hubble constant? The key is
the sizes of those speckles. In the era just before the release of the CMB,
matter and light were trapped together. Matter wanted to collapse
under its own gravity,… …while light generated a powerful pressure
to resist that collapse. These counteractive forces
produced oscillations,… …really vast sound waves
that rippled across the universe. These are
the baryon acoustic oscillations,… …and they occurred
on all different sized scales,… …sloshing between high and low density,
over those 400,000 years. Then,… …the release of the CMB meant that light and matter
were no longer coupled together. And so those oscillations stopped. The state of the oscillations
at the moment of that release… …is imprinted on the CMB,
in those speckles. We usually show
the distribution of speckle sizes… …with what we call a power spectrum,… …which basically shows the abundance
of speckles of different sizes. The location of these peaks… …tells us which oscillation modes… …just happened to be at their peaks… …at the moment the CMB was released. This, in turn, depends
on the density of matter and radiation,… …as well as the expansion rate
of the universe in that early epoch. So, how do you get the Hubble constant,
i.e., the current expansion rate, from all of this? Well, first you figure out
what starting cosmological parameters… …could give the power spectrum
observed by Planck. Those parameters include the starting combination
of both dark and light matter, and radiation,… …as well as the initial expansion rate. And then,… …you figure out how the universe
described by these parameters… …should evolve to the present day. This sounds involved,… …but the Planck power spectrum is so rich
with information, that the Planck team… …claim to have calculated H0
with even better precision than SHOES. The problem is,
the results don’t agree. The Planck H0 is 66.9 ± 0.6
kilometers per second per megaparsec,… …compared to the supernova result
of 73.5 ± 1.7. Now, they’re actually
remarkably close,… …given we figured them out
from data at the opposite ends of time. But they also seem
irreconcilably different,… …3,7 sigma different in fact. Which means a 1/7000 chance… …that that level of difference
could have happened through random errors. This is the crisis in cosmology. This discrepancy first emerged in 2016, when
Riess’s new calibration of the supernova-derived H0… …revealed it to be in real conflict
with the Planck result from a couple of years earlier. Since then, calibrations have been improved,
results have been rechecked,… …and independent methods have been used
to calibrate the supernovae as standard candles. The difference is real,… …and, in fact,
the error bars are only getting smaller. Okay, before we declare
all cosmology broken,… …let’s think about the two main possible sources
of this discrepancy. First: there are unknown
systematic sources of uncertainty… …in either the supernova
or Planck measurements. Biases, that are driving one or the other
to be too high or too low. Perhaps we don’t understand
Cepheid variables like we thought,… …or perhaps gravitational lensing alters the
Planck speckles differently to how we thought. Ongoing efforts are ruling out
systematic errors one by one,… …but it’s possible there’s still something
we haven’t thought of yet Second: there’s some unknown physics… …that needs to be taken into account
for the CMB calculation. This is the most exciting possibility There are a few options. So let’s start a new list. One: A new type
of very fast-moving particle. Insufficient numbers could skew the energy balance
of the early universe, and mess up the calculation. That particle could be
the sterile neutrino,… …a hypothetical, non-interacting neutrino,
that isn’t part of the standard model. Two: Dark matter particles
behave differently to how we thought. Perhaps dark matter interacts more strongly
with matter and radiation,… …which would shift the sizes
of those CMB speckles. Three: Dark energy isn’t constant. The current calculations assume that dark energy
is described by the cosmological constant,… …which, by definition,
doesn’t change. But if dark energy increases,… …that could explain why we observe
a higher H0 in the modern universe… …than is predicted by extrapolating
from the early universe. The answer will depend on whether the more
correct measurement of the Hubble constant… …comes from Planck or SHOES. New observations and new telescopes
will refine these numbers even further. Independent methods, like using
gravitational lensing, or gravitational waves,… …will weigh in on one side or the other. Perhaps the uncertainties will be refined,
and the two results will converge. That’d be cool. The near centennial quest to measure
the expansion rate of the universe will be concluded. Or perhaps the discrepancy will persist. That would be even cooler We’ll have a new tool… …to investigate the mysterious physics
of dark energy, dark matter,… …or of unknown particles
beyond the standard model. For now, we continue
our obsessive quest for H0… …and for what it’ll tell us
of the origin and fate of our expanding space-time. In today’s comment responses,
we need to catch up on 2 episodes. First, it’s our journal club
on Dr. Jamie Farnes’ paper… …about negative mass dark fluid… …as a unifying explanation
of both dark matter and dark energy. Then we’ll get to comments
on our CPT symmetry episode. So, a friend of a friend
of Dr. Farnes’ chimed in. Leo Staley’s friend says that Dr. Farnes
doesn’t necessarily believe the claims of his paper,… …but rather its purpose
was to spark interesting ideas among physicists. Well, okay. I totally respect that motivation
to publish even quite fringe ideas,… …and he certainly
sparked a conversation. I mean, look,
I’m still talking about it. Andrew Paulfreyman points out that… …the gravitational lensing measurements
of dark matter… …will give the exact opposite results
if dark matter is due to this negative mass fluid… …than if it’s actual,
positive mass matter. And my intuition tells me
that this is right. Gravitational lensing
is the bending of light by a gravitational field. We see it in the warping
of images of distant objects,… …due to the gravitational fields
of more nearby galaxies. We can use that warping
to measure masses. And yeah, those measures tell us
that dark matter has positive mass I’d need to do the simulations,
but I have a feeling… …that we wouldn’t even see
this sort of strong gravitational lensing… …if the effect of dark matter
was due to this dark fluid. Marik Zilberman’s
distaste for negative masses… …is that they produce perpetual motion machines
and paradoxes left and right. Exactly what I thought. When a theory leads to these – sort of –
pathological predictions, it’s a big red flag. And we’re actually going to do
a challenge question episode,… …to explore these paradoxes. Stay tuned. Okay, let’s move on to our episode
on the ultimate symmetry of nature,… …the simultaneous reversal
of charge, parity, and time. First up: a few of you asked questions
about time reversal, so I want to clarify. The T in CPT symmetry
isn’t a literal rewinding of the clock. It’s best thought of
as a reversal of all motion,… …both linear and angular momentum. Everything reverses direction. If the universe has
this sort of T symmetry,… …then, if you reverse all motion,… …the universe will evolve exactly backwards,
to its initial state. Turns out that’s not the case,… …as demonstrated by the different forward/backward reaction rates in certain quantum interactions. But the universe IS symmetric
under full CPT inversion. Now, a CPT inverted universe
is not the same as this universe,… …but the laws of Physics are the same. The point is that you can’t tell
which of the two you’re in. TinyFox Tom asks whether mass
would be inverted under CPT symmetry. And I guess you’re referring to the idea
that time-reversed energy has its sign flipped. So, the simple answer is no,
because the T in CPT isn’t a true time reversal. But in the case of a true time reversal,
the answer is, essentially, yes. And a negative mass particle,
moving backwards in time,… …is mathematically the same as a positive mass particle moving forward in time That notion makes sense in the math,… …and is used in, for example, Feynman’s
path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. But it’s not so obvious whether this idea
corresponds to anything physical. Rishit Vora asks how a T inversion
would affect a black hole? Well, a true time reversal
that included the interior of a black hole… …should transform it into a white hole. Everything that ever fell in
would come rushing out,… …and presumably reassemble itself into
the stars, spaceships, monkeys,… that originally fell in. As to the motion reversal symmetry
of the T in CPT,… …frankly, I’m not sure, because we don’t know
the state of matter in the black hole. But, at any rate, remember
that T symmetry is broken. Both the T of CPT
and true time reversal symmetry. So a rewound black hole shouldn’t revert exactly
to whatever it formed from. That doesn’t mean
information is lost. Just that it ends up
in a different form. And back to dark fluid for a sec. Mr. Nation [?] has his own unified theory
of the Dark Sector. He reveals to us
that dark energy equals dark matter,… …times the speed of dark… …squared.
[ DE = dm•(cd^2) ] Genius on so many levels. Not only scientific levels,
but still, levels.

The Crisis in Cosmology
Tagged on:                                                                                                                     

100 thoughts on “The Crisis in Cosmology

  • March 11, 2019 at 6:43 am
    Permalink

    Why do cosmologists talk about the "moment" when the CMB was released, when the hotter denser regions of the universe must've taken longer to cool enough to release their CMB radiation?

    Reply
  • March 12, 2019 at 10:37 pm
    Permalink

    Dose quantum physics effect space and time on a large scale ,I keep thinking that quantum particles travel in time and space but in away were they would always be were they were going be ,basically when we observe them that's were they were always going to end up when we don't they seem random so time travel in a quantum realm could be what's happening would also exsplane spooky auction at a distances ,just wondering if it interacts on a large scale that we don't quite understand yet ,also before the big bang wonder if on a quantum level something was happend and that's what caused the big bang

    Reply
  • March 13, 2019 at 11:38 pm
    Permalink

    Isn't the Hubble constant a length of time? What does that mean?

    Reply
  • March 14, 2019 at 9:43 am
    Permalink

    It would be really helpful if you write on whiteboard use some diagrams or animation

    Reply
  • March 15, 2019 at 1:43 pm
    Permalink

    No, Shen Yun! No, no, no!

    Reply
  • March 15, 2019 at 9:55 pm
    Permalink

    my dad loves your videos and hes an engineer 😊😁

    Reply
  • March 19, 2019 at 4:20 pm
    Permalink

    Hello, i have been strugling with a simple question. Imagine you have a system of two blackholes and a star orbiting each other. Now imagine that the system gets to an arrange that the star is slingshot by the gravitation of the blackholes and increases its speed. The cinetic energy of the star is increased, where this energy came from? It looks to me that in a way the energy was stolen from the blackholes… isnt this forbidden?

    Reply
  • March 19, 2019 at 8:36 pm
    Permalink

    Here are the questions about the system of the universe in the laws of thermodynamics
    Here are the three questions
    1. Do you live in the open universe?
    2. ‏2. Are we a secluded system?
    3. ‏3. Are we in a closed universe?
    The fourth question about the models of inflation theory of the universe
    Is there a model consistent with the system of the universe?
    What are the predictions of inflation theory about the system of the universe?
    Please send my five questions to cosmologists
    .

    Reply
  • March 20, 2019 at 4:51 am
    Permalink

    What if dark matter behaved differently in the early universe? Maybe since the hot temperatures that affected atoms from forming and combines our forces messed with dark matter as well.

    Reply
  • March 20, 2019 at 10:05 pm
    Permalink

    7:41

    "The blue regions are a factor of 1/100000 cooler than the red regions, and also slightly more dense."

    I thought the red regions – corresponding to lower wavelengths of light by analogy with visible light – were coolest and most dense. Is this a mistake or are you using a map with an inverted color scheme? This website, for example, uses what I stated: http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/cmb.html

    Reply
  • March 21, 2019 at 8:23 am
    Permalink

    if measure light time=0 but since space travels faster than light than is time measured in negative numbers

    Reply
  • March 21, 2019 at 8:25 am
    Permalink

    What is the universe is an infection and that's why it's always expanding?

    Reply
  • March 21, 2019 at 9:55 am
    Permalink

    We are doomed & more funding is necessary to find out when hehehehe dark matter & dark energy also needs more funding hehehehe finding earth like planets needs more funding or at least the launch of the $10 billion James Webb hehehehe more money will fix everything..

    Reply
  • March 21, 2019 at 12:48 pm
    Permalink

    FTL Bro…

    Reply
  • March 21, 2019 at 2:34 pm
    Permalink

    Well the answer is obvious isn't it?
    Hubble Constant = 42

    Reply
  • March 21, 2019 at 3:36 pm
    Permalink

    12:16 Why the obsession with background music?

    Reply
  • March 21, 2019 at 4:28 pm
    Permalink

    It's plug and play math, just plug in the numbers without knowing the equation, it's pretty stupid.

    Reply
  • March 22, 2019 at 8:57 pm
    Permalink

    he all ways moves his eyebrows😂😂

    Reply
  • March 24, 2019 at 3:15 pm
    Permalink

    2+3=the answer

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 5:54 am
    Permalink

    SHOES

    Reply
  • March 27, 2019 at 2:31 am
    Permalink

    Why are we wasting so much time and energy on theories of creation? Yes yes, the big bang is probably right! Let's move on!!! How about more focus on physics that actually helps humanity evolve beyond chemical fuels? Or discovering a way to create/manipulate gravity? More on excelling; less on the primordial soup. Thanks.

    Reply
  • April 1, 2019 at 7:12 pm
    Permalink

    Does it matter that cephid and supernovae measurements are distorted by cosmological time?

    Reply
  • April 2, 2019 at 5:06 pm
    Permalink

    Jamie Farnes is stealing from the Jean François Petits's Janus model. He is a real piece of shit man.

    Reply
  • April 3, 2019 at 11:08 pm
    Permalink

    Im pretty sure people are just super bad at data analysis and their error analysis is trash. Seen that in practicals in uni so it must carry on in the careers

    Reply
  • April 5, 2019 at 12:23 am
    Permalink

    If the universe is expanding and the universe is infinite in all directions, is there a chance there could be some galaxies moving towards us due to the expansion?

    Reply
  • April 5, 2019 at 1:56 am
    Permalink

    Is it possible that dark energy is a residual tail of dark matter as it moves through space, and that these things are "dark" because dark matter is moving faster than light, and the way it does this is that dark matter is the universe itself expanding in all different directions, that these are the fastest-expanding points of the universe?

    Reply
  • April 7, 2019 at 8:38 am
    Permalink

    Is it possible that the expansion of the early universe is slower, due to stronger gravitational forces in a more evenly distributed 'plasma universe'?

    Reply
  • April 8, 2019 at 11:15 pm
    Permalink

    what would the affect be if the speed of light got slower or faster over time

    Reply
  • April 11, 2019 at 1:35 am
    Permalink

    fyi lightspeed is not a constant. And dark matter is still a theory. That's like measuring wind direction with a wet finger.

    Reply
  • April 13, 2019 at 1:46 am
    Permalink

    I'm increasingly curious that the expansion constant of the universe is directly proportional to its size.

    Reply
  • April 13, 2019 at 6:05 am
    Permalink

    Most probably the source of the discrepancy is a disturbance in the Force. Luke already knew it.

    Reply
  • April 13, 2019 at 6:25 am
    Permalink

    Why would they assume that space is expanding in an even way? Wouldn't certain areas expand faster than others, depending on the region's material content?

    Reply
  • April 16, 2019 at 2:49 am
    Permalink

    I think I see your problem in quantum equations. You all are having difficulty deciding who is right and from what area in the universe in which you should apply the equations. Not just where but when. I will offer advice from our Chinese cultures. To become enlightened of one's self first you must find balance within. Without balance your understanding will never become clear
    Confucius
    In other words you must find the equations that bring the cosmic energies into symptomatic equilibrium from there you can begin applying equations that will have a sound based and understood origin

    Reply
  • April 16, 2019 at 5:50 pm
    Permalink

    The answer is 46 and 2

    Reply
  • April 18, 2019 at 10:54 am
    Permalink

    its all huge assumptions based on tidbits of info… a new religion that is a useful approximation… worshipped by knowitall assholes in comment sections…. who will refute me to sate their knowitall asshole egos.

    Reply
  • April 18, 2019 at 4:10 pm
    Permalink

    explaine how the vacuum of space stays away from earth ???????? , ill be waiting

    Reply
  • April 26, 2019 at 11:56 am
    Permalink

    That’s one of your best..,!

    Reply
  • April 30, 2019 at 6:27 am
    Permalink

    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. Albert Einstein

    Reply
  • May 4, 2019 at 11:45 pm
    Permalink

    It would seem that the "constant" would prefer to be a variable.

    Reply
  • May 5, 2019 at 2:48 am
    Permalink

    Spatial cosmology displays the various, multitude of worlds embedded in the universe. Spatial cosmology can also be divided into two branches. The vertical (or cakravāḍa; Devanagari: चक्रवाड) cosmology describes the arrangement of worlds in a vertical pattern, some being higher and some lower. By contrast, the horizontal (sahasra) cosmology describes the grouping of these vertical worlds into sets of thousands, millions or billions.

    Vertical cosmologyEdit

    "In the vertical cosmology, the universe exists of many worlds (lokāḥ; Devanagari: लोकाः) – one might say "planes/realms" – stacked one upon the next in layers. Each world corresponds to a mental state or a state of being".[9] A world is not, however, a location so much as it is the beings which compose it; it is sustained by their karma and if the beings in a world all die or disappear, the world disappears too. Likewise, a world comes into existence when the first being is born into it. The physical separation is not so important as the difference in mental state; humans and animals, though they partially share the same physical environments, still belong to different worlds because their minds perceive and react to those environments differently.
    The vertical cosmology is divided into thirty-one planes of existence and the planes into three realms, or dhātus, each corresponding to a different type of mentality. These three realms (Tridhātu) are the Ārūpyadhātu (4 Realms), the Rūpadhātu (16 Realms), and the Kāmadhātu (15 Realms). In some instances all of the beings born in the Ārūpyadhātu and the Rūpadhātu are informally classified as "gods" or "deities" (devāḥ), along with the gods of the Kāmadhātu, notwithstanding the fact that the deities of the Kāmadhātu differ more from those of the Ārūpyadhātu than they do from humans. It is to be understood that devais an imprecise term referring to any being living in a longer-lived and generally more blissful state than humans. Most of them are not "gods" in the common sense of the term, having little or no concern with the human world and rarely if ever interacting with it; only the lowest deities of the Kāmadhātu correspond to the gods described in many polytheistic religions.
    The term "brahmā; Devanagari: ब्रह्मा" is used both as a name and as a generic term for one of the higher devas. In its broadest sense, it can refer to any of the inhabitants of the Ārūpyadhātu and the Rūpadhātu. In more restricted senses, it can refer to an inhabitant of one of the eleven lower worlds of the Rūpadhātu, or in its narrowest sense, to the three lowest worlds of the Rūpadhātu (Plane of Brahma’s retinue) A large number of devas use the name "Brahmā", e.g. Brahmā Sahampati ब्रह्मा सहम्पत्ति, Brahmā Sanatkumāra ब्रह्मा सनत्कुमारः, Baka Brahmā बकब्रह्मा, etc. It is not always clear which world they belong to, although it must always be one of the worlds of the Rūpadhātu. According to the Ayacana Sutta, Brahmā Sahampati, who begs the Buddha to teach Dhamma to the world, resides in the Śuddhāvāsa worlds.

    A diagrammatic representation of a Buddhist Universe

    Formless Realm (Ārūpyadhātu आरूपधातु)Edit

    The Ārūpyadhātu (Sanskrit) or Arūpaloka(Pāli) (Tib: gzugs med pa'i khams; Chinese: 无色界/無色界;Jpn: 無色界 Mushiki-kai; Burmese: အရုပဗြဟ္မာဘုံ; Devanagari: आरूप्यधातु / अरूपलोक) or "Formless realm" would have no place in a purely physical cosmology, as none of the beings inhabiting it has either shape or location; and correspondingly, the realm has no location either. This realm belongs to those devas who attained and remained in the Four Formless Absorptions (catuḥ-samāpatti चतुःसमापत्ति) of the arūpadhyānas in a previous life, and now enjoys the fruits (vipāka) of the good karma of that accomplishment.Bodhisattvas, however, are never born in the Ārūpyadhātu even when they have attained the arūpadhyānas.
    There are four types of Ārūpyadhātu devas, corresponding to the four types of arūpadhyānas:

    Arupa Bhumi (Arupachara Brahmalokas or Immaterial/Formless Brahma Realms)Edit

    Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatanaनैवसंज्ञानासंज्ञायतन or Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaनेवसञ्ञानासञ्ञायतन (Tib: 'du shes med 'du shes med min; Jpn: 非有想非無想処; Burmese: နေဝသည နာသညာယတန ) "Sphere of neither perception nor non-perception". In this sphere the formless beings have gone beyond a mere negation of perception and have attained a liminal state where they do not engage in "perception" (saṃjñā, recognition of particulars by their marks) but are not wholly unconscious. This was the sphere reached by Udraka Rāmaputra (Pāli: Uddaka Rāmaputta), the second of the Buddha's original teachers, who considered it equivalent to enlightenment. Total life span on this realm in human years – 84,000 Maha Kalpa (Maha Kalpa = 4 Asankya Kalpa). This realm is placed 5,580,000 Yojanas ( 1 Yojana = 16 Miles) above the Plane of Nothingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana).

    Ākiṃcanyāyatana आकिंचन्यायतना or Ākiñcaññāyatana आकिञ्चञ्ञायतन (Tib: ci yang med; Chinese: 无所有处/無所有處; Jpn: 無所有処 mu sho u sho; Burmese: အာကိဉ္စ ညာယတန; Devanagari: /) "Sphere of Nothingness" (literally "lacking anything"). In this sphere formless beings dwell contemplating upon the thought that "there is no thing". This is considered a form of perception, though a very subtle one. This was the sphere reached by Ārāḍa Kālāma(Pāli: Āḷāra Kālāma), the first of the Buddha's original teachers; he considered it to be equivalent to enlightenment. Total life span on this realm in human years – 60,000 Maha Kalpa. This realm is placed 5,580,000 yojanas above the Plane of Infinite Consciousness(Vijñānānantyāyatana).

    Vijñānānantyāyatana विज्ञानानन्त्यायतन or Viññāṇānañcāyatana विञ्ञाणानञ्चायतन or more commonly the contracted form Viññāṇañcāyatana (Tib: rnam shes mtha' yas; Chinese: 识无边处/識無邊處; Jpn: 識無辺処 shiki mu hen jo; Burmese: ဝိညာဏဉ္စာယတန ) "Sphere of Infinite Consciousness". In this sphere formless beings dwell meditating on their consciousness (vijñāna) as infinitely pervasive. Total life span on this realm in human years – 40,000 Maha Kalpa. This realm is placed 5,580,000 yojanas above the Plane of Infinite Space (Ākāśānantyāyatana)

    Ākāśānantyāyatana अाकाशानन्त्यायतन or Ākāsānañcāyatana आकासानञ्चायतन (Tib: nam mkha' mtha' yas; Chinese: 空无边处/空無邊處;Jpn: 空無辺処 kū mu hen jo; Burmese: အာကာသာနဉ္စာယတန) "Sphere of Infinite Space". In this sphere formless beings dwell meditating upon space or extension (ākāśa) as infinitely pervasive. Total life span on this realm in human years – 20,000 Maha Kalpa. This realm is placed 5,580,000 yojanas above the Akanita Brahma Loka — Highest plane of pure abodes.

    Reply
  • May 5, 2019 at 2:51 am
    Permalink

    With a constant dark energy density, they obviously miscalculated the volume of the observable universe forgetting the 4th spacial dimension from the hologram episode, and the difference actually tells us how large that 4th dimension is… seems like everyone else is making up answers, thought I’d give it a try.

    Reply
  • May 5, 2019 at 5:31 pm
    Permalink

    The universe is flat

    Reply
  • May 6, 2019 at 7:36 am
    Permalink

    My theory is the Planck group forgot to factor in the mass of yo mamma

    Reply
  • May 12, 2019 at 7:25 pm
    Permalink

    What if Hubble had discovered that the Milky Way WAS all there is? What would we now think was out there?

    Reply
  • May 16, 2019 at 1:13 pm
    Permalink

    Possibility # 4: Plasma behaviour.
    Cosmologists have willfully placed the telescope to their blind eye on this one, because it plasma configurations are a messy uncharted territory,
    Two proofs of this:
    A. Over five decades, the complete inability of fusion science to contain the plasma.
    B. Solar loops; giant magnetic plasma loops on the Sun that show no oblateness in obedience to the Sun's gravitational field.
    Just sayin'.

    Reply
  • May 17, 2019 at 8:55 am
    Permalink

    can a constant really be called a constant, if it varies over time?

    Reply
  • May 17, 2019 at 9:00 am
    Permalink

    what if dark matter/dark energy is simply the reverse mirror image of normal matter/energy seen with reversed time dimension? meaning the only common factor would be time.

    Reply
  • May 17, 2019 at 1:23 pm
    Permalink

    no such thing as spark ideax or converx etcx, think, say any no matter what

    Reply
  • May 18, 2019 at 11:51 am
    Permalink

    I wish these thousands of brilliant minds were spent on something practical such as getting us to Mars rather than something useless like figuring the Hubble Constant to the Nth decimal place

    Reply
  • May 20, 2019 at 10:22 pm
    Permalink

    flying spaghetti monster energy

    Reply
  • May 20, 2019 at 10:24 pm
    Permalink

    Quantum mechanics implies no such actual thing as a "constant" in physical reality. Observation changes out come..Just go drink a beer..

    Reply
  • May 21, 2019 at 8:24 pm
    Permalink

    This cosmologist. 😍

    Reply
  • May 23, 2019 at 7:23 pm
    Permalink

    17.04 what if the information is destroyed as it enters the blackhole, how would that effect the T inversion ?

    Reply
  • May 30, 2019 at 2:59 pm
    Permalink

    the Perception of time is eternity viewed through consciousness

    Reply
  • June 5, 2019 at 2:24 pm
    Permalink

    I'm with Terry Pratchett's observation on time reversal – if you can see where you've been but not where you're going then you're obviously facing the wrong way!

    Reply
  • June 7, 2019 at 1:42 pm
    Permalink

    Hi, do you do any videos on inflation amd its effects on cmb?

    Reply
  • June 10, 2019 at 6:32 pm
    Permalink

    Sorry, what are the best magazines to publish for cosmology? Thanks

    Reply
  • June 10, 2019 at 6:59 pm
    Permalink

    I thought you socialists didn't believe in commercials…

    Reply
  • June 10, 2019 at 10:34 pm
    Permalink

    there is no space .the crisis is that the earth is flat with a dome above us.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2019 at 10:58 am
    Permalink

    This discrepancy sounds suspiciously like the work of Sophons…

    Reply
  • June 11, 2019 at 3:14 pm
    Permalink

    Would the T reversal not violate the idea of entropy?

    Reply
  • June 14, 2019 at 3:59 am
    Permalink

    when scientists calculate the expansion speed of the universe, do they also subtract the speed of Earth's orbit on the Milky Way's moving arm? I only ask because I am not sure if that movement affects doppler shift in any way? Or does that movement shift help differentiate local stars from interstellar objects too?

    Reply
  • June 14, 2019 at 11:39 pm
    Permalink

    You have A and B. 14,3 billion years apart.. Now you can calculate expansion speed of multiverse? That's why the numbers are different.. i quess.

    Reply
  • June 15, 2019 at 12:36 am
    Permalink

    The big bang is bullshit… space doesn't move… the universe is infinite… nothing is expanding… redscale and general relativaty are the emperor's clothing… humans are stupid…

    Reply
  • June 17, 2019 at 5:31 pm
    Permalink

    Zilberman: A) negative matter doesn't clump. It may "globulize," but neither case addresses your point, B) What is an accelerating universe, if not exactly what you describe?

    Reply
  • June 17, 2019 at 8:31 pm
    Permalink

    I have to watch each video 3 or 4 times before i really get it but man is this stuff good.

    Reply
  • June 19, 2019 at 7:56 am
    Permalink

    If the universe is expanding wouldn't everything expand, including the distances within galaxies and even distances between atoms and such?

    Reply
  • June 20, 2019 at 7:00 am
    Permalink

    Why is accelerating universe considered surprising ? We have known regarding galaxies, that velocity and distance are proportional for nearly a century, i.e. v = Hr (thank you Mr. Edwin Hubble). Therefore, r(t) = r(0) * exp(Ht) OR a(t) = H v(t) = H^2 r(t) – using calculus 101 assuming Hubble's constant (H) is a time and distance invariant universal constant.

    Reply
  • June 25, 2019 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    So, just tweak string theory to predict lots of small particles with "weird" properties to explain Hubble Tension and some dark stuff. https://phys.org/news/2019-06-early-dark-energy-hubble-tension.html

    Reply
  • June 30, 2019 at 11:10 am
    Permalink

    The expansion is accelerating. Someone test it.

    Reply
  • July 2, 2019 at 7:37 am
    Permalink

    The passing of time can be relative based on motion, because the universe is expanding at a rate, the passage of time is only achieved solely on the motion/rate of expansion, this motion is disguised as passage of time. the expansion is causing more disorder in the universe and mass increase slowing the expansion, but due to the passing of motion decrease, the time passage decreases. why this may be minuscule, however the motion to time ratio is enough to be, based on perspective, an illusion of acceleration. This is all based on a fixed time axis on all the axes of the three dimensional space, which means when mass is added to space and it is bent time is still fixed along original plane pre distorted/bent.

    Reply
  • July 2, 2019 at 5:43 pm
    Permalink

    That CMB picture is not from PLANCK is from WMAP mission

    Reply
  • July 2, 2019 at 8:39 pm
    Permalink

    At least shill us a link to that T-Shirt

    Reply
  • July 4, 2019 at 9:38 pm
    Permalink

    The rate of expansion increases over time?

    i blame aliens.

    Reply
  • July 5, 2019 at 10:38 pm
    Permalink

    Or , your a Christian who understands that the universe is expanding, but that there was never a big bang so you take the more understandable, and modern message that lines up with visible science and the biblical understanding of the beginning of the universe, while still accounting back ground radiation as a force created by God, and where set at the beginning of the universe like everything else, meaning any additional or loss of distance that the universe is expanding is do to the fact that God made it as is and that because of the hand of a creator, and that the science of descovering things threw creation, is as if you where trying to find the exact measurements of the stone that the status of David was made with, and using that information to determine the erosion on tge statue since it's creation. It's imposable, you have too look at the statue as it is now and then look at it 20 years from now to find that, because the size of the original stone is never and will never be able to be truly determined. So I choose the 73.6km/mps

    Have an amazing day and God bless you

    Reply
  • July 6, 2019 at 11:44 am
    Permalink

    0:30 He says: "Edward Hubble".
    The man's name was Edwin.

    Reply
  • July 6, 2019 at 2:29 pm
    Permalink

    Could time be the variable that changes the answer? Maybe time at the beginning of the universe when observing from now changes the result?

    Reply
  • July 7, 2019 at 2:23 am
    Permalink

    This was actually discovered by Georges Lemaitre some years before. He was a boss and the true father of cosmology.

    Reply
  • July 8, 2019 at 2:28 am
    Permalink

    If a black hole sucks space at v>c, a white hole would expulse space time at v>c. Would matter be able to reach us? Or would the white hole essencially be throwing tachyions away?

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 4:46 am
    Permalink

    God created this universe and worlds without end, and its ever expanding. Has been and always will be. That's why you won't find the center since space is endless and our equipment is pitiful in comparison to God. Science always will always support God since he understands it far better than we could ever hope to. We are just starting to understand it.

    Reply
  • July 16, 2019 at 10:13 pm
    Permalink

    Help! Why expanding away from us. Am I not made of space-time too? Do we only ride on top of space-time? Why do we not expand as well, thus keeping the distance from other objects the same?

    Reply
  • July 18, 2019 at 4:42 am
    Permalink

    Dumb question for people smarter than me… is the expansion rate the same in every direction we look at in the universe? If the universe originated from a single point shouldn’t that expansion be faster in one direction than in another? Wouldn’t the force of the initial expansion work against an expansion back towards the initial source?

    I am probably thinking about it wrong. Most of this goes over my head

    Reply
  • July 18, 2019 at 9:48 pm
    Permalink

    My money would be on Dark Energy not being a constant, but I'm excited for whatever the truth turns out to be. ❤Science❤.

    Reply
  • July 20, 2019 at 11:34 pm
    Permalink

    Hubble got it wrong – Halton Arp got it right. Redshift does not measure distance, the universe is not expanding, galaxies are not rushing away from an imaginary earthcentric point.

    Reply
  • July 23, 2019 at 2:00 am
    Permalink

    The Hubble constant is essentially the resistance of free space. One might liken light traveling through space as electrons traveling through a non superconducting conductor. The constant is the ratio of the voltage of the light to the current. Note that in an electrical circuit the voltage goes down as the electrons pass through the conductor. Likewise light looses energy- changes it’s wavelength to a larger value, lower energy, red-shift. Where does the energy go to? Into the space, forming dark energy.

    Reply
  • July 28, 2019 at 1:23 am
    Permalink

    Throw the entire standard model otu and start again from only observed repeatable phenomenon.

    Reply
  • July 29, 2019 at 11:26 am
    Permalink

    Su-per-no-vee. Not vay.

    Reply
  • July 30, 2019 at 4:29 pm
    Permalink

    theirs no way out of here once you come in your in for good theirs no way to understand a created universe you were never meant to understand

    Reply
  • August 1, 2019 at 11:26 pm
    Permalink

    Why should H0 be a constant?

    Reply
  • August 2, 2019 at 5:14 pm
    Permalink

    5 Months later, several teams have all provided different results for H0.

    Reply
  • August 6, 2019 at 2:52 pm
    Permalink

    Plop.

    Reply
  • August 8, 2019 at 2:14 am
    Permalink

    I have to wonder why we assuming that the expansion is a constant value

    Reply
  • August 10, 2019 at 2:10 pm
    Permalink

    Yes and no – The universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it. Consider the referenced use of a universal singularity as the point of creation for the universe. Rather than considering the singularity as a point, think of it as a singular dimension of the space-time fabric. Then we could think of space-time as unfolding into two dimensions, then three dimensions, and so on. And since the predominant condition of the universe is dark energy, in which there is no baryonic matter, it could be better understood as a dimensional ramification of these earlier dimensions. In this way, everything is just evolving and maturing within infinite space-time.
    As for the expression of accelerating expansion, consider the time dilation of a black hole. To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole would appear to tick more slowly than those further away from the black hole. Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it.
    Reversing this perspective from a black hole observer, clocks further away from the black hole would appear to tick more quickly than those further away from the black hole.
    This theoretical hypothesis is being proposed just to theorize upon the concept of time dilation as the rational justification for emulating the condition of an increasingly expanding universe. From anywhere in the cosmos, the universe is seemingly expanding faster rather than slower due to the perspective of time dilation. Therefore validating the expansion of the universe as the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes.

    Reply
  • August 11, 2019 at 8:16 pm
    Permalink

    if you got the wrong formulas your not gona make right calculations

    Reply
  • August 15, 2019 at 11:51 pm
    Permalink

    Salto quantico in Uomocosmos

    Reply
  • August 19, 2019 at 7:38 pm
    Permalink

    is it possible that time dilates under conditions of rapid inflation?

    Reply
  • August 20, 2019 at 12:45 am
    Permalink

    Measurements from the opposite ends of time = sounds like H0 isn't really constant. That or one of the other constants aren't over billions of years. Mystery solved.

    Reply
  • August 24, 2019 at 11:26 am
    Permalink

    I do not understand, please explain your "unknown" parameters?
    concept principle, paradox is paradox right? In the end equals ..
    Your translation of reality/definition is poor to say the least..
    DM/DE = +t > 0 -t<=1

    +1=+0.0=+1.1=+0.0=+1 > –

    -1= -0.0=-1.1=-0.0=-1 < +
    +A> = -B>
    Mirror directional outcomes, the opposite end of the black hole is the same black hole, inverted sending out equal matter in radiation to what it draws in. What makes you think the other opposite end inside out is a white hole?
    Any one care to enlighten?

    Reply
  • August 25, 2019 at 7:53 am
    Permalink

    Cosmology should distinguish between those two different statements:
    1. "Redshift is proportional to distance".
    2. "Further galaxies recede faster away from us."
    Statement 1 is an accurate, experimentally backed statement.
    Statement 2 needs a bunch of approximations from statement 1 to be made….. including that redshift is ONLY made of Doppler effect.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *