How good is the evidence for Dark Energy?

An interview with Subir Sarkar, Professor for Theoretical Physics at the University of Oxford, UK. He is referring to the following papers:
at 02:45:
Nielsen, Guffanti & Sarkar, "Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae," Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 35596, arxiv.org/abs/1506.01354
at 07:50:
Colin, Mohayaee, Rameez & Sarkar, "High redshift radio galaxies and divergence from the CMB dipole," Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471 (2017) 1045, arxiv.org/abs/1703.09376
at 14:47:
Colin, Mohayaee, Sarkar & Shafieloo, "Probing the anisotropic local universe and beyond with SNe Ia data," Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 414 (2011) 264, arxiv.org/abs/1011.6292
at 19:24:
Colin, Mohayaee, Rameez & Sarkar, "Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration," A&A 631, L13 (2019), arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597
at 39:39: Rameez & Sarkar, "Is there really a Hubble tension?," arxiv.org/abs/1911.06456

[@paulfrunza]

Amazing minds, what a great pleasure to listen to even though I don't know many things you are talking about. This is the great advantage of Internet, being schooled by the greatest. How else we will have such a chance?

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

Go to school? Read a book?

[@Inertia888]

@@zdcyclops1lickley190 but now we can not only have the book but also find many excellent teachers from through out the world who are eager to share their wisdom

[@alancrabb]

@@zdcyclops1lickley190 : went to school, read the books. Went into the publishing industry, realised the books had to be re-written every two years. Went into the learned journals industry, realised the books were out of date before they were published. Went into online data, realised the learned journals were out of date before they were issued. Now : listen to more music (Beethoven understood the universe). School is good, books are good, the internet is wonderful.

[@brianmarasca4496]

@@alancrabb I went to college, it was cool, so I went to grad school (not in what these two did, I was a neuropharmacolgist), grad school was cool, but you realized every bit as much as physicists did how deeply built into science the assumption of isotropies is built in to everything, and I can't just go on typing this, or I'll end up writing another book which, forget about scientific time, will be utterly meaningless in metaphysical time, so I might as well just quit while I'm ahead, and just wrap it up by saying: like, whatever, man.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

@@zdcyclops1lickley190 EXACTLY!

[@AnthonyBouttell]

Brilliant! Subir did an excellent job in explaining the problem he sees with Dark Energy.

[@robertfraser9551]

Sabine ! You must do another interview with Subir to update this very superb interview. It is fantastic to see you in a serious interview mode adding gold nuggets to the discussion. This is far and away your best interview i have seen so far (aug 2023)

[@Thomas-gk42]

👍

[@AndrewBlucher]

I learned a few things ... 100 megaparsecs is small scale! They only analysed a million galaxies. They need to analyze 100 times that. On the shoulders of giants, indeed!

[@picksalot1]

Absolutely brilliant presentation by the Professor Sarkar, and good decision by Sabine to let him speak uninterrupted. He had a lot to say and he is amazingly articulate about a difficult subject. 5 Sigma all the way. Thanks Sabine for getting and sharing that interview!

[@Megan-ii4gf]

I've seen an interview with Sir Roger Penrose and the interviewer just kept interrupting him over and over with pointless interjections as if she felt she had something to prove. It was impossible to get through for I may have put my fist through the screen. Dr Hossenfelder meanwhile clearly doesn't feel like she has anything to prove, testament to her calmness, she has a good nature. That's why people like her I suspect.

[@niks660097]

you will be surprised, how many "accepted" scientific theories don't even have 3 sigma let alone 5 sigma, there is a lot of bullshit going on, since they don't disclose data until a later date..

[@picksalot1]

@@niks660097 I'm not surprised at all. "Three Sigma expects an error rate 66.8K errors per million. This translates to 93.3% accuracy expectation while Six Sigma expects a maximum of 3.4 errors per million. The higher the sigma level the fewer defects the process creates."

[@Hiltok]

@@picksalot1 Check your source for those figures and exactly what it is they think they are measuring. The probabilities for scientific discussions involving 'N-times sigma' come from tails of a normal distribution. 1-tailed: P(x>3sigma) ~ 1.35*10^(-3) = 1,350 per 1M 2-tailed: P(|x|>3sigma) ~ 2.70*10^(-3) = 2,700 per 1M 1-tailed: P(x>5sigma) ~ 2.87*10^(-7) ~ 0.3 per 1M 2-tailed: P(|x|>5sigma) ~ 5.73*10^(-7) ~ 0.6 per 1M 1-tailed: P(x>6sigma) ~ 9.87*10^(-10) ~ 0.000987 per 1M 2-tailed: P(|x|>6sigma) ~ 1.97*10^(-9) ~ 0.00197 per 1M Here's a link to Wolfram Alpha if you want to calculate these probabilities for yourself: 2-tailed: P(|x|>5sigma) ==>> www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=1-Integrate%5BDivide%5B1%2CSqrt%5B2%CF%80%5D%5DExp%5B-Divide%5B1%2C2%5DPower%5Bx%2C2%5D%5D%2C%7Bx%2C-5%2C5%7D%5D 1-tailed: P(x>5sigma) ~ 2.87*10^(-7) ~ 0.3 per 1M ==>> www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=1-Integrate%5BDivide%5B1%2CSqrt%5B2%CF%80%5D%5DExp%5B-Divide%5B1%2C2%5DPower%5Bx%2C2%5D%5D%2C%7Bx%2C-%E2%88%9E%2C5%7D%5D

[@agrimsharma43]

This is how all scientific interviews should be: Expert to expert. They capture all the important points without oversimplifying it. The conversation and bouncing of thoughts happened so smoothly and precisely, unlike most pop-sci interviews. Definitely hope that such interviews happen more frequently.

[@sholinwright6621]

Dr Sarkhar has a tremendously scientific mind. I’d love to see more interviews with him.

[@stephenanastasi748]

Me too.

[@mcnaugha]

Yes he’s great. Sabine looks in her element. 😁 It is a shame that it’s this difficult in science to make observations that may contradict doctrine.

[@RobertSmith-pw9io]

An excellent explaination of the how easily it is to jump to conclusions without adequate data, and modification of the data used for a particular study. Very good work Dr. Hossenfelder, , and thank you very much!! I strongly suggest cosmologists to watch this..

[@trimetrodon]

Dr. Sakar is unusually gifted at presenting very complex and nuanced details. If he has students, they are very fortunate. And thank you Sabine for introducing us to the field and the great minds working in it.

[@nickvanamstel]

It would seem that data analysis and statistics has been sorely lacking in the astrophysical community. Thank you for this wonderful insight Dr. Hossenfelder and Professor Sarkar!

[@piotrliach]

I am still impressed by the breadth of prof. Sarkar's knowledge. Thank you, Sabine, for your interest in the pursuit of thought-provoking scientific ideas and debates.

[@cipaisone]

this channel deserves waaaaay more subscriptions !

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

Yeah, the food reviews and how to apply makeup channels get all the subscribers.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

​@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt Just as well, we can't all be crazy.

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt Women. Can't live with, and pass the beer nuts. Norm Peterson ---- Cheers.

[@Williamtolduso]

Fascinating interview. It's a little scary that this natural skepticism is not more prevalent in the cosmo community.

[@raffaeledivora9517]

Confirmation bias is a common human fallacy... when you've had too much success using a certain methodology, you tend to want to use the same methods/ideas and trust them more than what logic would suggest.

[@gg456stormy]

Like how he said they had access to the original data, something climate fascists are uncomfortable with. They are burning the old original data everyday as we speak, correcting for " historical errors" and saving the new data that "reaffirms" their current models. Scary stuff. Like a hundred years ago people couldn't measure temperature accurately? Gimme a break.

[@MrBrelindm]

The old adage of "garbage in equals garbage out" applies to LCDM. Of course, it goes without saying that in order to confirm published conclusions, the dataset used must also be made available. True science is not an exercise in 'black box cosmology'. Kudos for a very interesting interview Sabine!

[@billbrockman779]

Rarely have I had to pay closer attention to a video to even begin to understand. It was well worth the effort. Thanks.

[@archielundy3131]

I was amazed back in the '90's how fast Dark Energy became scientific dogma. The total overthrow of the existing paradigm was swift and total. Now in the last 6 years the whole concept is under attack from various sources including the scrutiny of the original data talked about here and also new observations that throw serious doubt on the concept. They're calling it a crisis in cosmology. The only crisis would be to continue in error.

[@rbarnes4076]

I think the real mistake was in not releasing the original data quickly. Invalidation of the original assumptions would have closed off error based inquiries quickly, rather than letting them grow and only now be invalidated. I realize that a lot more data has been added since the original paper in the 1990s, so this is adding into everyone's understanding, but I find holding back any data to be of concern.

[@nmbookie]

Dr. Hossenfelder: "..... And you mean by 'high'? Answer: " More than one." One of the most thought-provoking interviewers I've ever seen..

[@franimal86]

Thank you for updating us with the guy who did the study!! Amazing work. Wish this kind of stuff actually made it on tv. Thankfully you provide us with this content regardless.

[@En_theo]

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain all this, Mr. Sarkar. Also thank you Sabine and team for making this possible !

[@rc5989]

I enjoyed learning so much from the careful explanation from Professor Sarkar.

[@RyanMarice]

Great interview! Thank you!

[@balasubr2252]

Ryan M. Dupée Wouldn’t it be nice to pause and fork from the conversation to look at the references? Let us hope Sabine or another videographer might provide such content to enhance the value of this timely discussion.

[@JohnABrady]

I would say - follow your own advice. Press pause on the KZbin video, follow the links and start reading! Press resume when you are satisfied with the answers you derived …

[@ps200306]

Thanks for this amazing interview Sabine. I was delighted to find I could just about follow it all. Prof. Sarkar was really good at explaining his points. Would love to see more like this. When I studied astrophysics I got the idea that a lot of analyses were very imprecise. Order of magnitude estimates were common. One lecturer said even pi was commonly approximated as 1. In recent years we're supposed to have entered the era of "precision cosmology". Looks like not everyone has the same idea about what "precise" means. When I learned about the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect nobody ever told me it hadn't been measured precisely enough to even know if it exists!

[@NomenNescio99]

Thank you so much for taking the time to make content like this! I've got a M.Sc degree and I'm very interested in these topics, but I still sometimes lack the knowledge required to follow all the details in the conversation. But I'm very pleased that my knowledge is challenged and I have the opportunity to learn something.

[@AndrewBlucher]

Did you notice he said one of his Masters students checked the results of the earlier paper? 😊

[@NomenNescio99]

@@AndrewBlucher Msc ee, not physics - although that subject was also included in the curriculum.

[@sallylauper8222]

Hey, I've got a degree in CHINESE LANGUAGE and even I can't understand what he's saying.

[@mikailmm4315]

I don't even have a degree, heck I haven't even finished high school

[@paulb4940]

I remember reading an article on this, so it's great to have an interview. Many thanks! Edit: @Sabine Hossenfelder now change the video from unlisted to listed!

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for pointing out, I thought I had done that. Turns out you need to click "done" and "save"!

[@potterma63]

Sabine! That was an amazing interview! Thank you so much for that.

[@leighcoulson2148]

I can't say I understood everything ...as I'm not a physicist or an astronomer but I got the gist of it pretty well. This is a great example of scientific thinking in action.

[@Dragrath1]

Thank you for sharing this interview it is indeed quite a disturbing to hear how poorly the response of the cosmological community has been regarding something as large as statistical inconsistencies and biases. Especially given the extent at which this effects other areas of astrophysics and quests for a grand unified theory as well. Humans are not wired through evolution to understand statistics well and unfortunately an independent statistics course is not a required course even at the graduate level. It is all too easy to fall into innate human biases. In particular this situation sounds like it largely has been able to propagate unnoticed in part due to the current system biased towards interesting results that lends to most null hypothesis results going unpublished. I definitely feel this should be a far more important issue not only for what it means for a given field but for the academic community as a whole. The current system of academic publishing needs to have its focus shifted to methodology relative to initial assumptions and proper use of statistical tools. There seems to be an uncomfortably strong resemblance to what was described here and how atmospheric gravity waves were handled up through the early 2000's where the meteorological community relied on artificial forcings to parameterize their models to match observations rather than basing parameterizations off physical equations of state. As a result they completely failed to account for energy conservation by treating wave amplitudes constant for varying density. Accounting for that the effects of atmospheric gravity waves can't be neglected in the thermosphere where the mean contribution on the temperature is comparable to Joule heating with direct effects on the ionosphere as well particularly the F region.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Quite correct! And to be more complete: We find the same cherry picking and hidden statistical manipulations in the Nobel Prize award work of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, IPCC on human induced climate change (IPCC is still defying two court rulings to release all original data underlying infamous hockystick graphs ). Worst of all we recently had the Nobel Prize winning LIGO scandal where it appears LIGO used cartoons to 'discover' GW's in stead of using actual data (!!) ....So go ask yourself...what does all this mean? This does not sound like a lack of statistical knowledge to me...This to me sounds like a very deliberate cross-science wide spread effort to insert false theories, deceiving the public into paying ever more taxes and keeping them from the correct fundaments of nature for our 'own good'. Honestly I have tried in my mind to imagine indeed all these cases are based on individual 'mishaps'. But after 5 Nobel Prize awards all showing the same hidden 'glitches' in data and frauds, I can no longer be that naive....

[@VM-hl8ms]

i do not agree that this is the best example of biases. if darkmatter/darkenergy is what it supposedly is, then no evidence for it is sufficient evidence. edit: i would be more concerned on biases in economic and sociologic sciences tbh... no doubts in those areas would automatically solve many doubts in other areas...

[@billymcnomates7764]

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

It is good to hear alternative interpretations of the data and research from those who have actually studied it. However, you are NOT being critical if all you do is proclaim "Sabine Hossfender is right & all other cosmologists are wrong". That's just confirmation bias of what you want to hear.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

@@VM-hl8ms EXACTLY! Psychology, economics, sociology are COMPLETELY ANTISCIENTIFIC / UNTESTABLE and NOTHING but POLITICAL bias. We see that all the time with extreme Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) denialism by those pushing the free market anarchy capitalism religion & conservative ideology.

[@johnpauldaniel2666]

Sabine and Professor Sakar, thank you! Excellent discussion. I would like to express my sincere gratitude for being so willing to take the risk of not hiding the possible flaws of the current state of science. I applaud you for your work!

[@texhunter761]

A transcript of this wonderful interview should be a part of any astronomy or physics class.

[@MyKharli]

Fantastic post , making the current state of affairs accessible for everyone .

[@i18nGuy]

Very clear, understandable, insightful presentation by Dr. Sarkar. Thanks for doing this Sabine, and well done!

[@googleyoutubechannel8554]

Beyond the amazing Dark Energy discussion, I feel like there is a lot to learn from Dr Sarkhar at a fundamental level about how to reason about the world, what an extraordinarily clear-thinking scientist.

[@BeKindToBirds]

I am so glad you have continued your discussion on the groundbreaking paper on Anisotropy in Cosmic Acceleration! And to interview one of the authors no less! Thank you very much Sabine for this video!

[@bobbymah2682]

Wow!! Great interview. I did not understand the most of it, but I love how professor Sarkar emphasizes on measurement and draws from so many different fields of knowledge

[@jonmars9559]

Best discussion I've heard yet on this subject. Thank you for posting.

[@BradMurray]

I love how scrupulous he is about giving credit to other peoples' work.

[@davereynolds9797]

Great conversation, thanks S.

[@mello.b3373]

Great interview, thanks Sabine !

[@johnwinward2421]

One of the things I've found out over decades of research (though not in physics) is that the deeper you delve into the way that the available datasets were actually constructed, the more sceptical you become about basing conclusions on them.

[@andrewmays3988]

Thank you for your honesty. What is also true is that the method of observation will determine the observations made and the 'data' collected.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

+John Winward Then apply that same skepticism to your own political opinions, economic opinions, opinions about who is "telling the truth or lying", opinions about causation in politics /economics/sociology/crime/terrorism/war. Don't just assume what legal systems says is illegal or evil to be true or what is legal to be good.

[@onehitpick9758]

Finally, we have some wisdom addressing cosmology in a way that actually makes sense. Let them have more of a voice. Sabine is the best physics communicator out there, and Sarkar is a true gem to articulate what many suspect but would never dare to say in the open. I have been questioning things that were obviously inconsistent ever since Penzias and Wilson "proved" the current cosmological model of the time by proclaiming perfectly uniform noise (no dipole, no galactic plain or point sources), which supposedly mapped to the edge of space, though it was acquired within the Earth's ionosphere. Nobel prize after Nobel prize, I remain baffled at the willingness to hand out awards to vacillating sociological concordance and not to mathematical consistence. While the measurements from modern sensors are much more advanced, we (everyone) must demand access to the un-doctored data and discount model-driven preconceptions.

[@alancrabb]

"Finally, we have some wisdom..." You don't think there might just be a smidgen of confirmation bias in play? :=]

[@onehitpick9758]

@@alancrabb This is a recursive argument, but understood.

[@semmering1]

Such a pleasure to watch this, thank you very much!!!

[@louisgauthier1889]

Great interview! Didn't understand everything, but still found this discussion fascinating. Thank you Sabine.

[@daves2520]

This was a fascinating interview; I enjoyed it very much.

[@gashery]

Thank you, Sabine. This was wonderful.

[@ErynnWilson]

Fascinating interview. Thank you both.

[@andresmlinar]

Excellent interview. Thanks Sabine!

[@nicholasmills6489]

Well done Sabine. Informative as per usual.

[@dumbthought]

Refreshingly this took me beyond the ‘boring, trite, already-know’ information I get from many other science videos. Thanks for a real glimpse at challenges and work involved, with great depth but still keeping it understandable. Great!

[@madderhat5852]

Thank you for this and your other amazing content.I think observation ,interrogation and confirmation should be fundamental in science.

[@tomjohn8733]

I find all this fascinatingly interesting...thank you Sabine, and guests for broadening my knowledge on all your many topics.. .

[@alisaiterkan]

Aside from the scientific value of this conversion, I am in awe of the peace in which it is conducted. Thank you.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

REAL GOOD¡

[@davidschneide5422]

The "publishing factor". I like how he points out that cosmologists tend to avoid, ignore, & omit conflicting evidence just to get favorable(publishable)results, despite appalling sigma values.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Current academic environment is quite toxic for that and other reasons, and that's bad for science.

[@stormtrooper9404]

Mike Doonsebury What subject did you cover? About what was your research? P.S. dont get me wrong,but journals and publications are flooded with loonies papers most of the time! Even credible papers are often lacking in some way,so sometimes "splitting hairs" and editors mood are also important to get a go! P.P.S. the now famous J S Bell was a victim of organized witchunt in its time! 60" and 70" were'nt good time for "out of the box" thinker!

[@davidschneide5422]

@Mike Doonsebury nobody "suggests the second law of motion is wrong". The observations are in direct contrast to what is predicted using the standard model, so they make up crazy hypotheses and cherry-pick data to try to explain these observations in a manner consistent with their theory. Anyone who points out inconsistencies earns co-author status to remain quiet til after publication.

[@davidschneide5422]

@Mike Doonsebury whether it's dark matter or MOND theory, as long as predictions and simulations are accurate enough to assist with experimentation, does it matter HOW we get the best answer?("right" answers are a hard sell)

[@davidschneide5422]

@Mike Doonsebury you misinterpret my explanation. I was emulating the authors of the publications. THEY propose ideas that give similar results, but with methods that ignore established theories. Not because they genuinely challenge the foundations, but simply for publishing a different interpretation of biased data sets.

[@user-xn4wq4sv3r]

Thank you for the important video that promotes objectivity in science. I wish Professor Subir Sarkar that the scientific community will take his courageous research more seriously.

[@smariotti]

Love your videos Sabine! Keep it up! You're also low key hilarious. ❤️

[@sparty94]

great interview and guest.

[@Nickname006]

Very interesting! Thanks Dr. Sabine and Prof. Sarkar.

[@ucfj]

Okay now we need another video that actually explains what he is going on about. This is so condensed it only makes sense for those already in the know

[@aghosh5447]

The conversation is enriching. He totally tells the procedure so it becomes easy to follow in the sense I can understand the team's methods and therefore the argument.

[@jeremybasset9041]

Watching this a year later, but wow! Dr Sarkar explains things so perfectly without going into long and confusing analogies

[@ifonlyiwassaner]

Awesome interview, very interesting points raised!

[@Systematix]

Thank you so much for your videos. I think it's important to listen to these types of discussions, and it is always so hard to find in public spaces. So again, thank you very much

[@signalrunner]

Thank you so much Dr. Hossenfelder, this is an amazing insight for the layman. Your hair is all right BTW.

[@vladyslavverteletskyi2677]

Hi Sabine, thank you for your great videos and this interview! I have also read your book and it justifiably changed my perspective of theoretical physics a lot, thank you for that too. You should go on making the videos as they are highly clear, unique, and entertaining. Regarding the interview, I wondered that neither of you have not mentioned the article "Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology" (Nature Astronomy, Nov 2019) that suggests that the Universe might be closed with 99% certainty based on Planck 2018 data, which also overthrows a bit our view on the flatness. I was also surprised that you did not make comment on it anywhere on the channel or your blog (or I have not found it, albeit thoroughly searching). I would like to hear your perspective, as the original article contains pretty much data and is worth reviewing, especially in the light of evanescence of Dark Energy evidence.

[@myfriendbro]

This was really good. I hope you make more videos with Sarkar. You two choice analysts.

[@DoctorZaeus]

Your interviews are excellent.

[@da4762]

Wonderful discussion! Had to search up a bunch of unfamiliar terms and ended up really enjoying this talk!

[@Rotorzilla]

Such a great interview thank you both.

[@robertfraser9551]

One of sabines very best videos. Cannot wait until you do an update . Must be done !!!!

[@tomtroszak]

Dear Sabine, Thank you for conducting this amazing interview, and for sharing it with everyone. It is a great relief for me to discover that there are at least two other *actual scientists* still left in the world: you and Professor Sarkar. With all of the bad science going on in the past century, I was beginning to believe that the breed had become entirely extinct. You have given me hope for the future of science. I am grateful.

[@Al-cynic]

something so pragmatic about this man's way , a real no-nonsense approach.

[@ablebaker8664]

Publishing is easy... Rigor is hard. Thank you both.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

The best video I've listened to in a long time. But I would like if Sabine would explain it and give the implications in her own way, so the huge number of interested amateurs among the masses can understand.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I already did this in my earlier video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/paLKfIuHgp15prc

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

@@SabineHossenfelder Thanks

[@JonFrumTheFirst]

@@SabineHossenfelder Although I understand neither, I preferred yours.

[@ahmetidilgursoy7080]

Highly critical and important statement almost at the very end, 44:10 . Thanks for the video.

[@Mikey-mike]

Good one, good talk. This is such an exciting part of theoretical physics because it stumps everyone, and offers new turf for discovery. When the SUSY Wimp and Axion experiments failed, theoretical physics was sent back to the drawing board. Obviously there exists a principle which hasnt been imagined or discovered yet.

[@mattkafker8400]

Very interesting conversation. Thank you for posting.

[@TauAspire]

Excellent discussion, outstanding guest. Love the hair, Sabine....Einsteinian. I applaud all of the mathematicians and scientists who dutifully go back and verify data sets. How horrible are the models, for example, for climate models, built on selective or incomplete data? (Unrelated). Thank you for sharing this more detailed discussion on the evidence, and how we must be careful in our interpretation. I trust you both are educating younger minds to be scientific, more skeptical. As always, fantastic stuff, Dr. Hossenfelder.

[@Encephalitisify]

Wow. This was very interesting. The implications are astounding.

[@davereynolds9797]

Excellent content once again, thanks

[@spinliquid]

Wow!! That was a very informative interview. I am a theoretical physicist who has a strong outsider's interest in cosmology. Dr. Sarkar has certainly cast a grave doubt on the accuracy of the claim of a non zero cosmological constant, and its adjunct Hubble tension that's being advertised as a "crisis" in cosmology. It is quite possible that the data was not properly analyzed by Reiss and Perlmutter in their landmark Nobel prize winning papers. If he is right then the universe's expansion is not accelerating after all and there is no Hubble tension!!!

[@fearisthemind-killer]

I have watched a few of these videos now (working backwards from the most recent video) and I have to say her humor, especially her delivery, is awesome. She never ceases to make me laugh.

[@normanndaba8823]

What a great interview👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿

[@Thomas-gk42]

Thank you both for a talk full of interesting content without random blabla. Sabine is one more time a great communicator.

[@cheshirecat111]

Excellent interview; this is my favorite topic and I was intrigued to learn more about the current state of affairs. I greatly appreciated your effort to summarize, at points, the big picture of what had been said so far because even as a grad student in physics it was a lot of information at once, especially since I don't work in GR or cosmology though I do have some background in it. This gave a nice pacing to an already excellent interview. Prof. Sarkar is obviously a physicist who _genuinely_ cares about the truth, that is a difficult life in a career-minded academia, and I am glad that it is paying off.

[@garethhanby]

This is not the current state of affairs. This is two particle physicists accusing cosmologists of confirmation bias. There have been responses and papers pointing out the mistakes in Sarkar’s argument. But you will not find them here.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

@@garethhanby all expand and contract so we must as the sun does, stars, galaxies etc. but the expansision they are seeing is whene they jump from one level to another level of the 7 steps in wave lenght and is only at the end when crossing the systems electromagnetism where hubble dont make it because we have exit to the out of a less denser area of stars level so we must to add or substract to fit hubble in them as newton, maybe of Einstein cause to me space is not flat cause space is seen as a system whene is not cause has not positive, negative much less a neutral that I see in the CMB readings as the central kind of burning ecuator that to me looks hotter than the rest.

[@Li.Siyuan]

Fantastic interview!

[@alphalunamare]

Stunning!

[@paulbk7810]

love to watch a great mind work. Subir Sarkar is a master at thinking clearly.

[@otinane89]

Very very interesting interview! I didn't understand everything, but I think I managed to capture the essence of the argument. All these signs point to the fact that since the whole society is in a deep philosophical, ethical, economical, political and cultural decline, science is bound to be caught up in this. After all it's great knowing that there are still people out there, that dare question what is taken for granted, and what is deemed as an established way o thinking. Well done!

[@eishuno]

This is very interesting, as it reminds me of the incidents that sparked the galactic decline in the Foundation series of Isaac Asimov.

[@otinane89]

@@eishuno The circle of prosperity and decline (life and death) is a crucial part of humanity's and nature's evolution. History and myth is full of these paradigms, and I am pretty sure Asimov found inspiration in this!

[@MirekHeikkila]

awee i love this channel whatever you say, it's so cool, i love the discussion, and it's like a fresh of breath air, we always need to think, acknowledge, and idk think/discuss!!

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Great interview. There are few people that can get such an interview out so we can hear these very insightful comments of a top astronomer to a broader audience first hand. Written articles are old technology anyway. With respect to the content: Although much of it will be beyond the knowledge level for most of us, the essence is clear. The 'inventors' of dark Energy for long shielded original data sets or in any case failed to mention they had intentionally manipulated them. The scary part however is that this is not a stand alone phenomenon. Over the past decades all major 'discoveries' that have been 'sanctioned' by a Nobel Prize, eventually all turned out to have been based on either NO actual data sets at all (LIGO ! ) or on manipulated data sets. This goes for 'Dark Energy', 'Dark Matter,' GW's LIGO, IPCC (which is witholding all original data behind the infamously manipulated 'hockystick' graphs even after two courts rulings). So it is not that 'science' is in crisis. It would appear this is something very intentional. Stated a bit bluntly, It appears that for decades we are facing a wide spread and very well organized effort by top gremia, prizes and journals to deliberately promote deceitful theories, wasting intellect and budgets. If the idea is that we are not supposed to grow beyond our fundamental understanding of nature of roughly 100 years, then why not say so? We could all go home and have a beer and it would save us and especially Sabine a lot of effort and stress trying to improve a scientific community 'bottom-up' which does not want to chance its its ways top-down anyway, leading us into perpetual non-sensical 'new buzz theories' thus ensuring perpetual budgets. But again, this is a great interview. Hopefully we will soon learn the nature of gravity (the emergent effect of the SPEED of and within mass) so we get the fundamentals behind dipole effects in order, also in the universal scale and skip the mathematical fudge ideas of 'dark energy and dark mass once and for all....keep them going!

[@4623620]

An other highly enjoyable interview by Sabine. 👌😎👍

[@malectric]

This is wonderful! The rethink for which I've been waiting. And I wonder how long it will be before something similar is done about the dark matter problem.

[@NETKINGSHUBHO]

excellent presentation, thank you

[@pragjyotishbhuyangogoi8363]

Thank you, Sabine!

[@craig2493]

At 23:56 Subir says ". . .this is not what is written in the sky . . ." He is an honest-to-God scientific thinker. Students should run to Oxford today to study under Professor Subir Sarkar.

[@animeshpatra5106]

It's just a very common expression in his language😂

[@bongo990]

@@animeshpatra5106 "aakash e lekha na ki"

[@arkaprabhaghatak1500]

@@bongo990 wait, bangla?

[@advwharton]

As always, many thanks.

[@wanderingquestions7501]

Excellent interview. To her credit Sabine is a terrific listener.

[@IvanIvan1974]

Summarised we can say: Evidence for dark energy is not so good. Sabine: what do you mean with "not so good"? Me: Less than one.

[@andyiswonderful]

Thanks for the interesting video.

[@BrezHurley]

As a meta-critique, Sabine's videos take an unmistakable disposition being both educational and refreshingly free of dogma.

[@Akswan]

I finde this interview very interresting so i will for shure go through this one again ,thank you bouth.

[@yushilllevier5713]

How rich ! Took me more than 2 hours to go through the whole interview. brilliant. To me professor Sarkar has produced (largely) enough hard work to be considered and debated respectfully. Will see what the future holds.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

YEAP¡?