JWST rules out MOST LIKELY culprit for "Crisis in Cosmology" | Night Sky News January 2024

[@DrBecky]

If you’re struggling, consider therapy with BetterHelp #ad. Click betterhelp.com/drbecky for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a credentialed professional specific to your needs.

[@markoconnell804]

Have you seen the documentary The Bethlehem star? A lawyer made it.

[@karehaqt]

Unsubbed because of Betterhelp, I'm running out of science channels to watch because they're all promoting these quacks.

[@sweetybnz7482]

If you are struggling stay well away from BetterHelp. Really disappointed in you Dr Becky.

[@motichel]

Quite a shame to see yet another shill for a terrible, shady harmful sponsor. Especially with how much I enjoyed the subject matter. It’s sad what a disappointment KZbin is nowadays. . .

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@motichelbecome a patron and air your grievance. Also having an ad you don't like said nothing about the science

[@ParameterGrenze]

I remember the time when the error bars on both methods were still overlapping. Articles I red back then were mostly confident that this would work itself out. So much more fun this way.

[@tomwhateley5697]

I would totally be here for it if Night Sky News always ended with a "Crisis in Cosmology" section :-)

[@juskahusk2247]

It's probably just two different alien jamming signals being used to quieten the annoying little blue dot.

[@aurelienyonrac]

The error bars don't overlap with what they use to predict. So i think the uncertainty is much bigger. 😅

[@duran9664]

🚩All cosmology crises will be solved if arrogant “scientists”admit that the age of the universe is in fact MUCH MUCH MUCH older than they think🤏

[@clancyjames585]

Actually, it'd be super interesting to go back and see when the tone of articles shifted

[@seantlewis376]

I've always had a keen interest in astronomy, but I pursued computer science instead. I occasionally read the linked papers, but I don't have the education to fully understand them, so I love that there are astrophysicists like Dr. Becky who are able to explain these studies and discoveries in ways that layman me can understand. Good job, Dr. Becky! Your efforts to educate the rest of us are appreciated!

[@nickadiemus5670]

We and one of the same

[@frostebyte]

Hubble: "Idk man, it just doesn't look right..." JWST: "Aight, step aside, let the big boys take--" Hubble: "what" JWST: "Bollocks."

[@DrBecky]

😂 I love this

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

JWST is the new guy in the office who thinks they'll fix everything.

[@kingofspades1776]

@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 JWST is fixing something. It's fixing everybody's heads. Here's what I hear. Scientists: We measured something, and we modeled it, and the measurements don't agree with our model. The real-world measurements are more likely to be wrong than the abstract model made by humans. We just need to take them again for the millionth time and they'll agree with our model. JWST: *retakes measurements with insane precision* Nope. Your model is just wrong. Scientists: Bullocks. Other Scientists: Maybe what we thought was a big bang is really an illusion caused by a quasi-cyclic cosmol.... Scientists: Rabble, rabble, rabble! Scientists think because they have too many things built up around an idea that idea is more likely to be true. But having a patchwork of things propping up an idea is not necessarily a good thing. Scientists are failing to consider that some of the patches on the Standard Model are pretty weak. I mean come on. Dark Matter? Dark Energy? They're obviously making something up and placing it everywhere on a map that it needs to be to make up for something they don't know, and in the process, they are creating very unfair standards for much simpler and more logical ideas to gain acceptance. I mean, if I can just make up a word and say it describes 100% of what I don't know, nothing real can beat that. MoND could describe 99.9% of everything we see, and it would never be enough. Scientists need to take a punch like this every now and then to make sure they're doing actual science and not propping up old ideas with bandage after bandage to make it seem like something is "standing the test of time."

[@chrisoakey9841]

yeh, the hubble concept works better if you look at it from light slowing instead of big bang and ever expanding universe. slowing by 4.6mm/s/y works without darkk matter or 'space' expanding faster than light.

[@ianw7898]

@@chrisoakey9841 c is constant. And we can test that for the last few billion years. It hasn't changed.

[@SleepyHooman]

dropping the 8σ label on the alternative model like "yea, its not this" lol

[@d14551]

I continue to be so impressed with how clearly you explain complex concepts. Thanks!

[@DrBecky]

Thank you, very kind of you to say

[@sarahlewisphoenix4951]

I feel like the most common phrase I have heard in space-related videos since the JSWT went live is "This should not exist in our model of the Universe". lol What an exciting time to be alive though, such fascinating discoveries and I'm sure we'll get more mind blowing findings as the research continues.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

The reason for that is that mostly these discoveries of the JWST get reported on. If you look at _all_ observations the JWST has made, you'll see that most of these _did_ agree with expectations.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@Paulancar YES, THATS TRUTH!!!!!!!! (See, I can also write in caps and use many exclamation marks. :D ) The model did not fail completely, and I know that. "megastructures of 4 and 3 billion light years distanced 9 billion light year" WTF are you talking about?!? :D :D :D Apparently you misunderstood some news. Or you were lied to. "This is having a lot of pride, vanity and egotism." Indeed. The people who claim that a universe which is 13.8 billion years old and at least 93 billion light years in diameter was created only for humans, on a tiny little planet in a total backyeard of the cosmos, which have existed only for at most 300 000 years - these people have a lot of pride, vanity and egotism. And: THERE IS NO CREATOR OF ALL THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@dbf1dware]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Uhhh, are you SURE about that? If so, show me the proof. Now, before you start typing back at me IN ALL CAPS, calm down a little bit. I'm not a creationist. But, you cannot tell me (or anyone) that science has PROVEN there was not a creator. Personally, I don't think there was a creator, but if you are going to adamantly claim there is NOT a creator, you (as the claimant) have to prove it. I'm pretty sure "THERE IS NO CREATOR OF ALL THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is such a claim. Now, prove it. Also, to be fair, for all of those out there claiming there IS a creator of all things, I say to them: prove it. So, looking at you @Paulancar... prove it.

[@shrodokahn470]

Don't respond, it martyrs their ignorance and makes Logic cringe. ​@@bjornfeuerbacher5514

[@OvertravelX]

It's so cool that we keep learning how much we don't know.

[@JohnDoe-jh5yr]

Fractals of knowledge.

[@aurelienyonrac]

​@JohnDoe-jh5yr na. As he said. Fractals of the unknown. Don't know who you are. Don't know what this is. Don't know where you come from. Don't know where you're going. And your knowledge is floating in the unknown, appears from nowhere to vanish again.😅❤

[@gsxMac24]

@@aurelienyonrac I like this so much, I'm going to copy it as I feel this is the best way to explain matters to as incomprehensible as this.

[@msergio0293]

Yeah it's fascinating

[@Cobinja]

I'm waiting for a paper describing a formula for CCF (Crisis in Cosmology Factor), which calculates the factor in which JWST makes the Crisis worse 😅

[@raffaeledivora9517]

It's actually not that difficult: you take by how many sigma the results are not compatible before and after, and for each of them you take (1-) the single-sided cumulative probability function at that specific sigma level. You obtain two (very low) levels of probability for the two measurements to be compatible, then you take the ratio of that, and there's your number 😉

[@randolphtimm6031]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@aquilavolans6534]

Cosmology is a deep wonderful subject. The ultimate truism about cosmology is the NBKA Paradox...aka Nobody Knows Anything Paradox.

[@SiqueScarface]

25:15 A short historical background for the word "standard candle": In 1860 in the United Kingdrom, the Metropolitan Gas Act defined "candlepower" as the unit of luminosity. It was defined as the light a candle emits, which is made from 1/6 pounds of spermaceti (fat from sperm whales, read "Moby Dick" for more information), and which burns at a rate of 120 grains per hour. This was a high quality, standardized candle with a well known luminosity, and in the same vain, other bright objects with well known luminosity are called standard candles.

[@DrBecky]

Fascinating! Thanks for the explanation 👍

[@blub5117]

What proofs that the Anglo saxons will realy use everything to avoid the metric system.😂

[@SiqueScarface]

@@blub5117 Not exactly. Today‘s definition of luminosity is based on this predecessor. The candela (cd) is about two percent larger than the candlepower, but no longer bound to an artifact. About 20 years after the introduction of candlepower, Thermodynamics was in a scientific state that the idea came up to introduce a new unit based on the Black Body radiation concept. But it took another 50 years until a definition was found where the luminosity of a New Candle was the perpendicular radiation of an area of 1/600,000 of a square meter of a black body at the temperature of melting platinum under normal conditions (e.g. air pressure of 101,325 pascal). This unit replaced candlepower in 1947, but was in 1979 redefined again as the luminosity of monochromatic light at 540 THz frequency sent out with an intensity of 683 lm/Watt. And this is today‘s SI base unit of 1 candela.

[@thomas.02]

I always thought it was a tongue in cheek understatement calling stars as "candles", like the unit "barn" in particle physics

[@davestier6247]

*vein

[@robertzimmerman3748]

Doc Becky, you're the first person I've ever heard explain just how and why cephid variable stars are used as astronomical "candle sticks". Do you a good job of explaining scientific concepts and have a lot of enthusiasm for the subject.

[@OneCentChemist]

A lot of these mega-structures kinda look like the structures you see in phase separating polymer blends. I dont know much about the astrophysics of large scale megastructures, but I wonder if phase separation type equations can model their formation.

[@Dragrath1]

There does appear to be a natural tendency to, in the absence of the so called cosmological principal assumption constraint, have gravitating mass flow into nonlinear bulk flows. Based on the numerical simulations discussed in Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore's 2016 paper on inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology this is a consequence of the fact that as mass attracts other mass there will always be an ever greater number of underdensities produced with time. This matters particularly in an expanding universe as these inhomogeneities cause the rate of change in expansion to not cancel out thus you get a rate of expansion which varies based on the echoes of all past causal light cone states. So at some point the system will naturally go from a more symmetric matter dominated state to an ever more asymmetric state. In fact you might be able to phrase it that within the general unconstrained Einstein field equations time is the ever increasing scale invariant asymmetry of the Universe among any valid local timeslice frames of spacetime.

[@efdangotu]

Electromagnetism is scalable to 14 orders of magnitude.

[@OneCentChemist]

@@efdangotu Oh I don't think electromagnetism has any effect really on this scale. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I would think most stars/planets/galaxies to be electrically neutral.

[@michaelproeber1953]

Earth has a giant magnetic field protecting us from the Sun’s constant bombardment of lethal energy & radiation...@@OneCentChemist

[@blub5117]

​​@@OneCentChemistI'm not a astrophysicist, but shouldn't electrons be able to escape the gravity fields easier if enough energy is provided, because of their lower mass? Shouldn't galaxies be electric positive because of mere statistic but be surrounded by a negative charged halo because electrons are able to reach much further into the intergalactic void? So they should appear negatively charged from greater distances but positively charged near the center, right? Like I said I have no evidence to back that up and a severe lack of knowledge in that field.

[@BigZebraCom]

@00:39 I'm so glad the went with 'The Big Ring' and not with the first suggestion, The Big Sphincter '. I'm so glad that someone at these conferences knows how to name things.

[@Ithirahad]

The Big Ring is the formation, and the Big Sphincter is whatever bastard put that thing there. just when we thought we had our theories just about sorted and there were just a few adjustments to make...

[@nzlemming]

The Goatse Galaxy?

[@BigZebraCom]

@@nzlemming I think you are on to something there...

[@nickcarroll8565]

Uranus Grande

[@buggeringfool7179]

What is wrong with a big Sphincter?

[@robbierobinson8819]

Night Sky News is a great way to keep updated on newest information. Thank you, Dr Becky.

[@tessaN64]

the frequency i hear "much more/less than would be expected" on these videos only goes to show our best models still have so much growth and development to do. Very exciting stuff!

[@diox8tony]

"Crisis in Cosmo" questions: Why is there a huge leap in value for the P13 measurement and after? It leaps entirely outside the confidence levels of all the previous background predictions. Doesn't that seem like a problem worth solving? There is a huge shift in estimated values just looking at the cosmic background measurements in that era. Statistically unlikely. ---Also, Why does option 2 only have a problem with its model? why not a problem with its measurements like option 1? Seems pretty hard to be able to measure Micro Kelvins that are 13.8 billions years old.

[@silo_fx3182]

While many may feel it is disappointing to realise we don't know as much about the universe as we thought, to me that is nothing but opportunity to learn more and discover scientific facts to enlighten the current gaps in understanding. There is soooo much more we have to learn - this is exciting.

[@GameTimeWhy]

I think most of the people who are taking the "we know nothing with science" approach are religious.

[@IiiiIiiIllIl]

It's a little disappointing tbh. Just because I want to be alive when we "solve" the universe. I think when AGI and superintelligence become "sentient" all the puzzle pieces will fall into place.

[@bibi_999]

@@GameTimeWhy your faith in "official scientific institutions" is what's religious

[@GameTimeWhy]

@@bibi_999 faith is believing without evidence. Also calling it (science) a religion is ridiculous but is also a self own on your part.

[@brianSalem541]

​@@GameTimeWhyThat could be true but here's one Christian who's fascinated by all things astronomy and stargazing.

[@PhilRable]

The diagrams you use to explain the physics are very helpful.

[@marcusdirk]

Thank you again, Dr. Becky, for another fascinating video!

[@deezynar]

I knew a guy who was majoring in nuclear engineering, and minoring in astronomy. I asked him what he thought of the methods used in astronomy and he laughed. He said that nuclear engineering is extremely precise, and astronomy is founded on suppositions that are so tenuous that he could not understand how anyone could call it a science. Studying both caused him to see how the two fields deal with ideas of precision in vastly different ways.

[@cosmic_dust24]

Hi Dr. Becky, your content is ever-interesting. Every time I see your videos, my inclination towards astronomy and astrophysics gets renewed. Thank you tons for taking time from your schedule to give back what you have learned to the society. I am very much interested to know your thoughts on probing the early Universe using 21-cm line. Could you please make a video on 21cm cosmology and its current status from your perspective?

[@quantumradio]

Thank you for the report on the AAS meeting in New Orleans. Also, good stuff about the Ho measurement > option 1 > crowding problem. The plot thickens & I look forward to more papers. You're doing great work and it's appreciated!

[@spidalack]

I love how you specify "from our perspective here on earth" Too many people think "close in the sky, close in the universe" Love your work. Keep it up. Wish we had some more blackhole news.

[@omargoodman2999]

Seeing may be believing, But believing doesn't make it True.

[@tom23rd]

Kinda like.. astrology haha. What would our zodiac look like from Pluto? 😂

[@MikeJamesMedia]

I am so happy to have found your channel, some time ago. Thank you so much for not only sharing the information, but for explaining it with emotion, precision, and humor. Carry on, Doctor! (I think you've got a hit there, with "You'll Never Get Away From the Crisis in Cosmology.")

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

I think the best way to solve the crisis in cosmology is to cease labeling the parameter the Hubble Constant. Instead, we should label it the Hubble Variable. After all, for as long as it has been around, the number has kept shifting around.

[@EnglishMike]

If only it was that easy to solve it... 🤣

[@gowzahr]

That just introduces new problems. Why does it change over time? How is it changing over time? What sort of experiment could measure how it has changed over time?

[@Dragrath1]

Yeah ultimately this is going to have to happen but cosmologists have for many many years been very stubborn and reluctant to give up their favorite model assumption the so called "cosmological principal" despite it having been repeatedly being challenged by mathematicians as violating the rules of mathematics specifically as it relates to the rules and definitions of calculus for centuries. The natural consequence of throwing away that so called principal based on the work by Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore in their paper on inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology is that in such a nontrivial universe tiny fluctuations in the initial conditions will automatically lead to the rate of expansion varying locally based on the past history of local curvature for time slices of a given frame of reference in spacetime. In blunt terms if you are doing calculus the Hubble rate can never be constant. The rate of change at small scales might be small but at cosmological scales it will never be small since the no big crunch theorem in the above mentioned paper shows that in order to be an actual nontrivial solution to the actual Einstein field equations (which have no analytical solutions). Still this is the same situation for the general Schrödinger Equation, Naiver stokes equations, Magnetohydrodynamics... basically every other system of partial differential equations where outside of special limits or boundary conditions the solutions are non analytical. It seems like it might be the case that at some point in the generational turnover that the nature of the assumption being made had gotten collectively forgotten and taken for granted to be true. However Nathan Secrest et al 2021 did a good falsification test of the cosmological principal using 1.3 million quasars from CatWISE to construct a dipole to which to compare to the CMB as if the dipole is purely kinematic as cosmologists assume then these dipoles should be identical. The problem is they are not with over 4.9 Sigma statistical significance which basically rules out any variation of the cosmological principal and all models dependent on it with a scale of homogeneity and isotropy less than or equal to the size of the observable universe. I think subsequent follow up validation tests have now boosted this result to over 5 sigma statistical significance which is the gold standard for confirmation of results in other areas of physics so it's kind of a big deal as it is just about as ironclad a debunking of the cosmological principal and thus Lambda CDM that you can get. So some what ironically the cosmological crisis is proving Einstein right (again its only cosmologists who were wrong running on a train of wishful thinking where you take approximations and assumptions to be implicitly assumed to be true. Although to be fair there is a good mathematical reason why the get these results making this assumption as if you fix the rate of expansion then redshift and distance do largely have a simple relationship, but absent such a simplification no distance is only one of many independent variables related to the redshift of a given geodesic path thus when cosmologists use redshift to derive distances they are implicitly force fitting the data to their choice cosmological model. The consequence that would be expected is that the so called Hubble constant will depend on which sources are included rather than converging to a single observed value which is basically a direct description of this so called crisis in cosmology.

[@eljcd]

Of course the value of Hubble parameter has been changing as the Universe ages. The "crisis" happens because the two methods we have to measure the Hubble parameter AT THE PRESENT TIME, H0, don't give the same value.

[@habe1717]

I hope this is a joke haha

[@weylguy]

Thank you for this interesting video, Becky. Regarding the Hubble tension, I tend to liken the CMB as a long tape measure to measure distances, while the cosmic distance ladder (CDL) approach is like measuring distances by repeatedly overlapping a meter stick. The CDL approach is therefore subject to unavoidable systematic error. In addition, there are inherent errors in assuming the strict applicability of Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae, thus adding to the overall error. The CMB, by comparison, is what it is.

[@PhilW222]

Great episode! My money was always on something being wrong with the current cosmological model and it looks like we are heading that way - exciting times!

[@godsbeautifulflatearth]

The Earth is Flat, Stationary and Non-Rotating.

[@PhilW222]

@@godsbeautifulflatearth I hope you mean that as a joke, because the evidence proves otherwise.

[@theangledsaxon6765]

@@PhilW222oof, I thought they were joking but check their profile…

[@williamschlosser]

Check out the plasma universe theory. It says that the cosmos was not created purely by gravity, but also (and maybe mostly) by electromagnetic forces. It's grounded on well-proven EM principles and doesn't require fantasies like dark matter, dark energy, singularities, black holes, etc.

[@everettchris1]

I just gotta say how much I love this channel, especially when you talk about the real theoretical stuff... That you doesn't treat it's audience like idiots or take "pop-sci" takes, while understanding that we aren't professional astrophysicists. KZbin is at its best when it's 'smart', and this is youtube at its best.

[@solartyrant9049]

Recently got a Google Pixel 8 and I've been obsessed with the astrophotography mode

[@kevink2398]

Dr... Dr... Give the News.... Cause I have a bad case of needing to hear from you...r brilliance. In all of my life I have never heard news as good as the news today in the astrophysics world. Your simply the best at delivering it.

[@jeffknott1975]

Love the bloopers! It's nice to see even the cleverest of us mess up...a lot!

[@凯思]

Yes, mess ups like accepting sponsorships from Better Help.

[@fandroid6491]

@@凯思 Your comment was sponsored by Raid Shadow Legends

[@hydrocharis1]

English is not my native language and I pronounced albeit wrong in my head while reading for a really long time

[@benperkins1555]

Crilly described my whole Sunday! I didn't have a word for it though, just like I'm getting sick but never quite got there

[@drkmgic]

i hope you do research on better help before endorsing them. Edit* it's so concerning to me how she hasn't made a response or an action considering the amount of negative comment she is getting due to better help

[@凯思]

Yes, in this regard she is using her platform very carelessly.

[@saintchuck9857]

Sadly, I hope she did zero research and just accepted the sponsorship for the money because if she did research and still accepted the sponsorship, yikes.

[@alisonmclane2631]

I so appreciate your explanations of the complex issues beyond my limited understanding. Keep on making videos!

[@DariusRoland]

Awesome video!! My mother had a large vocabulary of made up terms to describe how she felt at any given time. Among them: "flooshy" and "grunky" were her most memorable and frequently used.

[@BrianKelsay]

I don't know a lot about the various astronomy supjects, but I just like listening to Dr Becky get excited about them. I do hope someone figures out the crisis and can move us on to new physics. Hop to Dr. Becky. Time to suss this out.

[@ShakalDraconis]

Combo fun fact/very pedantic correction, the "first rung" of the astronomical distance ladder is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. This is because the way we measure distance to all the nearest stars, is based off the paralax movement of said stars as the Earth moves in its orbit. This is the literal reason the average Earth/Sun distance is called "The Astronomical Unit", every single measurement outside our solar system, and even most of those within the system, are based off of it and are all ultimately measured relative to it.

[@revenevan11]

Excellent point to bring up, although depending on your pedantic indexing convention of choice you could argue that the AU is the 0th rung of the ladder.

[@MountainFisher]

A Parsec is the distance of a straight line going through the Sun's poles at 90° and the Earth's line at a parallax angle of one arcsecond of a degree at a distance of one AU to where it meets the Sun's line is one parsec. Thus now you know why 3.26 light years are called a parsec _and_ why such an arbitrary sounding distance is used to measure stellar and galactic distances. If you want to see a diagram showing that explanation Wikipedia has a simple one. I think they may have copied it from my Star Atlas. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec

[@DrDeuteron]

@@revenevan11so how do we get the AU?

[@DrDeuteron]

So it appears ppl used mars at opposition and measured its distance with daily parallax, then with keplers laws you go from earth diameter to mars distance to AU. But that hasn’t been done since 2010. Ofc earths size is measured a zillion was with 🛰️ and what not

[@ShakalDraconis]

@@revenevan11 I concede to your superior pedantry, it would indeed be best categorized as the 0th rung. Well done.

[@L2p2]

I have been trying to keep abreast of the news in astro physics and your link for ADS is going to be very helpful. Meanwhile the paper you covered on SMBH sizes being large in the past was very eye opening. It leads us to speculate that SMBH could be drive evolution like you noted. Thanks for the light !

[@L2p2]

oh i love the fact that you always add links !

[@Rajclaw]

Please drop the better help sponsor asap

[@凯思]

Seriously!

[@TheSouthernSiren]

They are the worst to offer

[@PhilLeith]

Very good job translating to something us more lay people can understand (although I do have a pretty good basic physics background from my meteorology studies, which I'm sure helps ... but I'm NO physicist). I love Dr. Becky's presentations. Also good job explaining the uncertainties and how we're trying to address those. Space has always been fascinating to me. And our peering farther and farther back into what is for all practical purposes "infinity" is even more mind blowing. Love your enthusiasm.

[@RichardJBarbalace]

Regarding the banana-shaped galaxies, wouldn't we expect images of more distant galaxies to be more distorted from passing through more gravitational lenses on the way to our telescopes? So could the distortion simply be an artifact of distance and distortion rather than the actual shape of the galaxy? Do we even have enough data to correct for such effects at such great distances?

[@Jefuslives]

That's exactly what I thought as well.

[@evangonzalez2245]

[Banana galaxy included for scale] 😋

[@zamboni9038]

Absolutely in the zone right now. This was an extremely entertaining episode and great way to start a Saturday morning, along with my coffee. I truly look forward to the future proposed explanations of the Hubble tension.

[@SideWalkAstronomyNetherlands]

I hope I'll still be able to sleep now, with this crises... :) I haven't had a good look at the sky since October actually, too cold, too windy, and too clouded. Didn't take any pictures of the sky either. So Much for sidewalk astronomy :(

[@richard--s]

By the way, you can see a model of how many nebulae formed, it really looked like it: When the Starship upper stage was already far away, like a dot on the screen , it finally exploded - and for a second or two, the explosion cloud (as it filled most of the screen) looked like some of these nebulae that we can see with our telescopes. It was in the second full Starship test flight. When you want to see it, if you see a rocket from the side or if you see a yellow color in the explosion (thumb nail), it's not what I mean, that explosiin looks different. I mean it where you can barely see the rocket from the back, far away, in the center of the screen (still firing the engines, a faint white glow in a small spot of the screen, so far away) and then it explodes and you see a structure in the explosion cloud like a nebula in a telescope, it's just expanding very quickly. The explosion cloud looks white in the videos (as I wrote, yellow explosions are from a short distance, that are something different, no comparison to the effect that I mean). Of course, it's just like a tiny model of the real nebulae, so you only have about a second to see it, but it has structures in it like some of the nebulae in space might have. But as the nebulae in space are much bigger, our livespan is so short that even in our livespan we hardly see these interstellar clouds expand and evolve... I find it fascinating, that this explosion looks just as a nebula might look, but only for about a second or so (quicker because it's so small, altough the upper stage was 9m in diameter and about 30m long or so). The reason for the explosion was, that they had too much oxygen. For some reason they needed to fill the tank, but they had no payload, it was just an early test flight, so they needed to release that oxygen... and they did... And it formed an explosive environment...

[@realkarfixer8208]

In regards to "The "Big Ring" Megastructure of Galaxies" I love the fact that the Universe cares not a bit about our presumptions about how it should have developed. Since we don't understand the basics of 96% of the mass-energy of the Universe, how could of "our" understanding of Cosmology be anything but incomplete.

[@seantlewis376]

"If you have clear skies..." That gave me such a laugh! I live in the Pacific Northwest. Our weather and climate are very similar to UK, so clear skies are a rarity for all but about two months of the year. I felt like Dr. Becky snuck in a little snark there.

[@Contraption]

Great stuff, Doctor! Thank you for all the hard work. Just checking but I thought an extended pinky at arm's length is more like 1 degree , not 0.2 degrees.

[@fraliexb]

Have you seen the paper that talks about how Cosmic Voids act like bubbles with Dark Energy effects with expansion? And, I remember seeing something about the Hubble Constant conflict with the CMB vs Standard Candles, where our Laniakea Supercluster is tweaking the expansion rates we measure with Standard Candles in our local regions.

[@luisakehau1398]

I haven't watched the full video but I know for sure that it will be amazing as always

[@JohnBerry-q1h]

When I watch your videos, I set *Playback speed; Custom* to 2 . Not only does it sound funny, but I still understand every single word. It also reminds me of Family Reunions, when all my aunts would sit together.

[@AbelShields]

Could the reason for the universe not being uniform on large scales be that the transition of being energy-dominated to matter-dominated could be a second order phase change around a critical point? If so, those sorts of phenomenon can produce a fractal-like structure, where no matter how far out you zoom it never becomes even.

[@neilburgess9652]

Been watching your content for a while now and love it but I finally worked out why I've had this nagging thought that you looked so familiar. Turns out its from a Sky at Night segment you presented that I watched in passing a while back and only just made the connection. So cool :)

[@mattiarenzi5673]

People, everyone makes mistakes, she probably didn't know about the past of BetterHelp, it happens... She just wanted to do a nice collab for us and her channel.

[@lunasophia9002]

The thing is that it's pretty easy to do five minutes of research and learn about the issues.

[@mattiarenzi5673]

I agree, which is why I didn't say she is right, I just think most people who haven't heard about the whole thing probably would think they are a pretty good reality and cool service to promote to viewers, since they theoretically are a therapy service. I'm not saying she shouldn't have checked their reputation, I'm saying she might have not done it out of good faith and that we shouldn't be judging her harshly before knowing for sure what happened :c

[@saintchuck9857]

So a scientist and science educator did zero research because money was involved? That would be unfortunate.

[@mattiarenzi5673]

I'm not saying because of money, but simply because of the kind of service they are supposedly providing and no reason to assume anything bad for starters. I'd think probably thought "This could help some of my viewers, all right, seems like a good Collab!" without ever doubting, just out of good faith. As I said before, it does not take away the fact that she should have, but I think we don't need to be harsh with her till we hear her side of the story, that's all. Maybe y'all are right and she'll say "I have done my research and I don't think there is anything fishy with betterhelp", but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt :)

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@lunasophia9002its also pretty easy to have things fall through the cracks when your life is research. Hard to get time for other things with her schedule.

[@stevecagle2317]

Love your bloopers 😂 I call that "pre-sickness" feeling, "the creeping crud." I had it last week. This week has been YUCK 🤧🤒

[@romado59]

In previous videos, try to point out the fact there are at least five ways to produce red shift and we do not know what ratio of those ways sum to the Hubble Redshift. This is point of Halton Arp research on quasars.

[@EnglishMike]

Resurrecting Arp's theories is almost as likely as resurrecting the man himself.

[@ianw7898]

Arp was trivially wrong, and shown to be so. He lost the plot. He is only invoked by crackpots these days.

[@romado59]

Your seem to be unaware that he is dead. Here is a video of Patrick Moore interviewing Halton Arp in 1988: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2iwp3iuf8SGqLc

[@romado59]

The facts for his times have not change; that being, low redshift galaxies being physical connected to high redshift quasars.@@EnglishMike

[@ianw7898]

@@romado59 _"Your seem to be unaware that he is dead."_ Errrr, nope. That is why @EnglishMike said, "....is almost as likely as resurrecting the man himself." And it doesn't make any difference whether he is dead or alive - he was flat out wrong, and nobody follows his nonsense these days, other than purveyors of pseudoscience. We knew he was wrong decades ago. That is not going to change.

[@annad9596]

it's great to see you talking about AAS -- it was my first year attending! i hope to meet you at one in the future!! :)

[@yomogami4561]

thanks for the information dr becky could the shapes of the galaxy just be distortions in space-time as the universe evolved?

[@MunkieHAHA]

Dr Becky, I love your content! Thank you for night sky news and these recaps. I love hearing updates on the crisis in cosmology because the idea that we may have to rethink the current model of the universe is so exciting! lol. Thank youuuuuu!!! Learning so much here.

[@Lawrence-k4d]

Video editing skills are top notch, great content as usual.

[@Apocalymon]

I remember some computer simulation results being discarded over the past two decades, because it didn't match the mainstream ideas of astrophysics. Look at the new analysis, I think one group's discarded simulaton got those early galaxy shapes & giant black hole right.

[@Daddyoh94]

I love Night Sky News

[@DerangedTechnologist]

This is splendid, though that fairly well goes without saying. What I'm writing this to say is that I'm amazed (as you point out, it's something of a taboo topic) and immensely pleased that you are pairing with a mental health organization. Thank you. [I will note that I have no personal stake -- it is an organization that I hadn't heard of before seeing it mentioned here.]

[@FliippPlays]

I open video. I see betterhelp ad. I immediately close video.

[@ToTheWolves]

As an astronomer/astrophysicist , spot on keep a working knowledge of ALL the stars/planets/ groups/clustera/superclusters in your head?

[@kurtcraig3421]

RIP ingenuity. never thought a helicopter 140 million miles away would tug on my heart strings...... but here we are. looks like one of the blades hit the ground when landing.

[@johannageisel5390]

Oh noes! .... But it held up exceptionally well! What a lil' trooper!

[@francoislacombe9071]

Maybe those very large structures in the universe are like rogue waves in our oceans? Processes that make waves can't make something as large as rogue waves, but the smaller normal waves themselves can interact to create their giant siblings. So maybe things like the Big Ring or the Great Wall were not created directly from the processes in the early universe that created its "normal" structures, but by interactions between those structrures once they were formed.

[@sweetybnz7482]

Where did all the comments about the unethical/ illegal activity of the sponsor BetterHelp go? Surely it is a good idea to warn vulnerable people about dealing with this predatory company.

[@peterclark1189]

Becky can you discuss Hoyle, Burbidge & Narlikar QSSC proposal that seems increasingly more rational than "Big Bang". Love your presentations.

[@smenor]

I see I’m not the only one here to say this but please look into better help. They are a horrendously awful company you shouldn’t want to be associated with.

[@dylanhyatt5705]

The propensity for different shaped galaxies (as opposed to the standard spiral) in the early universe may be related to the finding that early galaxy back holes were considerably more massive (with respect to the stellar mass).

[@Dorphie]

Fuck Better Help, get a better sponsor.

[@alexz1104]

Another great episode Dr Becky. Would love to see your content on nostr, people can even leave you tips every time you post a new video!

[@spiderland7811]

Aren’t you aware that BetterHelp is a scam?

[@barefootalien]

Yeah, the isotropic and homogeneous assumptions struck me as bizarre from the time I first read about them as a young boy. They sound no less ridiculous today, and I'm _really happy_ that those assumptions keep getting challenged and battered by new discoveries!

[@mathijs58]

3:10 The sun is not the brightest object in the night sky ;-)

[@SuperLuminalMan]

Yeah I noticed that and was all like 'hang on a minute'

[@Lee_River]

Thank you for bringing these enjoyable videos. These are certainly exciting times for those of us with an interest in cosmology.

[@mapsofbeing5937]

"according to our best model of the universe" you mean according to the obviously obsolete and obviously dumb gravitational-reductionist inflationary model, which somehow is surprisingly always wrong but still the default assumption anyways it's not like this Big Ring changes anything that you should have already noticed from the Cosmic Web

[@my-pixels]

Thank you Dr. Becky for another great video. Can't imagine how you find time to create these amazing videos.

[@ethantaylor2827]

Betterhelp? Definitely not watching anymore.

[@bluenetmarketing]

If the CMB is supposedly 380,000ly away, and the universe is supposedly 18.5b years old, and the universe's radius is supposedly 46.6bly away, then how is it possible to even see the CMB since it would be at the outer edge of the universe 46.6bly away and further away than the age of the universe and further away than 380,000ly? None of your distances or times make any sense at all.

[@HankHillspimphand]

betterhelp.....really?

[@JJvanderMeer]

Hey Dr Becky, do you keep a list of the songs that you've sung at the end of your video's? :D I don't recall you ever singing the same song more then once, and you've made a ton of video's thru the years.

[@samedwards6683]

Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job. Keep it up.

[@annrobinette]

Could the big arc and the big ring just be a huge galaxy cluster ? And maybe some of the galaxies on the rings are farther away and the studies were wrong ?

[@wendygullion883]

That’s a good point !!

[@jdalton4552]

The Hubble constant is an incredibly slow velocity when you consider the size of a Megaparsec. This arises because it is measured against massive galactic masses which slow down the expansion almost to a state of rest due to gravity which operates in opposition to the expansion. If on the other hand you could measure the expansion inside the huge voids that populate the universe you would find that the expansion rate is the velocity of light. Unfortunately we have no way of measuring this rate because there is nothing inside a void to measure.

[@johnjoseph9823]

thank you again Dr.Becky for all your videos

[@xela552]

It's so interesting watching this "crisis in cosmology" unfold. Whatever the solution is will be game changing

[@Dwanski]

How I picture the reason for having so many flat disc galaxies - When the mass in the region was "young" there were irregularities in the mass distribution that created the conditions for large clumps to come together forming the center super massive black hole. It also has some small irregularities in int's mass distribution and that made bigger drag while moving in space time. That made the part wit more mass to move slower and so creating the spin (3d objects can spin in only one axes ). The spin created gravitation waves that transpose the 1 way motion to the other matter in the system forming a disc..

[@andym4695]

These megastructures are incredibly exciting. I mean, the cosmological model I learned over the years is that the universe started as a kind of formless plasma of sorts concentrated in a tiny area, and that over millions of years, congealed into a kind of uniform web of material randomly, but uniformly, strewn over the observable universe. But these megastructures indicate that something insanely powerful gave the young universe a wrench, or that the formless plasma actually had form. This of course begs the question, what was/is squeezing/pushing/etc. matter to create these shapes? When did it start? Is it still doing it? I don't think we'll find a grumpy old white man in a robe, but assuming these phenomenon are real, my guess is that something even larger than or adjacent to or something to our universe gave things an initial push.

[@fwd79]

Yay a lengthy video. Cheers Dr Becky 👍

[@DarkVoidIII]

If the Hubble Space Telescope doesn't have the resolution to properly distinguish the Cepheid variables from light emitted from the surrounding stars, doesn't that call into question any measurement that HST made on the Cepheid variables? A related question: Has anyone catalogued and analyzed these Cepheid variables sufficiently to properly determine if all of the light measured from them is coming from a point that is the same in every Cepheid variable's phase of development? All stars undergo development phases as they progress through their stellar life cycle. Have the Cepheid variables been sufficiently analyzed to determine if they are all of similar ages? I would question anybody who just measures a Cepheid variable and calls it the same as the last Cepheid variable they have just analyzed. Cataloging the characteristics of any type of star is very important, as important as identifying what stage of development the star in question is going through. I'd expect Cepheid variables to be treated the same way.

[@deathsheadknight2137]

I think Prof Unzicker's latest video touched on that. interesting stuff.

[@MarkHennessyBarrett]

Thank you for making this so much fun to keep up with! You're fantastic!

[@ingovb6155]

Nice summary as usual. And thanks for including the month/year in the thumbnail :)

[@SalamaSond]

Q from an old physics major: how do we now that time behaved linearly in the extreme FTL moment after the BB? Are we just treating that T component as an arbitrary constant in the expansion equation for purposes of calculation? Wonderful, thought-provoking video. Cheers.

[@markgrace3247]

there are no standard candles. I imagine you have to compensate for the materials of the star, optical gravity (gravitational lensing), magnetism, etc.

[@DBREW]

Outtakes are on point this month.

[@RachelsSweetie]

Re:Better help, as a person with low focus both visually and mentally, my anxiety is about so many services using the Internet as their primary interface. No lie.

[@qumqats]

love the blooper roll at the end! 😂

[@JoseMartinez-oe1on]

Holy viewer count 😂 I specifically looked for your account to view your latest video & give a NanoM to boost views. Completely underestimating your popularity after only viewing two of your videos and following you for a month. underestimating astrophysics KZbinr community /creators.... Vid drop 10hr= 105k views✨😶 keep up the great work.. it just went to 107k in the last few min👏🏻

[@DHunter52171]

Thinking about this another way. If you have ever watched something explode in slow motion, this will make more sense thinking of it in that context. Big Bang: Less massive particles accelerate quicker and lead the frontal edge of the shockwave. More massive particles (objects) accelerate more slowly, however they carry more momentum and are effected less by the less massive particles. The less massive are then affected by the gravity of the more massive. This slows their speed relative to the more massive. Eventually the more massive overtake the less massive and the gravity effect on the less massive then causes them to speed up. Given the known rate of expansion of the universe, there should be observable differences. We should be able to see if there is any difference in the known rate vs the rate of the supermassive blackholes observed in the early universe by JWST are moving away from a center.

[@SebastianKrabs]

Astrophysicists, the only group of PhDs who get paid to be wrong all the time, then use their failures to gain additional funding. BRILLIANT! 😅