The Crisis in Cosmology Just Got So Much Worse

[@SabineHossenfelder]

The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1732950267728x526847351697702900 You can now also create your own quizzes on my website, it's free!

[@Thomas-gk42]

Quizwithit: "Stop using mathematics...because it´s clearly not working" -- Heehee.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Professor Dave Farina destroys your rightwing grift, Sabina kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIHCpZabpK2IfpY

[@KING1993GAMING]

the general and special relativity works just find, just remove the space time curvature part, the space time causes curvature need to be removed else the problem won't be solved. I am currently making a new theory on the dimension from negative 2 to positive nine, there will be part how the 4th-dimension causes image distortion rather than space time curvature.

[@KING1993GAMING]

I even made a video regarding this topic, only if miss Sabina do not mind, I called this new framework a colorless king dimension framework, currently made 1 video of negative dimension 2. Title: Colorless King Dimension Hypothesis Negative 2 as Time, New Dimensional Framework

[@-danR]

Does the quiz illustrate how the Bullet Cluster doesn't hurt DM and kills off most MOND variants?

[@troywahl9731]

Before one throws out general relativity, one needs to remember cosmological models, such as Lambda CDM, are models based on assumptions of how the universe works. If the assumptions are wrong, then the model is wrong and observations won't match predictions. One of the assumptions in Lambda CDM is the the universe has constant and isotropic curvature. General relativity does not actually require that the universe curves in the same way in all directions (the isotropic part). Nor does it require that the curvature is constant (it could vary from place to place). It is true that both cosmology and astrophysics become much more difficult if the constant and isotropic curvature assumption is wrong, but our job as scientists is to describe/explain the world as it is and not in a way that makes it easy for ourselves.

[@bpotter885]

i dont know why many posts start with " haha einstein is wrong. " im pretty sure thats the last thing he cared about.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

The problem with throwing out isotrophy and homogeneity is that it's unfalsifiable. We cannot ever know the large scale curvature or distribution of matter of the universe, only the local and the observation that it evens out above a certain scale.

[@jorgesanf]

​@@ObjectsInMotion damn that sounds fucked up

[@dovos8572]

@@bpotter885 teh funny thing is that einstein can be right and wrong at the same time. the same way newton was right and wrong with his calcualtions (at least below 1% of the speed of light). an equation can be right while being incomplete at the same time. we simplificate equations a ton and these higher equations they use have many input values that are undefined (like the center of a black hole or the water speed at a 90° corner curve in fluid dynamics)

[@RockBrentwood]

@@ObjectsInMotion The whole observable universe counts as "large scale", even if it's "small" in a yet larger scale. If you're getting bumps at the scale of *every single thing that you can see* - then you got some serious bumps, indeed, *regardless* of how it looks on yet larger scales. And that counts as falsification.

[@EternalStarVoyager]

Cosmology is in its infancy. Why would we expect the first generally accepted model would be correct? We have many paradigm shifts left to go.

[@AntActApp]

agreed

[@CausallyExplained]

More like humanity is in its infancy

[@halloola3636]

@@CausallyExplained It becomes more and more unlikely that humanity will ever reach the teenage years...

[@IanPritchard]

Including creation?

[@DH-rj2kv]

@@IanPritchard If you find any data supporting the assumption, everyone will be thrilled.

[@deldia]

Einstein’s work has already been massively valuable to humanity. He’s hardly going to have issues with his legacy.

[@SoulDelSol]

Exactly.

[@axeman2638]

How exactly?

[@densonsmith2]

The multiverse theory is important because some of the best episodes of star trek are based upon it.

[@StylishHobo]

lol

[@johnbox271]

"Mirror, Mirror"

[@CuriousAldo]

Best comment ever 😂

[@mark314158]

Fascinating...

[@alnotino7097]

Finally...a valid reason for multiverse theory.

[@brendanwood1540]

I love that this channel exists to question everything we think we know. This is the critical step in evolving our understanding.

[@deker0954]

Science being never settled.

[@axeman2638]

Yes question everything but Einstein's relativity and all the nonsense that flows from it.

[@brothermine2292]

I recommend to Sabine that each new video she makes that involves dark matter or MOND include a summary (at the end of the video) that lists both the falsifications of dark matter and the falsifications of MOND. When both have been falsified, it's silly to think that an additional falsification of one suggests a champagne celebration of the correctness of the other might be anticipated. A recent Caltech newsletter mentions a Caltech grad student studying observations of galactic clusters that, due to collisions, have had spatial separation of their normal matter and their dark matter. (Like the famous Bullet Cluster.) Since MOND chokes on those observations, the champagne should be reserved for some other celebration.

[@-danR]

99.9% of commenters have never even _heard_ of the Bullet Cluster, let alone its falsification of (most) MOND variants.

[@rescuearch7802]

I recall that when the Bullet Cluster was discovered, it was loudly proclaimed (by Dark Matter supporters) as proof of Dark Matter and disproof of MOND, but MOND supporters (including Mordehai Milgrom, the originator of MOND, himself) later said that the Bullet Cluster can in fact be explained using MOND, but by that time the media interest in the story had died, so hardly anybody heard about their rebuttal.

[@AurelienCarnoy]

​@-danR not true. I have heard of both. 😅 Don't assume anything, and you become open minded. Then you have room for big idear. Of cours i say that i say nothing

[@doublepinger]

A lot of the latest stuff we're doing, like bleeding edge DM models vs MOND models, or the strong force and QCD / L-QED sound like we're reaching epicycles on epicycles. Unfortunately something better still eludes us, something that has to be far, far more intricate than we are imagining.

[@steffenbendel6031]

@@doublepinger we had quite good data for the planetary movement. If we would have such good data for cosmology, even if we did not understand the physics, we probably can have a good fit trough the data like Planck did at his time. And then we could look for a model that explains it. But the current data is quite weak, but far better than what we had 20 years ago. We just have started to measure the cosmos. (like 200 years ago we did "Measuring the World" according to a book title)

[@kostuek]

We are only doing this for a few hundred years, would be surprising if we already got everything right. In fact - we may be not even close yet.

[@drbuckley1]

We were "astronomers" until the discovery of the microwave background radiation. That's when we became "cosmologists."

[@johnkessler9878]

Then don’t teach it in schools like it’s a fact.

[@andrewhallock2548]

I would appreciate if more scientists were willing to say "I'm not sure what this means and we're working to better understand what's happening". I watched a meteorologist once who was predicting a storm's path once it hit Lake Michigan. After two days of the models constantly shifting he stated "We're not sure where this is going precisely. So I'm going to stay in the studio and keep you all up to date on what it's doing right now". The rest of my time in that city he was the only meteorologist I watched. That level of honesty is rare in my experience.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Professor Dave Farina destroys your rightwing grift, Sabina kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIHCpZabpK2IfpY

[@ZoiusGM]

Wow. Yes. I appreciate such transparency too. Like, just say 'you don't know' bruh, you are not any less of an expert if you do it, quite the opposite. Be humble smh.

[@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd]

They can't predict a storm's path in the present moment but they can predict the climate a hundred years from now. Sure they can.

[@theslay66]

@@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd Because climate and meteorology are two different things. You don't necessarily need to know everything going on inside a system to predict how the system will behave. That's why we can predict how a gaz will act when under pressure without having to know every minute detail about what each of its atoms will do.

[@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd]

@@theslay66 Yet they keep getting all their predictions wrong.

[@ronmasters751]

Deeply appreciate your insight and reliable reporting in a field swamped with clickbait! What an age we live in, when so much good observational science has become available. 🙏🏻

[@GaryDew-n5p]

Hi Sabine, I’m an Aussie truck driver in my 60’s and a science tragic/lover since I care to remember. I will not waste your valuable time with a long post, just in case you read them, as it would detract from the time you have to do your incredibly important work. I just want to let you know you are wonderful. I rank you as being alongside my heroes like Feynman, Euler, Socrates and Emo Philips. Please keep doing your thing. I appreciate you without limit. For me your sarcastic and compassionate humour is pitch perfect. You go girl!

[@michaelhermary43]

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is" (Yogi Berra) So to paraphrase: In modelling there is no difference between the model and reality, in reality there is.

[@NemisCassander]

As someone who builds dynamic simulation models for a living, I can tell you that your paraphrase is wrong. Most simulation modelers are very much aware that there is a difference, in the model, between the model and reality.

[@halloola3636]

@@NemisCassander Huh? In what reality was the comment you responded to about the people creating models?

[@DataIsBeautifulOfficial]

Einstein: "Fix your telescopes, not my math"

[@piyalisadhukhan1266]

Einstein can be wrong sometimes. Unfortunately Sabina has made Einstein has a god and created a religion like figure out of him. He can be wrong once in a while he is human.

[@rahullak]

Einstein: Hold my beer?

[@Fitzrovialitter]

@@piyalisadhukhan1266 So _you_ say.

[@JohnSmith-mf3dh]

SOYence is a cult, Science is a tool to discover and prove those discoveries. What you wrote is the typical Cult thinking.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Professor Dave Farina destroys your rightwing grift, Sabina kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIHCpZabpK2IfpY

[@serenablackroseheartlink]

The Universe isn't matching my expected measurements! The Universe must then be wrong!

[@p0k314COM]

This is exactly where "modern science" is. Cheap bubble of cheap people connected only to own wallets. Any change is veeery dangerous for their positions. And try to go against the flow, you will immediately hear “we do not want to work with you”.

[@fabr5747]

No scientist ever said that... The fact that different approaches, measurements, theories are being worked, and this from a point in space looking 14 billion years in the past... That's just normal science...

[@BCundergroundHIPHOP]

@@p0k314COM Nobel prize will be awarded to the person that solves the tension.

[@Nat-oj2uc]

​@@p0k314COM this. Finally people are talking about it

[@Nat-oj2uc]

​@@fabr5747no that's bs science

[@jwv6985]

I think it's amazing that we can even do this type of testing in the first place. But, after all the testing and hypothesizing, it looks to me that we have barley scratched the surface of figuring out what is really going. So, we will need more people like Sabine for a long time.

[@AntActApp]

??? we need more people launching telescopes and studying data. shes communicating papers to the public.

[@Nat-oj2uc]

We need more people like Einstein not more data or more people like Sabine

[@jwv6985]

@@Nat-oj2uc so why are you watching her channel??

[@Nat-oj2uc]

@@jwv6985 because it's entertainment. What a dumb question. Why are you? think you gonna be smart as Einstein watching it? Lol

[@jwv6985]

😂😂😂​@@Nat-oj2uc

[@creatorsremose]

Your glee when saying "physics just got a new problem" got me rolling... that was awesome!

[@deker0954]

Foundation grants?

[@WonkyWiIl]

Thanks for another good discussion about our universe and our understanding of it. We should never be disturbed by gaps between observations and theory. These gaps tell that there interesting stuff to discover

[@chrisolmsted5678]

In other branches of science every time they got stuck for a long time, it was evidence from a lower more foundational level that resolved the issue. Spacetime physicists can't do that. But, they can learn a different lesson. The earliest flaw in the model always was followed by other flaws required to make the theory work. Today there are probably multiple flaws that support each other in the best models of physics. Correcting a singular flaw may not fit the data any better. This seems like it makes the problem more difficult. But that's an illusion because physics itself is unchanged by theory.

[@AurelienCarnoy]

Please explain why we can't find foundation of space time? 😅 Just try. It's intresting

[@chrisolmsted5678]

​@@AurelienCarnoywe might theorize a foundation (like the existence of an omnipotent deity). But because we only have this spacetime (that we are within) to work with we can't tell the difference between evidence of the foundation which spacetime emerged from and a property of spacetime.

[@stephenpuryear]

Dr. Hossenfelder, adding the quiz is a brilliant addition. Keep it up!

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes, really entertaining

[@J-D-Pye]

@SabineHossenfelder, thank you for another fascinating and thought-provoking video. As an engineer rather than a physicist, I’ve been captivated by the concept of an expanding universe and wanted to share some thoughts and questions that have arisen as I reflect on your points. First, regarding the expansion of the universe: If the universe is expanding, does that expansion also apply to the space between atoms or within atomic structures? My understanding is that forces like electromagnetism and quantum mechanics (e.g., Planck’s constant) would maintain atomic and molecular integrity, effectively anchoring us at small scales. But if there were any changes in fundamental constants, would they not be imperceptible to us since our measurement standards would also shift proportionally? It’s a thought experiment I find intriguing. Second, about the Hubble tension: It seems to me that our attempts to measure the expansion rate of the universe are limited by our singular vantage point within the cosmos-our galaxy and, more specifically, Earth. While I understand that astrophysicists employ techniques like gravitational lensing, standard candles, and CMB data to “triangulate” and expand their observational framework, aren’t these methods inherently reliant on assumptions about the universe’s uniformity and the consistency of physical laws across vast distances? Could this introduce additional variables that complicate reconciling the discrepancies you describe? Lastly, the idea of a “big bang” leading to a universe expanding forever-or accelerating rather than reversing-fascinates me. I used to think, as many laypeople do, that the mass of the universe would eventually counteract its kinetic energy, leading to contraction. Learning that observations have disproved this has left me wondering: How can this be reconciled with the apparent role of dark energy in driving acceleration? Is this tension between theory and observation perhaps analogous to the Hubble and Sigma8 tensions, hinting at a deeper issue with our understanding of gravity or cosmic dynamics? I’m aware my perspective lacks the depth of someone with formal training in cosmology, but I find these questions compelling and hope they contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Thank you for making complex ideas accessible and for sparking curiosity in those of us outside the field.

[@rodandakiko2187]

Great thoughts and questions. But I'm afraid you probably will not get an answer or any feedback. This is generally 99% of KZbin videos. They may be very informative, but they are generally not a place of discussion. Well not with the person who created the video that is.

[@deker0954]

Expanding according to what standard of measurement?

[@56nickrich]

Theories about anything can be dissected and reasoned to be flawed. Your videos assist this layman tremendously Sabine ... thank you.

[@-danR]

I don't expect most commenters to have heard of the Bullet Cluster let alone its implications for most species of MOND, but I expect better of Sabine.

[@another3997]

​@@-danR I don't expect most commenter to know about my cat, but my cat knows HE is the centre of the universe. Every cat knows the universe revolves around them. 😂 People need to stop pretending we can currently create a handy formula or model that describes anything or everything in the universe. Everything is based on limited data gathered from a physically limited viewpoint, our little blue planet, over a miniscule period of time.

[@ClyDIley]

"let alone its implications for most species of MOND" Sabine addressed this and the bullet cluster. Someone should expect better of themselves, before spouting out the first pretentious thing that comes to mind, instead of addressing that welling cognitive dissonance in the back of your mind that spurred your attempt at shooting the messenger.

[@patrickmchargue7122]

"...cosmology was basically philosophy." That's good. Puts me in mind of multiverse theories.

[@littleworkshopofhorrors2395]

Philosophy is probably nearer being right than observation. All telescopes can see is how distant galaxies were billions of years ago, for all they know the collapse started a couple of billion years ago.

[@fabr5747]

None of that brings to the multiverse...

[@fabr5747]

@@littleworkshopofhorrors2395 How can philosophy be right about the scientific aspects of the universe? Physics tries to describe what we see, and to build models to replicate our observations. Then we test those theories, and use them where it fits, disscard them where it doesn't and try to find better representations of the reality. Philosophy is just talking without knowing. So sorry, but that's absurd. Did philosophers decide the type of telescope needed to go as far as possible in the past (JWST) and design it? My god the world is dumb. Focusing on people talking like those are facts...

[@fabr5747]

@@littleworkshopofhorrors2395 Based on ? Trust me bro? Probably? How do you measure the probability that random hunches are better than data accumulation? The expansion is accelerating from our observations. You have no theory to base your opinion on. So yeah... And please, if you hate facts, don't vote. I don't care about informed opinions diverging from mine who vote. But "trust me bro" votes...

[@littleworkshopofhorrors2395]

@fab5747 the best telescope ever invented cannot see things as they are but as they were! So all judgements based on observation must have an element of doubt, so we are in the realms of philosophy not science. At any moment in time you cannot say with 100% certainty the sun is still shining, although the probability is that it does. Light does take time to get here as you well know. Astronomy can only be considered the study of history. And that also brings it into the realm of philosophy.

[@BritishBeachcomber]

Too many people working on the crisis. What we need is just a few brilliant minds. Like in the old days of physics.

[@georgeageorgopoulos]

Like clown British Newton you mean!!!??? ;))

[@scotthime6928]

"...that's just about high enough to write a paper about." I always love that you don't jump to unwarrented conclusions, and you don't let other people get by with it either.

[@jeromejerome2492]

Because this is exactly what is written in the communication presenting the publication. ..so the scientists themself who wrote the paper said that

[@louisgiokas2206]

What is interesting about the idea of replacing Einstein's GR based on this speculative issue/paper is that this is the one area where there is an indication that Einstein is wrong. On this channel, and on many other channels, as well as papers I have seen copious examples where Einstein has been proven correct.

[@BigZebraCom]

There's a crisis in cosmology, but I feel fine.

[@mark.J6708]

Awesome comment!

[@edword3457]

If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention 🤔

[@BigZebraCom]

@@edword3457 My comment is a reference to the famous REM song "It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)"

[@edword3457]

@BigZebraCom sure, I get it, it's funny, but at this point in history, science is outrageously non-rectifying. On that same level, I could not let your comment just sit there. Cheers!

[@BigZebraCom]

@@edword3457 🦓😃

[@hdufort]

Can we have a video covering the modified gravity models or theories as of now? Too many readers seem to assume there is a single theory or model of modified gravity (MOND) but it's more complicated than that. Fudging the equations until they fit observations, then testing the fudged equations against results at different scales or measuring different phenomena... it's a good start. Then if we identify an equation that seems to be a good approximation of multiple phenomena we've measured, we have to go from "what" to "why".

[@oscargordon]

I’m old enough to be Sabine’s father and back in my day when I was taking astronomy courses, my professor had several jokes. She liked to comment how something had an uncertainty of “an order of magnitude. “That galaxy is somewhere between 10 million and 100 million light years away”. Also “The Hubble constant isn’t.” referring to how each time a new measurement was announced, it was significantly different from the previous one. Of course I guess the joke was on her as the rate of expansion has been increasing with time. This of course lead to, at the time, the age of the universe being between 8 billion and 20 billion years. But then she pointed out the stellar dynamics people were saying “We think we know how stars age and we aren’t seeing any over about 13 billion years old.” So awesome work star people!

[@JohnVKaravitis]

Ho ho ho ho!!! Good timbes, good timbes!

[@ObjectsInMotion]

The professors still make the exact same jokes in undergrad cosmology today!

[@dougsheldon5560]

Back when I was a student, all the data was on stone tablets. Really messed up your pockets.

[@Jerry-yu7sr]

3-D printed copy of Plimpton . . .

[@agimasoschandir]

You had pockets? Wow!

[@another3997]

But back when Sabine was a student, they just drew everything on the cave walls. 😉

[@Thomas-gk42]

"Wot?" 🤗 Thank you!

[@brothermine2292]

Vas?

[@drbuckley1]

@@brothermine2292 "Ghosts in the 'scopes"?

[@Anythingforfreedom]

The more anomalies arise, the closer we are to a scientific paradigm shift. The combination of these discrepancies holds the answer.

[@anthonycarbone3826]

It sounds like a measurement problem. And this only opens Pandora box as many of the methods they use to measure these values is used in other scientific theories. This is true even though these other measurements are thought 100% true for the other theories. That should shake the entire foundation of science proving beyond a shadow of doubt that humans should be much less sure of their theories being true.

[@in4merATP]

No Sabine, the three different weights are evidence that each scale is measuring one type of invisible mass, and one type of invisible energy, both of which are obviously there, as it's the only way to explain how we got so fat even though we were born yesterday.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

It all is only digestible because Sabine 's humor makes us forgive the Idé Fixe of some researchers. How to combine rational thinking with various "discoveries" in which we believe, and hope it will explain our very existence? Tell me...

[@plschwartzx]

Is it Ide Fixe or economics. The economics is that of the theoretical basis of your grant applications.

[@Techmagus76]

Thx Sabine, nice explanation. On the danger of Dunning Kruger, but Hubble tension (higher expansion rate) and sigma8 tension (not clumpy enough in the later universe) sounds like a very similiar issue.

[@MarkAitken-kn6xi]

I get intrigued when there are conflicts between the data and the prediction as I see it as an opportunity staring us in the face.

[@monnoo8221]

yes, albeit it has put a mask on.

[@winstonsmith6065]

Indeed. A conflict in data and observation is a clue that an incorrect assumption was made.

[@Loreweavver]

Yes and no. Alchemists made a lot of bad predictions until they found the periodic table that allows for accurate predictions because it is an accurate model. Our cosmology has advanced no further than rewording the cosmic egg concept with new words and building a computer model on that theory... And the model has given inaccurate predictions.

[@drbuckley1]

@@Loreweavver I must disagree with you about the advancements in cosmology. A mere half century ago "cosmology" was virtually indistinguishable from "astronomy" (and some would argue "astrology"!). We have new tools that allow us to peer deeper into the Universe, while quantum observations are stuck in the 1930s. I'm exaggerating, of course, but in my lifetime the advancements in cosmology have been staggering. That those observations confirm GR more often than not is astounding to me.

[@winstonsmiths2449]

Or you close your eyes to the obvious.

[@Berend-ov8of]

I'll be a lot happier when dark matter either stops being undetectable, or looses significance. I personally think we've got gravity all wrong, and keep it there mainly as a result of all the particlism. It bugs me to not know why it exists.

[@aaronjennings8385]

When an experiment yields two broadly different data outputs under nearly identical conditions, it naturally invites speculation. This is especially true in the case of the double slit experiment. In this case both theories of light are true simultaneously?

[@brothermine2292]

The interference pattern in the two-slit experiment can be explained by a "wave" nature of light. But a "particle" nature is NOT necessary to explain the localized absorption of the entire quantum of the light's energy at the detector, if we instead relax the Locality assumption ("nothing can be influenced by anything outside its past lightcone") and postulate that the wave has the nonlocal property that it interacts (with a detector) as if its entire quantum of energy is at the interaction location, even though the quantum was widely distributed in space (partially outside the past lightcone of the interaction event) a moment before the interaction. The founders of quantum mechanics were confident about the Locality axiom, which is why they rejected a "waves only" model. (Einstein called it the Separability axiom in the famous 1935 EPR paper.) But our knowledge of space & time is only rudimentary, and Bell tests have undermined confidence in Locality. Einstein's other famous 1935 paper, the ER paper about wormholes, showed that General Relativity can allow violation of Locality.

[@ramonacosta2647]

So for gravity we just need a theory of GR-MOND duality.

[@aaronjennings8385]

@ramonacosta2647 personally, I think we should admit there are only two dimensions and past that, it's an illusion.

[@atilathesonofdanubius4277]

The problem is this, at some point the calculations may be fairly accurate, but as our Cosmos changes, it introduces new variables. The randomization of our Cosmos makes it impossible to achieve 100% accuracy. We can only achieve mediocre accuracy.

[@sjzara]

From the point of view of scientists this isn’t a crisis at all - it’s a hugely exciting indication of new physics.

[@halloola3636]

The fundamental problem - that Sabine has adressed many times - is that the past 100 years have not produced new theories that can actually be tested.

[@ravenmad9225]

Crisitunity - Homer Simpson.

[@junt22]

0:39 I often confuse things with Sabine's sense of humor

[@petarswift5089]

They discovered 3 billion galaxies in the last 2 decades and nobody talks about them, they only mention black holes, wormholes, etc.

[@ulrikof.2486]

A billion times more of the same is lame.

[@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd]

If you were in an endless forest of oak trees and saw a pine tree or unusually old and lage oak people might be interested. They wouldn't care that you found a bunch more oak trees.

[@Debbie-henri]

If you look up NasaSpaceNews, although it's an AI voice, and he does use the same vocabulary a fair bit (which annoys some, but I couldn't care less), he does discuss galaxies quite frequently. He has quite a few videos on discoveries made by various telescopes, Webby in particular. There's also a round-up of what he's discussed and a gallery of the pictures he used with a little bit of music (so you have more time to appreciate the images without dialogue distracting you) Videos generally last about 8 minutes with a few shorter ones.

[@az8560]

Not clumpy enough? Yet, early universe has much more big galaxies than expected, so too clumpy at the same time? I'm so confused.

[@another3997]

That's what happens when you do the equivalent of trying to describe to describe the whole of planet Earth just from the view atop Mt. Everest, at night, in a raging snowstorm, with a pair of children's toy binoculars and a cheap flashlight. 😂

[@justuseodysee7348]

Have you tried changing your scale to imperial units?

[@drbuckley1]

Ha ha! Americans are so precious.

[@jdilksjr]

@@drbuckley1 Yes, we are.

[@drbuckley1]

@@jdilksjr Personally, I never even tried to learn metrics. It always seemed so "French" to me!

[@ianstopher9111]

General Relativity is not for you then.

[@drbuckley1]

@@ianstopher9111 My remarks were not intended seriously. Of course I understand metrics. Like Col. Flagg, "Sarcasm confuses me."

[@Lyra0966]

No idea whatsoever about what you're going on about, but I'm fascinated, keen to hear more, and understand there's some kind of problem. Keep up the great work!

[@ErwinSchrodinger64]

Particle physicists will now want more funding for more theoretical particles based on theories, based on theories, to attempt to prove their existence via a larger collider. How does this explain these anomalies... does it matter. Build the bigger collider.

[@maxp3141]

Everyone wants money for the work they do. It’s that simple.

[@notmyproblem88]

so you're just typing what Sabine says in every video she puts "crisis" in the title of for clicks?

[@prototropo]

Sabine is such a great teacher. If only I'd had her in all my science classes.

[@aaa77422]

Curvature and stretch of space are two different things. Stretch causes curvaturе, but curvature can also be the topology of the universe. The red shift reflects curvature, and not stretch, thats all.

[@theslay66]

That's what I think too, but it's hard to concile this with the existence of the cosmic microwave background.

[@aaa77422]

​​@@theslay66It's turtles all the way round and round. But maybe just once or twice.

[@edwinscheibner7941]

Thank you, Sabine!

[@ogmakefirefiregood]

One thing is certain, there is more to reality than what's in our universe.

[@AntActApp]

why are you certain? how could you test if there are other universes?

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

Let me guess: "Therefore, God!"?

[@rasitsimsek9400]

The cosmological theory is over 100 years old and reaching its limits due to better measurement methods. The mainstream scientists will not gave up the current Lamba CDM model. But it is has a very high simplification of the universe.

[@StephenGoodfellow]

Cosmology; a comedy show on a sinking Big Bang Titanic.

[@francoislacombe9071]

The universe has not been clumping enough, yet the early universe apparently has bigger galaxies and black holes than expected. Interesting mix of contradictory observations there. 🤔

[@Andrumen01]

It needs to be remarked that physics is NOT the truth, it is a collection of intertwined models that work within a certain framework and limitations. Saying that Einstein is wrong is the same as saying that Newton is wrong. Newton's law of Universal gravitation is very useful for many applications, but it is just a low energy approximation of Einstein's relativity for a Schwarzschild type of geometry. Einstein's theory of (general) relativity has proven extremely useful for MANY cases. People saying that he was/is wrong is just a bunch of jealous a--holes wanting to get notoriety, when we know that (most likely) Einstein's theory is just a subset of a higher level theory...that we are yet to uncover. The debate shouldn't be about whether Einstein was right or wrong, more about whether it is the final theory of gravity or there is something else beyond it, and at what point it will break....one of the many reasons why physics (read as: science) is failing and, for example, String Theory has been unsuccessful.

[@Nat-oj2uc]

Exactly. It's a cringe when people have a go at Einstein. Easy to say he was wrong. Come up with something better 'Einstein' lol

[@Prometheus-Unbound]

Love the smile with "Physics has got a new problem now" 🙂

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(2:15) *_"Too bad for philosophers, I guess."_* ... Naaaah, philosophy is enjoying a new-found popularity with physics currently stuck in the mud. "Philosophy" shows you why your measurements aren't enough to explain existence.

[@drbuckley1]

The Standard Model is stuck, but General Relativity is overwhelmed by new data. Maybe artificial intelligence can make sense of the vast information being collected today?

[@tarmaque]

"Philosophy is the attempt to catch a black cat in a dark room, without the cat actually being there at all."    -Pablo Cruz

[@GjermoGjermanski]

​@@drbuckley1 yes and Artificial intelligence which doesnt exist by the way will wipe your behind and give ur girlfriend orgasms.

[@BCundergroundHIPHOP]

There is no free will. This is my favourite philosophical viewpoint.

[@kanucks9]

​@@BCundergroundHIPHOPit is the one that frustrates me the most. The existence of free will is directly observable. For it not to exist only requires you to define it away. There is no incompatibility between choice and determinism.

[@billirwin3558]

Of course there is always the chance that these measurements and/or assumptions are wrong. But we can only do what the technology of the times allows us to do.

[@amcluesent]

When you rely on 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' to make the maths work then you're closer to theology than science.

[@tysonbentford3525]

😂😂😂 and blackholes

[@johannuys7914]

Definitely not a scientist...but after been watching Sabine and similar experts for the past couple of years, I kind of agree with your conclusion!

[@unduloid]

That's the biggest pile of nonsense I have heard in a long while.

[@AntActApp]

does theology offer testable predictions? cosmology isn't in some kind of disrepair, its growing.

[@Wol333]

@@AntActApp Tests are showing that dark matter and dark energy are flawed fill ins for a lack of understanding. Watch more of Sabine's videos.

[@doublepinger]

To give credence on the "sluggishness" astronomy used to be at, Brian May, lead guitarist and back-up vocalist for Queen was studying for his PhD in 1974, and did his whole Queen thing, and then came back to get his PhD in 2007, because there had been so little work in the field he was in. I can barely take a day off from work before I'm behind.

[@DJ_Force]

Seems that given a choice between trusting General Relativity, which has been continuously tested for over 100 years, and ΔCMB, my money is on Einstein.

[@AntActApp]

i would consider general relativity to be a (perhaps THE) cosmological principle. i agree with this insight and think the title of this video is a bit misleading, though there are certainly many more relevations to come.

[@NotSomethingIsNothing]

I'd bet more on the possibility that general theory is incomplete than trusting it blindly just because it was valid on few tests that we did.

[@DJ_Force]

@@NotSomethingIsNothing General Relativity has been continuously tested in every conceivable way for over 100 years.

[@NotSomethingIsNothing]

@@DJ_Force i am not saying it's wrong, i am saying it's incomplete.

[@ZlatnoPeroTV]

​@@DJ_Force so was classical mechanics and yet it was proven to be incomplete.

[@henrikstenlund5385]

To be more precise, something is really wrong with the observations and the shaky conclusions based on them.

[@charlottesimonin2551]

As usual, theories are known to be well founded on data, based on mathematically based assumptions that may not be entirely correct. Every student develops their own model.

[@rahullak]

Also fundamental assumptions of science itself may not be entirely correct.

[@Hendrik_F]

@@rahullak What is a fundamental assumption of science? Does science as a whole even have any assumptions?

[@rahullak]

@@Hendrik_F Assumptions such as: 1. Humans have only 5 senses and instrumental/technological extensions thereof. 2. Subjectivity does not lead to truth. etc.

[@HaloForgeUltra]

@@Hendrik_F For one, that reality is consistent, and we exist temporally as opposed to the Universe being created 0.1 seconds ago and being destroyed in the next 0.1 seconds.

[@theophrastus3.056]

Whew! For a moment, I thought she said a crisis in cosmetology. Still, I think the various sides in cosmology can learn from the motto of cosmetologist: “Kiss, and make up!”

[@Thomas-gk42]

😂

[@aaronmicalowe]

Wherever Einstien is I guarantee he is not troubled.😂

[@brianboyle2681]

Amused, maybe

[@davidsault9698]

My non-physicist idea is that they don't clump together as calculated because the galaxies are constantly converting a certain amount of matter to space from nuclear, mostly fusion processes. The locally expanding space then acts in opposition to gravity.

[@j.a.velarde5901]

#SabineHossenfelder -- Why is it so hard for scientists to accept that they don't know what they're talking about? -- It's okay not to know... that's why we're trying to learn. If we made mistakes in theories and explanations, just swallow and walk it back. -- Drop the ego, everyone. --

[@pfzht]

The problem is both one of individual virtue, or lack thereof, and ever present institutional forces.

[@derblaue]

That jab about scales and modified gravity was really great, love it

[@peterfreiling6963]

Sabinne, the problem with all of these large-scale cosmological models is that they assume the existence of a universal "now", as if we can synchronize clocks across 10's of billions of light years (which we can't), or that we can observe the entire universe from outside the universe and define a "now" based on some fantastical outside-the-universe clock (which is not possible as far as we know and not realistic as you have pointed out in a recent video). We make cosmological measurements inside our universe (not outside) by looking at light emitted from objects 10's of billions of light years away and from that we conclude that the universe is expanding "now"? Seriously??? What if we were to send a light probe to such objects and wait 2x10's of billions of years for the light to return.....if we did that, and if we lived a really long time, we might get a different result, or it might even take 100 billion years for the light to return if these distant objects are moving as some people believe. So, until these conundrums are satisfactorily resolved, I do not think we can have any confidence in large-scale models of the universe.

[@misterphmpg8106]

Have you understood cosmological redshift at all?

[@peterfreiling6963]

@@misterphmpg8106 I am sorry, but it is hard to understand what you mean. So, an object which we think is 10 billion light years away emits light and that light travels to earth and reaches earth after 10 billion years. When received, that light is red-shifted, so it seams that said object was moving away from where we are now 10 billion years ago. What does that say about what is happening "now", ie what does it say about light emitted "now" from the same object. If we waited 10 billion years to receive that light, it might not be red shifted at all, it might even be blue shifted. So, we have no idea what is happening "now" across the vast universe, and in fact there is no "now".

[@reckoner1913]

Anyone who's understood the basics of Einstein's theories knows time isn't constant or universal. Generally though as most things in the universe are not moving at close to the speed of light to have noticeable relativistic effects we can still have meaningful conversations about time. What that's got to do with whatever point you were trying to make I have no idea.

[@caolilan]

I always hate the digs scientists take at philosophy, which usually just demonstrates that the scientist hasn’t read philosophy. Kant proposed in that space and time weren’t real outside of our perception and it’s taken science 250 years to catch up.

[@Fanny-Fanny]

0:26 - "Physicist described the universe as a hole" - really? What type of hole? Can we keep digging and pop out in Australiaverse/Chinaverse?

[@Antleredangelbun]

If its a hole, there is material surrounding it... 🤔

[@Fanny-Fanny]

@Antleredangelbun you are giving me flashbacks from my wedding night...

[@turtle926]

Hole up

[@Fanny-Fanny]

@turtle926 hole down?

[@guessedUK]

It’s the result of the Whubble Tension.

[@RobBominaar]

The basic problem, I think, is that you can't get out of the presentation shown to you by what you are, which means that you don't know what you are because you can't compare.

[@lucashowell7653]

3:30 ah yes. Modified gravity. Textbook example of a handy technique for fitting your data to the expected result.

[@canismajoris6733]

well clearly something is required because the data doesnt fit predictions. either the data is wrong or the understanding is wrong so something has to change

[@eonasjohn]

Thank you for the video.

[@fredericdewitt1208]

Sabine: Am I being terribly biased in thinking Einstein was not wrong? I am willing to change my mind but has anyone ever proved him wrong on anything?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

It really depends on what you mean by "wrong". We know for sure that Einstein's theories work extremely well, so they're not going to be all wrong tomorrow. But it might be that they turn out to be just approximations to something else and do not work in all situations. This is like Newtonian gravity is strictly speaking "wrong" because it doesn't correctly describe black holes or anything that moves close to the speed of light etc. Physicists have a lot of reasons to think that Einstein's General Relativity can't be entirely correct, for example because it leads to singularities inside black holes and at the big bang and because it doesn't work together with quantum physics. In fact, we don't even know what it would mean for Einstein to be "right" when it comes to the question of what's the gravitational pull for particles in the double slit experiment. The theory just doesn't answer the question.

[@fredericdewitt1208]

@SabineHossenfelder Sabine: I am a 77 year old, college educated,(math/econ), wounded vet from our Vietnam fiasco. I look forward daily to your videos They are my bright spot. I read a lot but you are more fun. I just wanted to let you know there are so many people like me you make happy every day. Thank you.

[@lindsayforbes7370]

Me too 👍

[@Berend-ov8of]

Einstein himself said there was something missing in his theory. He wrote it as a substitute for something more complete, that he didn't manage to wrap his head around.

[@OneLine122]

He made a mistake in one paper, can't remember the details.

[@karlwest437]

"We need data to prove our theories right!" Data comes in... "Nooooo the data proves our theory wrong!" 😁

[@edword3457]

Good Theories make successful predictions. If a Theory does not have predictive success, it's crap. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.

[@criticalpoint7672]

If over 95% of the universe missing is not enough to dismiss a theory, then what is ?

[@monnoo8221]

they got so familiar with their dark stuff that it does not feel for them like sth is missing

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

Which theory do you want to replace and with what?

[@dennisestenson7820]

95% of the universe is missing according to the theory. If you have another theory that accounts for reality while not missing anything, feel free to write a paper.

[@notmyproblem88]

you want to dismiss a theory that explains all of Baryonic matter very very well because a podcaster who needs clicks told you there's a crisis? Please read a book or take an actual science class and stop getting your physics from podcasters.

[@p0k314COM]

This is called incompetence, cronyism and inviolability of the narrative, so that someone does not start wondering whether people are really alone in the Universe. The characteristic feature of this gang of dudes is always the same: denying inconvenient facts and emphasizing those that suit them. A real circus.

[@leemiller8258]

I'm constantly amazed to live in the Age of Experimental Cosmology. I never thought such a thing would be possible.

[@juiceman110]

First non-member here!

[@Thomas-gk42]

Congrats!

[@robertfindley921]

My mother always used corn starch to make things more clumpy. Seriously, it just shows there is a lot more work to do and a lot more to discover. So, good news.

[@crawkn]

"Various tensions" is a very polite way of saying we know for a fact we have many things very wrong.

[@richinoable]

Nah. It's just a way to use simpler language and keep you ignorant.😅

[@crawkn]

@@richinoable Potayto potahto. Doesn't always work tho.

[@brianhulben1695]

Specifically any dark energy/ matter guesses. It has never been found yet we waste millions of minds on it.

[@crawkn]

@@brianhulben1695 Are there really millions of minds working on it? And what alternative explanation of the observations which they are intended to explain are you proposing?

[@brianhulben1695]

@crawkn maybe not currently, but since the scientific community decided it must be, yes. Im no cosmologist, but it seems everyday i hear about how our observations do not match our calculations. Also theres a lot more regular mass than i think people initially "saw" , so the more we look, the more we will see, and the less guessing we will have to do.

[@richardharris8538]

Of course, Sabine's humour doesn't fill the Universe. But give it another few tens of billions of years ... unless it's infinite, (the Universe, I mean).

[@Thomas-gk42]

😅

[@johnwollenbecker1500]

Time to send some smart physics students to the patent office.

[@monnoo8221]

which includes: first giving them a bad grade in math, then denying them a position at university, and finally coupling them to gifted female mathematician

[@MikeLinPA]

Hey, leave my bathroom scale out of this!!! 🤣

[@sempertard]

It really seems like it's time to kick the physics table over and start fresh.

[@johnzorklunn4854]

I'm with Einstein on this, we're missing a variable. I'm willing to wager that the variable is related to either the amplitude or phase of gravity waves. The zeptometers that gravity waves affect would impact matter at the quantum level.

[@Kokally]

Well of course MOND fits the model. The beauty of MOND is that it can fit any model. It's the playdough of gravitational theories.

[@byz-blade]

What I really want to see though is MOGR because we know Einstein was “more right” than Newton, and so any modification of the playdough ought to start from there.

[@brothermine2292]

Isn't MOND falsified by the Bullet Cluster?

[@nn25.81]

Love from Chania Crete Greece!! Αγάπη από τα Χανιά Κρήτης της Ελλάδας!!❤

[@Thomas-gk42]

😊

[@jloiben12]

I see Sabine wants to double down on the bad science communication bit. Treating the fact that we are not at the end of the development of astrophysics as a “crisis” is incredibly dishonest

[@Thomas-gk42]

First payed hate commenter, congratulations😂

[@jloiben12]

@ Awww. Look at you go! I make a specific, substantive critique of Sabine and here you are crying at me. But you hit the right buzzwords so now you get your bonus you bot. Sabine sends them through the mail so make sure you are checking your mailbox

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@jloiben12 Substantive critique?🤣This video was informative and factual, you didn´t even listen, right? Perhaps you try that, and then start your career as YT crap commenter again.

[@jloiben12]

@@Thomas-gk42 Doubling down at crying at me is definitely a choice. One of these days you’ll actually engage with the conversation instead of just being a bot running down their dialogue tree

[@kylebushnell2601]

“ Treating the fact that we are not at the end of the development of astrophysics as a crisis is incredibly dishonest” Is literally a sentence that that doesn’t make sense. So you’re a little debate with this guy is comical at best. And plain and simple considering you didn’t even say anything that’s discernible. 👍

[@I.amthatrealJuan]

5:12 I expected these snarky types of quips, but this still made me laugh so hard

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

So, the upshot is that philosophy is at least as important as scientists think science is. What else is "new?"

[@aaronjennings8385]

Philosophy is the basis for rational thought?

[@kylebushnell2601]

Not from what I know, this asked majority of mainstream scientists, most specifically cosmologists and astrophysicists tend to completely disregard philosophy just ask NDTyson “it’s useless”. They al,ost all say in some form or another :)

[@sekeetaheliastraatmans8190]

........"and should not be confused with Sabine's sense of humour".....Brilliant...🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

It's an aside, but I find it interesting that a German says, "the queen" and shows us Elizabeth II and not Beatrix or Maxima or Silvia or Sonja.

[@Al-Ferret]

I think it's because the British monarchy is more famous in the world than all the others.

[@DirkThys]

I find it disappointing that she didn't show Freddy Mercury

[@claudiozanella256]

The problem is that the observed objects are different both in time and location. If you could freeze one parameter then interpretation of measurements would be easier, but this is not possible.

[@junt22]

Thanks, Sabine

[@garyha2650]

On a world with competent scientists, when faced with their stuff not making sense, they considered some other ideas, like, instead of gravity bending like light directly, the higgs soup gets thicker the closer you go to a a star (clumped by gravity) so refractive index applies. Here, we operate on the theory that reality cannot be seen more clearly by some dork on the internet.

[@aarthoor]

Finding out we didn't know as much as we thought we did is hardly a crisis, it's how it works. One day we'll have better theories, them we'll get new telescopes and find out they were wrong. All the while we learn more and more. Is it even possible to know it all.

[@Matthew-xb9rj]

Sabine used to point out that the universe is simply not beautiful (symmetrical)😊

[@AntActApp]

if it actually got so much worse I expect more than 7 minutes, sabine.

[@AArata63]

So, even before the JWST, every inch of the Standard Model had been patched over multiple times to make every part of it's theory to work. The big bang, the gravitational lensing, black holes, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), Neutron stars, Red shift, Dark matter/energy, how solar systems are created, how stars function, .... Once JWST discovered those far way galaxies, my first thought was they will double the age of the universe to save the Standard Model. Lol, that was exactly the first thing they started saying :)

[@MCsCreations]

Fascinating! That's what I call good news indeed, Sabine! 😃 My bet is that we're missing something... Something big! Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊