[Music] Scotland's astronomer Royal Katherine haymans believes observations of the universe don't agree on its age because the mathematical models aren't quite [Music] right she suspects our understanding of the dark universe may be an illusion right our best information about the universe tells us what the universe looked like right after the big bang and from that data we can come up with a model of what the universe should look like today but what we're finding is that the universe that we ob
serve isn't quite what we expected and we can't fully explain the universe that we're observing today means that we can't trust it when it tells us how old our universe is just doesn't matter up Catherine thinks that although researchers have calculated how much of the dark univers is out there they've little real idea of its impact we know that the stuff we're made up of the Earth the moon the sun everything we can see in the universe that accounts for less than 5% of it the rest is dark two co
mponents dark matter and dark energy Dark Matter that's the kind of the big gravitational stuff that keeps everything Bound in our universe together and then ha it's evil twin dark energy which appears to be caused the expansion of our universe to accelerate those are our three main ingredients and we only understand 5% of it so you could picture this as an epic fail for science we don't understand 95% of our universe but I like to think of this as a big challenge uh because if we can understand
that then uh hopefully that will really revolutionize our understanding of uh everything around us to try and work out just how dark matter imp impacts the universe Catherine investigates how it has evolved over time since the Big Bang so this is a map of Dark Matter spanning across the sky where you can see bright spots that's where there's lots and lots of dark matter and as the color gets darker that's where there's emptier voids where there's much less dark matter in our universe and uh wha
t we're finding is not what we were expecting we can see clumps we can see void we can see that Cosmic web likee structure but it's not exactly what we expected it's a lot smoother than predicted for what we should see today that's a bit of a problem cuz it takes time for these dark matter structures to form Catherine has spent decades fine-tuning and finessing her Dark Matter map so for about the last 20 years I've been working to map out the invisible dark matter in our universe this is our ma
p of the North we've got another map of the South and whilst this is one of the largest Dark Matter maps that we've ever been able to make it's still quite a small patch of the sky so we might have been unlucky this might have been just a weird patch of the universe that we've looked at but it's not exactly what we expected and the fact that this is a lot smoother suggests that the universe is slightly younger than we first thought as yet Catherine is unsure just how much younger but her work co
ntinues
Comments
Weโre definitely wrong, but that is why we science. Reasonable certainty is a long term goal.
Stunning visualization and beautiful narration. Thank you for making it.
Dark matter is dilated mass. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear because matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light" He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
Some years ago the BBC science unit conducted an experiment using the microwave background radiation to see whether the universe is unbounded or bounded in the four dimensions. The result was indeed a cosmos unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time. It didn't begin and has no edge. That is what they said (Presented by BBC scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock).
It binds the galaxy togetherโฆ lol ๐ Dark matter is the FORCE! Star Wars
We are most definitely more wrong than we are right. Itโs what makes science so intriguing. Carry on, Science!
I am surprised. I have heard it suggested, many many times, that our universe is much older than 13.8 bil. That in some way it is cyclic. This is the first time I've heard it suggested, by a serious source, that it's more likely much younger than we have been told. I am not for one moment casting doubt, I'm just surprised. That's not the direction that most observers seem to be looking in.
Where can we watch the full version of this?
I am always amazed at the hubris of humans thinking that their short time using science and being stuck on one little planet makes them think that they know so much.
Very interesting ๐ฎ
The universe we see and new discoveries might all be a result of the Observer Effect.
ฮcdm model is so simple that itโs impossible to come up with anything simpler (with less exotic unknowns)
I agree
The scale was originally designed in 1964 by the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev (who was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals). It has 3 base classes, each with an energy disposal level: Type I (10ยนโถW), Type II (10ยฒโถW), and Type III (10ยณโถW). Other astronomers have extended the scale to Type IV (10โดโถW) and Type V (the energy available to this kind of civilization would equal that of all energy available in not just our universe, but in all universes and in all time-lines). These additions consider both energy access as well as the amount of knowledge the civilizations have access to.๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ง๐งโโ๏ธ๐งโโ๏ธ๐ซ๐ง๐ฒ๐ณโโ๏ธ๐ฆ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ป๐๐๐๐ข๐ค๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ ๐ก๐ฉ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฏ๐๐ฐ๐๐โช๏ธ๐๐ฝ๐ผ๐โฉ๏ธ๐ช๐๐ข๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
Dark matter, dark energy, twins which suggest that we don't have a clue about what's going on.
I often think the greatest advancement we will ever make as a species is to give up our hubris. I think weโd become better observers.
The topography of the universe over time and how it changes nothing but our perception of distance and time. If dark matter changes states between a liquid and gaseous state then there would have been a time where almost all of the dark matter cooled, condensed and collapsed. This liquid state contraction could possibly have led to direct collapse black holes and galaxies. The condensing of dark matter may have also contributed to that uniformity of temperature. If the dark matter was in its liquid state then baryonic and dark matter would have been much more concentrated (much higher average cosmic density in gravity wells ). This would have resulted in deeper gravity wells. The time in these gravity wells to us would seem to be moving slower to us. But due to dark matter condensing the baryonic matter would also have been cooled and rushing together. Once stars were formed and black holes became active the ratio of liquid to gaseous dark matter would have decreased over time thus affecting the evolution of particle masses. And making the gravity wells progressively shallower and larger in diameter over time. Galaxy clusters would have evaporated almost all of their liquid dark matter resulting in the shallowest part of the gravity well being near the canter of the cluster. Also part of redshift is due to the difference depth of the average gravity well at that point in time compared to now. The slope of that line would also have flattened over time. The CMB (higher average cosmic density in gravity wells ) could also be from when the LDM ratio drops to low in the cosmic web to transmit Baryonic acoustic waves Light red shifts as it climbs out of a gravity well. Thus the further you go back in time the more light is redshifted. This would leave everything the same with the exception of our perception that the universe is expanding. Also if a big portion of the redshift is from climbing out of a deeper gravity well then we are not looking as far into the past as we think. The current average cosmic density in gravity wells is still slowly dropping. Phase transitioning dark matter could also answer several of the biggest questions in cosmology, as well as being the largest ionizer in the universe.
Cosmic web like structure ,try birkeland currents and electromagnetism
Maybe we haven't been able to detect dark energy because it is actually an inherent part of space-time. It's possible that 96% of the universe consists of space-time, while the remaining 4% encompasses everything else within the universe.
Latest estimates put the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years (time elapsed since the Big Bang). So how much younger than that are we talking? We know that there are galaxies close to that old, so it can't be too much younger, unless those estimates are wrong too.