I have a feeling a lot of “constants” aren’t really constants. We just don’t have the ability to measure them in other parts of the universe.

The Universe isn't expanding, it's running away from Chuck Norris

Really saddened by reading you lost your infant child to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, for all it's worth I hope you are doing okay and you and your s.o. are taking care of yourselfes and each other, are trying to move forward as best as you can and stay strong together. I enjoyed the video and it was another great one, you pretty much never disappoint with these videos. Either way, I hope you have a good one, dear reader.

I've been waiting for your breakdown of this new info. It's so much more informative than traditional media with their exaggerated headlines and such. Keep up the good work!

I really like when science says, "wait a minute, that's not right." That's when science starts learning something new! Thanks, again, Anton, for all you do! 🖖🏽❤️❤️👍🏼

Our understanding of the universe will always be limited, unless we can find a way to move to other viewpoints outside of our own galaxy. We need a much bigger triangle. Currently it's a bit like trying to figure out the movements of everything in a whole city whilst sitting in a locked box, on a spinning merry-go-round that's sat on the back of a moving truck... and only being able to see the outside world via a single keyhole. 😁

I've briefly talked about this with my astrophysics teacher and she said that the standard candle method with cepheids is based on speculative hypotheses that might be false. In this case, the error caused by the hypothesis would not be taken into account in the data analysis, which could explain why the error bars do not overlap.

Great viewing as always, I have been a bit ill lately but I try to squeeze a video of yours as the universe is so dear to me I love learning what I can ,when I can. Good viewing. Aussie chris 🇦🇺

I'm so sorry to hear of the loss of your child, Anton. I can't imagine anything worse. You have my deepest condolences.

It's refreshing to hear "we don't know" when it comes to science.

I'm so sorry about your families loss & it is so universally brave, healthy & loving that your family asks others to heal others inside of the spirit, energy & nature of that loss. This is how you know you created an angel, the universes first astronauts, they lead the way by looking down upon us as we battle the evil in the world with our only goal to take away misery, to heal.

Congratulations one one million subscribers!!! You deserve it. I’m so glad to have watched you grow from less than half that over the years

I love how Anton can always break down the most complex science into understandable videos.

Well if dark energy is causing the expansion, then the expansion is not going to be uniform if the distribution of dark energy isn't uniform.

Great video, I'm always impressed with your ability to succinctly compress very complex concepts into a format that doesn't put me to sleep, great job Anton!

So if things further away are expanding faster, and things closer are expanding slower, wouldn’t that mean that universe expansion is slowing down because things further away are further back in time than things that are closer to us?

Even with all that's going on in the world, I still feel lucky that I live at this present moment in time. Just imagine what we will discover in the coming years.

Maybe a vacuum bubble within a solid mass, as mass get closer to the edge things speed up. 🤔

Misleading video. Hubble constant is a meant to refer to current epoch not distant places and epochs. It measures current (and so local) expansion rate of space. Not the ancient rate. So the question asked in the video "maybe Hubble constant is not constant" has been answered in textbooks from 40 years ago.

Why do we think that the universe can be traced back to a singularity just because of the expansion that is happening now? Yes, you could follow that logic and reverse entropy to reach a singularity. But how do we KNOW KNOW. That's not the only possibility of before. Current situations do not directly infer previous ones. Especially when there are other factors that we know little or nothing about that could affect every or just a minuscule aspect of what really went on.

Hubble measures Hubble constant by looking at some galaxies somewhere in the universe. Planck measures Hubble constant by looking at the CMBR practically on the edge of the observable universe. If the numbers don't match, why assume the constant is a constant at all? Why not sort or group the galaxies by distance and see if the "constant" makes more sense (forming a gradient from a local value to the CMBR's value?) Alternatively, group them by direction?

I'll just keep saying what i've said all the time. It may not be the fabric of the universe that is expanding, but rather that beyond the observable limit we live in (due to speed of light being finite), our entire visible universe might be in a relative "void", compared to the rest of the universe (beyond the 14 billion year observable limit). As such, the expansion we see, may simply be that galaxies around us are moving towards the greater concentration of gravity outside of our visible range, perhaps enormous macro filaments of innumerable galaxies, at the scale of several 14 billion lightyears across (thus, the entire structures are larger than even our own visible bubble could ever see. That would explain why some areas "expand" faster, and some slower. Because some areas are closer to a higher gravity well, while others are further away. Think about it in a smaller scale, if you live by a star that's in the Bootes void, and you could only observe stars as far out as the edges of said void (its not a void, just a relatively lower density of stars, obviously), you would also see the stars around you, moving away from you, and the further away the stars are, the faster they'd be moving away from you, because they'd be closer to the higher density areas outside said void. Thats why its a relative void, because it doesnt have enough collective gravity to attract more stars. I'm no astronomer, i'm no mathematician, i just always felt like that was an entirely valid possibility. Doesnt require any dark energy to expand the universe, doesnt require any "cold death". We're just not thinking large enough, we gotta think about what the structure of the universe looks like on scales larger than 14 billion LY's. And i dont think its valid, logically, to say "but if you reverse time, if you track all the furthest galaxies motion backwards, they all coaless into a single point of origin. Because that doesnt take into account all the ways those stars and galaxies might have been perterbed by each other. Nothing moves in a straight line, things orbit, curve, change direction, accelerate. If you look at 3 frames of a video of cars on the highway leading out of a city, you could draw lines behind each car and conclude "they all came from the same singularity in the center of the city". But they didnt, they changed directions, accelerated, slowed down, curved, turned. Some even came from outside, from the other side of the city, from somewhere far away. We're so stuck in the mathematics of established theories, that we forget they are theories, and we forget to look at other paths of logic.

No one teaches the way you do! Love the science keep up the amazing work. thank you again Anton. Thank all of you Scientist's for the Hard work!

Anton Will have 10 million subs before long! Science will only get more exciting, and Anton is doing the best job ever keeping us up-to-date on the latest discoveries. I’ve always been super interested in science, but since watching Anton I actually feel like I’m up-to-date with everything!

Love the work and consistency you put in to make quality and well informed videos

You're awesome Anton, I honestly don't know how anyone can continue to do what you do after the loss of a loved one let alone a child. Bless you buddy and u have the best channel around. 💓✌🏾🙋🏾‍♂️

Thank you for this content, I've had a not-so-great day and I love being able to rely on this channel for a welcoming, calm, and absurdly interesting few minutes!

Congrats on 1mil!!

Hubble _did not come up with Cepheid variables as a "standard candle" as you imply._ It was in 1908 by Henrietta Swan Leavitt. It was she who determined that the true luminosity of a Cepheid can be found simply observing its pulsation period. Hubble did not start his work until 1917.

Time varies based on mass. ..Therefore space also varies. ...When we say " 380000 yrs after the universe formed (cosmic background data)...That time is not constant through the history of the universe. Therefore the Hubble constant is NOT constant. Until a compensation algorithm is employed accounts for relativistic changes in time and space...we will continue to have disconnects

amazing video, congrats for explaining so clearly such a complex topic

Just take 2 minutes and realize Anton knocks out one of these collegiate level lectures from scratch every single day. Pretty impressive!

Anton, you're amazing. I'm incredibly glad you do this. Thank you for years of edutainment.

This is the first time I actually realised what the big bang theory, being just a theory, really meant. The concept is really wild. Great video!

Thanks for really caring about giving understandable information about the universe. Other channels are just trying to get a check.

AGAIN ANTON …THANK YOU AND ALL YOUR PATRONS … for making this available and understandable🤗😍😍😍

Maybe the fabric (substrate) of the universe is spherical in shape, which would explain why expansion speeds of differently positioned objects vary from a fixed observation point along and inside this sphere? The closer you get to the centre of the sphere, the slower things move... and vice-versa, they move faster along the outside perimeter. After all, everything else *inside* the universe is either rounded or spherical too, so the universe itself probably has the same geometrical characteristics, all bound together with gravity.

10:23 Finally, a sensible approach taking into account energy density.

My condolences regarding Neil Apollo. I understand your pain and I respect your donation efforts. Peace be with you.

Well Done, Anton! I love this stuff, at least as far as i can follow it! We could be in a strange corner of a strangely-shaped universe. Thanks!

I dont know why we ever assumed that the Hubble " constant " is constant. It doesnt even make sense for it to be. Especially if it is the cause of it is dark matter ( which is still not even completely verified to exist ). If it is the Hubble constant depends on dark matter than of course it wouldnt be constant and would totally depend on the density of dark matter in the universe.

Anton- thank you for your fantastic videos. I was wondering if you could help us understand what is happening with Voyager 1 and the odd radio signals we are receiving from it?

Always look forward to your videos Anton thanks

I believe we're missing something and don't quite understand as we think we do. And I don't think we will ever really know. But it's fun trying to figure this wonderful beautiful awesome universe out ❤️

What if instead of a constant, it's the Hubble variable? Seems to me the simplest way to resolve this "tension" is to start thinking in terms of H(t) instead of H0 = k, with the values growing more or less monotonically, and then we could check whether a linear function is the best fit the observed values, or an exponential, or something else. To test this, all you'd need to do is rerun these studies but dividing the cosmos into "shells" that contain more or less the same volume and using only galaxies within each of these shells: say, you take only galaxies below 1M light years of distance, then galaxies between 1Mly and 1.5 Mly, then galaxies between 1.5 and 1.7, and so on - the Hubble "constant" calculated with these successive shells should be lower and lower if indeed the expansion rate has increased over time.

I thnk that the reason it doesnt make sense is that the topology of the universe is not flat, nor spherical, nor is it a simple curvature. The Universe is shaped like a 4th dimensional Torus, or donut. Just a gut feeling, I have no math to back that up.

Very good and informative video. I've been wondering about this, and am skeptical to our ability to tell how old the universe is. This confirms my suspicions. I'm crossing fingers there is still new physics we not yet understand that can explain this, and maybe even give us a basic understanding that might help us develop faster ways of traveling... 🤞

Another fantastic and informative video Anton! Thank you! Sharing this with my kids!

The universe could be DECELERATING its expansion rate. When we look far away, we see what the universe looked like in the distant past. In the distant past it was expanding faster, so that is what we see far away.

My dad had a theory that the shape of space is like an ant hill and we're somewhere along the side of the hill. Everything towards the bottom has less energy than above and the more something loses energy the further down it goes. At our area in space though we are blinded by the surrounding energy signature. How sound is that?

Donated, with much love and support to you and your loved ones.

Thanks for these nice videos. It's always Intresting to listen to something we cannot know.

Dark energy is a sign of our lack of understanding and is direct result of taking the Hubble constant like a fact. We are finally starting to see the Hubble constant is not constant, and soon hopefully people will start to question whether the observed redshift even represents motion. Gravity also redshifts light, and if we mistakenly attribute gravitational redshift to motion it makes the universe look like it is expanding when in fact it is just massive enough to be redshifting the light that traveled to our detectors. Einstein's ideas have been thoroughly tested and confirmed and he thought the universe was infinite with no beginning, no end, and no edge.

Wouldn't the universe accelerating more the further away we look, mean that this happened in the more distant past and since the less it accelerates the closer we look(thus not as long ago), the expansion is actually slowing down?

It is great when we get to see our scientific assumptions change. That is when bursts of progress can happen when possibilities dismissed before can be re-examined and new theories never considered before can pop up. Very fun and exciting!

This is one of your most interesting videos lately. Thanks for your effort.

Beautifully explained, Anton.

With all the sensational and dubious claims on some KZfaq sites, I have come to appreciate Anton's sincerity and commitment to facts.

You getting better with the videoagraphy/animations/transitions....I like that....and you speaking clearer English....i like that too. 9/10.

Excellent video bro... love from Uruguay 🇺🇾

I love how he brings the subject up so casually. Like we all know what he’s saying. Lol. We do buddy 👍

If it did turn out that our current models are wrong, it would confirm my greatest fear that all this science are built upon thin ice, and we are grasping for scraps at the limits of our physical data gathering capabilities.

Thanks Brother! You shine in your Mission!

We are at an amazing point in astrophysics as well as general physics. The more we discover, through orbital telescopes and robotic probes, the more we learn that what we thought was the "norm" is not. I wish the media would pay more attention to what is happening now. I believe that everything we thought we knew about the universe, dark matter, string theory, and universal expansion will have to be re-evaluated as we learn more. Thank you, Anton! Your videos are always exceptional and well researched.

Here is what is truly strange, Anton. As space expands, the energy/density of space does not decrease, does not dilute. This is like a balloon expanding without air being fed into it.

I just had a thought... Gravity contracts spacetime, right? So where there's "no gravity", space is "spread out". Contracted space makes time move slower, while spread out space would make time move faster. Could that explain why the universe expands faster the farther away from gravity source? No "dark energy", but simply spacetime itself.

I’m curious do u have a video explaining the filament idea. It racks my brain, also great video man ❤️✌🏼

Excellent video and info!

question how long have we been studying the stars ...over 1000s of years ... and only 100 years we looked at space from the edge of space .... our quest for understanding has just begun ... we still have untold discoveries in front of us...science..or this case astronomy...is never settled

is it expanding or are we moving away from the starting points in such a way that creates an illusion of expansion?

Great video, thanks!

Really interesting. Thank you again, Anton.

it's easy. The universe is expanding at a steady rate since the big bang. Gravity slows time down. As they galaxies get further apart there is less gravity. So it appears that the acceleration is faster. less gravity=faster time goes. We are experiencing time dilation in our part of the universe and it appears as if time is going faster for outer galaxies.

In mathematics or spacial programing, when I see irregular progress it sometimes attributed to an inadequate point of view. It may be that the math of the movement is done in 3D+t instead of 4D+t. I'm not versed in astronomy so I may be way off, my point is that maybe we're "counting" spacetime in a "wrong" way rather than that the Hubble constant is inaccurate or a variable.

2:49 - Anton, the cosmic distance ladder is NOT "kind of database of different galaxies". It is a succession of methods by which we determine the distances to celestial objects.

the reason i can think of is gravity, more stuff at the 'center' while scarcity in the 'outskirts' allows for faster expansion. makes sense. that would also allow for an expansion constant adjusted by average regional density.

Dark energy pains me to no end, the idea that scientists cease to believe that a simpler concept could be an explanation may forever plague theory and discovery.

A question I have sometimes is, what if our universe is only a tiny tiny portion of a larger dark matter universe? Then, a 'big bang' is explained simply by someone starting their car engine causing an explosion, for example. Or perhaps we were like a grenade, and the dark matter is pulling it apart further and our atoms being 90% empty and e=mc^2 implies our matter is matter-energy, which can be spent. Or perhaps space-time is real, but once u split too far apart, matter pushes apart instead of pulling together, and this includes time as a result of the range of gravity's effect, which means true space has no influence by gravity, and our space is pseudo-space, and when something spreads apart too much its gone for good, and becomes its own universe. Or maybe the universe is alive so expanding and dividing. Like, science has limits. Maybe dark matter is real matter tho and not composed of energy, and because ours is energy, we move through dark matter like how energy moves through us.

Anton is awsome one of my all time favorites. Keep it up

Collapsing a wave function doesn’t create another world, it expands the universe. The more things that become possible then require more space time to allow them the correct possibility of occurring.

Amazes me how much Hubble keeps providing! The gift that keeps on giving. Hopefully, James Webb will follow the same path, providing unmatched production of knowledge even after its intended lifespan.

Thanks wonderful Anton. We only know of what we can see.... There is the unseen part of the universe we may NEVER ever see.

Anton great presentation. thank you for the education.

Just a question as a layperson. Since we reside in a fairly large galaxy with lots of mass including a really big black hole in the middle would there be any time dilation effect on our observations when viewing the rest of the Universe? Are we seeing expansion faster than the speed of light because we're in in a slowed down bubble with all the gravity around us?

I recently heard a theory that the expansion of the universe might be an 'optical illusion' due to the cluster we are in moving at a particular velocity relative to other clusters, galaxies etc, that all we are seeing is parts of the universe appearing to move away from us because we're also moving. Also, different parts of the universe are moving at different speeds due to the great streams of matter that make up the filament like structures observed. There was a lot more to it but essentially the expansion of the universe might, emphasis on might, be an 'optical illusion' due to our own movement and point of view.

As we look farther away at things further into the past, we can see that things were moving faster in the past than those things we can see more currently nearby. Here's a thought experiment: Let's say a point on the circumference of a circle is moving away from the center of the circle as the area expands and the circle becomes bigger. If the area were expanding at a constant rate, the point would initially appear to be moving away from the center faster in the beginning, i.e., in the past, than later on. Substitute area with volume and the same idea applies to a point on a sphere. Is the expansion really accelerating or is that an observed illusion? Is there a net acceleration or net deceleration? Or is it not so much about the movement of the galaxies apart from one another as much as it is about the expansion of the space in between (which may be constant)?

So sorry for your loss Anton 😢

As a pedagogue, I admire your videos because you always take the time to explain things in a way that your non-physicist viewers will understand. I love cosmology and wanted to become a cosmologist when I was younger just because I love listening to the elegant ways in which the most vast and mind boggling concepts can be explained for all to admire. Thank you for all your videos, they always make my day!

Hello Anton - this is wonderful person. Thank you for another excellent vid. Your time and effort is always appreciated. Keep up the great work!

Amazing episode again!

Thank you for your video.

There's nothing strange with the expansion of the universe, there's something strange with our models that assume too much based on too little empirical data. Which describes pretty much all of astronomy ever. It's nice to look at the pretty pictures and empirical data points, but our models are worthless, and have been worthless for the thousands of years we've been trying to model the universe. We're not really doing any better at it now they Ptolemy did 1800 years ago, even with all our superior technology and observations.

This is fascinating. Thank you for explaining such a complex idea with concise simplicity. Bravo

It would be so cool if the scientists could use the Hubble expansion to pinpoint where in the universe that the “Big Bang” actually occurred by calculating how fast other galaxies are moving from each other and use that to work backwards; calculating back to when they were closer and closer to one another to the point right before the bang happened. It would be like a historical site, but in the universe.

I'm glad this is getting a closer look because the idea that measuring the rate things we can see are moving away from us could let us measure the age of the universe and determining that space itself is expanding never really added up to me but I wasn't smart enough to provide an intelligent counter argument. Hopefully this will lead to a more nuanced understanding of what exactly is being observed and how limited that observation really is.

I think the reason for the inconsistency is the Higgs field. The theory is, that this field gives mass to particles. And this sort of dictates the attractiveness between masses. Classical physics is based on the premise of physical laws being the same everywhere in the universe. But what if the Higgs field is different in places? For all we know every other field is variable too. And at big distances gravity is the only thing keeping things organized. So we need to figure out how it really works to understand what keeps stuff together and what does not.

I've long thought that our laws of physics is just relative to our local conditions and don't necessarily apply to the entire universe, which we will gradually learn from further future explorations and new technology.

Congrats on a million subs

How feasible are these options for increase in speed: 1. The universe is being drawn from other universe clusters around our own 2. As galaxies pull away from each other, the "brakes" are released more and more as the galaxies are less bound by each other's gravitational pulls.

It still astonishes me why cosmologists wring their hands about the Hubble Constant "tension", while simultaneously shrugging their shoulders about not having accounted for more than about 5% of the total matter/energy of the universe, the rest being "dark". Could it be they're two sides of the same coin? If they figure out one, maybe the other will be, at least, partly solved.