Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Nobel Prize Discovery Incompatible With New Data | Sabine Hossenfelder | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Nobel Prize Discovery Incompatible With New Data
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
A new study challenges the long-held belief in the accelerating expansion of the universe, suggesting that the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics may have been awarded based on flawed assumptions about "standard candles" (Type 1A supernovae).
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
This might be the breakthrough paper of
the year. A group of astrophysicists
have found convincing evidence that the
Nobel Prize for dark energy was awarded
in error. The expansion of the universe
might not be accelerating as we've been
told and that might just entirely change
our understanding of the universe. Let's
have a look. The physics Nobel Prize of
2011 went to soul per motor Brian
Schmidt and Adam Ree for their discovery
that the expansion of the universe is
accelerating based on observations of
distant type 1A supernovi. This
accelerated expansion can't be caused by
any normal type of matter or energy. So
astrophysicists have attributed it to a
mysterious type of dark energy. The
Nobel Prize winning observation heavily
relied on regularities of this type of
supernovi. They assumed that these
stellar explosions always happen in a
very similar way no matter what galaxies
the supernovas in. Astrophysicists like
to refer to them as standard candles.
The new paper which just appeared says
that well that just isn't so. They
looked at the newest collections of data
of supernovi from two different
experiments. Together, these are more
than 3,000. This is much more data than
Paul Motor Schmidt and Ree had in the
1990s when they did their analysis. Back
then, they had fewer than 100. The
authors of the new paper took the data
apart into groups by two different
criteria. The first is how far the light
traveled from the galaxy to us. This is
the same as the Nobel Prize winners did.
The further the supernova, the dimmer it
appears. And since the universe expands,
the wavelength of the light gets
stretched as it travels. This is called
the red shift. It's the relation between
the dimming and the red shift that tells
us how the universe expands. The new
thing is that they also look at how old
the galaxy was when the supernova
happened. This is a different type of
information. Basically, the overall
light emission from the entire galaxy
has a different spectral shape depending
on how old the galaxy is. The kicker is
that they find these different
properties are correlated. The younger
the galaxy, the dimmer the supernovi
independent of the red shift. The
problem is now that naturally the
further back in time you look, the
younger the average galaxy. But since
the age is correlated with the supernova
properties, this looks exactly like the
key evidence for the accelerated
expansion of the universe. Basically,
they say that it's wrong to conclude
that the expansion of the universe is
accelerating. It's just that younger
galaxies have on average dimmer
supernovi. They don't say why this might
be the case. They simply say this is
what the data really say. And this isn't
one of those maybe results with low
statistical significance. This is a
whopping 5.5 sigma correlation which
they call a serious systematic bias.
They also redo the calculation for the
expansion of the universe and find that
it currently isn't accelerating. It's
actually slightly decelerating though it
seems to have accelerated in the past.
If it goes on to decelerate then this
might mean the universe will actually
recolapse. And yes, this finding is
neatly compatible with other recent
results from Desi and the dark energy
survey. They also found that it looks
like this somewhat alleviates the hover
tension, though it doesn't make it go
away. The paper has been peer-reviewed
and it's published in a decent journal,
but this correlation in the red shift
data isn't entirely new and its
relevance has been debated among
astrophysicists for a couple of years
now. Most believe that the effect is
there but much smaller than what this
group says. This is why I give this
paper a 6 out of 10 on the
meter. It seems likely that soon enough
another group will question these
findings. What does it mean if this is
correct? Well, for one thing, it means
that the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was
given out in error. The data analysis
from Pearl Motor and Schmidt has been
questioned previously for various
reasons. These criticisms have all come
down to the fact that it was a very
small set of data and it simply couldn't
support the conclusion in a solid way.
Back then, it spoke a lot in their favor
that there were two independent groups
coming to the same conclusions. Alas, it
doesn't take much digging to see that
these groups were far from independent.
In fact, the papers from the two groups
have one author in common and the ree
team explicitly acknowledges help from
the perot team. It also means hopefully
that physicists will finally revise the
standard model for our universe. In the
past decade, evidence has been mounting
that something is seriously wrong with
it. This finding might be the final
straw. So, the standard candles aren't
as standard as we thought they are. In
the European Union, this would not have
happened, which is maybe why we're so
good at deceleration. Yes, I do read a
lot of news and know that chat bots
still aren't any good at writing my
scripts. But what does help me a lot is
Ground News. Ground News is a news
platform that collects and summarizes
news which has been published all over
the world. Not only do they collect all
articles on the same story in one place
and give you a quick summary, they also
give you a lot of extra information that
you don't find in the standard media. I
use ground news to follow science news
because it saves me a lot of time, but
I'm always surprised how oddly skewed
the coverage is. Take for example this
story about 30 new species in the
Southern Ocean. This basically wasn't
covered on the political right. I find
this extremely odd. Ground News also
gives you factuality rating for each
news item, tells you who owns the media
outlets, and shows you where the news
has appeared. Ground News also has this
great feature called blind spot. This
tells you which news has been almost
exclusively covered only by one side of
the political spectrum. And of course, I
have a special offer for you. That's a
40% discount on the Vantage plan which
gives you access to all their features.
All you need to do is use my linkground.new/zabina
linkground.new/zabina
or use the QR code. So go and check this
out. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
