- 3 minutes ago
We conclusively & definitively resolve the Hubble tension using two AstroDatabases (MaNGA + 50-MGC = 21,000+ Galaxies).
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00G'day viewers. In this episode I'm going to talk to you about the Hubble tension and how I believe we've
00:10solved it, in fact, conclusively, and I choose my words very, very carefully.
00:17Okay, first of all I'll explain what the Hubble tension is.
00:20So the Hubble tension is basically the discrepancy between two measurements of the same thing.
00:29So there's one method which is based on the cosmic distance ladder method.
00:37So basically, to cut a long story short, it's about using very bright objects to measure the expansion rate of
00:48the universe.
00:49The second method uses the cosmic microwave background radiation to actually determine the expansion rate of the universe.
01:01Now, in 2008, the official particle data group value of Hubble constant was 73 kilometres per second per megaparsec.
01:17Now, in 2008, I published an article with the Australian Institute of Physics where I predicted that the true value
01:30of the Hubble constant,
01:30the cosmological Hubble constant, was 67.1 kilometres per second per megaparsec.
01:38So I'm saying it's 67.1.
01:41At the time, mainstream was saying it's 73 kilometres per second per megaparsec.
01:52Now, at the time when I came up with that number that was published, I was thinking to myself,
01:57oh, well, you know, well, it's a little bit off, you know, should I go ahead with getting this published?
02:06And at the time, I was in two minds about it.
02:09But looking back now, I'm very pleased that I actually did it.
02:11So I just want to cover that off again.
02:13In 2008, the official value was 73 kilometres per second per megaparsec.
02:18And in 2008, I published a prediction of 67.1 kilometre per second per megaparsec.
02:25Now, in 2013, the Planck satellite was launched, and the Planck satellite measured a value of 67.3 kilometres per
02:37second per megaparsec.
02:39So the official value in 2008 was 73, and then the official value in 2013 suddenly became 67.3.
02:51So it matched my prediction almost precisely, and I was very pleased about that.
02:58And what that did was validate, in the latest paper that I've just completed, it validated equation one.
03:12So equation one was derived from first principles, utilising Buckingham pie theory.
03:22And I've got to stress, there's nothing more first principles than Buckingham pie theory.
03:28It is more first principles than the Einstein-Hilbert action.
03:32So physicists tend to think that it's just dimensional analysis.
03:37No, no, no, it is far deeper than that.
03:40And if you take a look into the theory, you can see for yourself.
03:47And just a point on that, something that might help you to learn, Buckingham pie theory starts as a theory,
03:56but then after the first step, it turns into a theorem.
03:59So the theory part of it is the variables that you choose, and that's a very personal individual choice.
04:07There's no right or wrong about it.
04:09You can choose the size of grapefruit and try and relate that to the size of the moon or whatever.
04:15It's totally up to you.
04:16So it's up to the individual to choose those variables.
04:19That's the theory part of it.
04:21But then once you've decided on what your key parameters are,
04:26you then use the...
04:28That's when the theorem kicks in.
04:30And that's when you start to actually mechanically execute the steps of the theorem to get your overall equation.
04:38So I just wanted to sort of mention that a bit because my reading, my take on physicists' understanding of
04:50Buckingham pie theory
04:52is that they do not understand it in really in any way, shape or form, not properly.
04:59But it has been the bread and butter of a number of branches of engineering for the last hundred years,
05:08ever since Edgar Buckingham actually came up with it.
05:13Okay, so we used Buckingham pie theory to derive equation one.
05:20Now, equation one looks very complex, and indeed it is complex.
05:26It took quite a long time to derive because equation one is actually the final step in a long chain
05:37of derivations that I needed to do first.
05:43So you've got to remember that equation one, which works for cosmology, actually started as a particle physics problem.
05:53So from particle physics, I was able to derive equation one.
05:58And the way I did that was by taking my particle physics equation, which I derived from first principles,
06:06and predicted the size of the proton, neutron, etc., and scaling that up.
06:12So I literally took that same equation, and then I scaled it up to cosmological size,
06:17size, and hence I ended up with equation one, which you can see in that paper.
06:25Okay, so what I then did after I came up with equation one, and by the way, equation one was
06:35first published,
06:36was first derived in 2006.
06:39I then published it in 2007 in one of my books, Quinta Essentia Part 4,
06:49A Practical Guide to Spacetime Engineering Part 4, and that was 2007.
06:53So it was first derived in 2006 and published in 2006 in an early edition of that same book in
07:012006,
07:02then republished again in a later version, an updated version in 2007 of the same book.
07:09Then it was published again in 2008 by the Australian, sorry, the result was published by the Australian Institute of
07:17Physics in 2008.
07:19And that's all part of the historical record, and you can look that up if you're interested or if you're
07:25not.
07:25You can just reach out to me.
07:26So that equation generates what I call the cosmological Hubble constant.
07:36So it's the CMBR version of the Hubble constant.
07:44That's how I derived it, and it was derived initially specifically for use with the Milky Way galaxy.
07:54So I used the Milky Way galaxy as my reference particle.
07:58I then scaled that up to the size of the cosmos, and that scaling resulted in the cosmological Hubble constant,
08:10the CMBR Hubble constant.
08:13Okay.
08:14Now, after that, sometime later, I decided, well, look, you know, I'll just, I'm just curious.
08:21I'm just going to plug some galactic values in and see what I get, you know.
08:27And I did that, and I've read a paper, actually, I've read a number of papers.
08:34One is called the CMBR constrained Milky Way galaxy.
08:38So you can use this same equation to constrain the mass of the Milky Way galaxy to the cosmic microwave
08:46background radiation temperature.
08:48And when you do, you get a result of around 6.4 by 10 to the 11 solar masses.
08:56So it sits in about the bottom third of the spectrum of estimates for the mass of the Milky Way.
09:05Anyway, you can use it that way.
09:07So I wrote a paper about that.
09:11I also wrote a paper titled The Cosmological Significance of Massive Photons, where I used that same equation to demonstrate
09:23how significant massive photons,
09:27because that equation carries a massive photon term in it.
09:31So that experimental validation by the Planck satellite in 2013, actually, because it validated the equation, as a consequence of
09:43that,
09:43it also validated the predicted mass, my predicted mass of a photon.
09:50So not only did it validate the Hubble constant, it also validated my prediction for the value of the CMBR,
10:02because in that same 2008 publication by the Australian Institute of Physics, I predicted the Hubble constant.
10:09I predicted an order of magnitude improvement in the resolution of the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature.
10:20So both of those are what's called a priori predictions, experimentally verified.
10:27So you make a prediction in advance.
10:29And to be honest with your viewers, that's actually the gold standard of science.
10:33It's what everybody tries to achieve, but actually very few people do in their lifetime.
10:39So it's it's sorry to blow my own trumpet, but it's actually quite an achievement.
10:44Now, in doing that, in having those two a priori predictions, because that that governing that governing equation carries a
10:54photon mass energy term,
10:58the experimental validation of massive photons is implicit in the results in in those two a priori results.
11:09Okay, so that's a first piece of really, really key evidence.
11:14So anyway, I plugged in different different galaxies to see what answers I got.
11:22And this is all in the those paper, those other papers that I mentioned.
11:28Now, the first sample size I tried were was 10, 10 galaxies.
11:34And I got pretty incredible results just from just from 10 galaxies.
11:40Right.
11:41So from 10 galaxies and they weren't cherry picked or anything.
11:44It was just what I could Google.
11:46All right.
11:4610 random galaxies that I just Googled.
11:52Anyway, what I actually needed was the size of the galaxy and the mass of the galaxy.
11:57So just from the size and from its mass, you can predict what what the Hubble constant based upon that
12:05galaxy is.
12:07Now, when I just randomly selected 10 galaxies, when I averaged the result, it was remarkable.
12:17I actually ended up with a value basically equaling the CMBR Hubble constant.
12:28So remember, there are two Hubble constants here.
12:30You've got what I call the cosmological Hubble constant.
12:33That's what's measured.
12:34That's the background radiation.
12:36Right.
12:37That that we measure that those stretched microwaves.
12:43So that's the that's the first type of Hubble constant.
12:48And the second is what I call the astronomical Hubble constant.
12:54And that is determined by basically studying bright lights, to put it very simply.
13:03OK, so and those two those two Hubble constants differ, differ by about six kilometres per second per megaparsec.
13:12And that and that difference of six kilometres per second per megaparsec, it sounds like nothing.
13:19And it was thought originally to be nothing.
13:23It was believed that when that discrepancy first appeared, that that six kilometres per second per megaparsec would just disappear
13:32with, you know, improved resolution of measurements and data and all kinds of things.
13:39Well, no, the actual opposite has occurred.
13:43So what's what's happened is this the cosmic distance distance ladder measurements, the astronomical Hubble constant, the way it's determined,
13:55has become increasingly accurate.
13:58So the error bars have narrowed, you know, just increasingly over over time.
14:06So it became very obvious that these two Hubble constants could not be reconciled.
14:14So anyway, so that's that's the basis.
14:17That's the background of the problem and the basis of it.
14:19And as I mentioned just a moment ago, I plugged a few numbers in there.
14:22Anyway, what I found was as I in the 10 galaxies that I that I just randomly selected, I found
14:33that that the average of that sample was ended up being almost identical to what the cosmological Hubble constant is.
14:46So that implied that the Hubble tension, it doesn't really exist.
14:51It's just fictitious.
14:52It's it's it's imaginary.
14:54Everything's fine.
14:55Everything's doing what it's supposed to be doing.
14:57We're just we're just measuring our stuff incorrectly.
15:00Right.
15:01Or not incorrectly, but we're biasing our measurements.
15:06This is what it means.
15:07So it's not I use the wrong term a moment ago.
15:10There's nothing incorrect about it.
15:11It's just it's just a measurement bias anyway.
15:16Now, I showed that paper to Mike Peroni and Mike looked at it.
15:25So, yeah, it's interesting.
15:27And he came back with a very good point.
15:29He said he said, look, there's only 10 galaxies here.
15:31I mean, you could have cherry picked them.
15:34And when he said that, because it's all via email, when he said that, I thought, oh, you bastard.
15:40So I thought, yeah, well, he's right.
15:41You know, he's he's he's right.
15:44You know, so I thought I've got to I've got to fix that.
15:49So a few years went went by, I think about four years went by.
15:53I think I think this was back in 2022 or something like this.
16:01And four years ago, four, four, four, four years go past.
16:05And I finally got ran to actually determining how I can get access to these these databases.
16:13Right.
16:14So I actually anyway, I actually downloaded and learned how to actually access a couple of key databases.
16:25Now, one is called the MANGA database.
16:29So it's the final release of a massive study that was done, three dimensional study that was done on galaxies
16:40just recently, recently completed.
16:45And I can't remember what the acronym for MANGA is.
16:51M-A-N-G-A.
16:53You can look at it or you can read about it in my paper, but I can't remember what the
16:57acronym actually represents.
16:59But anyway, it's a database of 10,200 extremely, extremely accurate measurements of galaxies.
17:14It was part of a survey.
17:17Right.
17:18So basically, you've got you've got some fiber bundles.
17:23I write about it in the article.
17:24You can you can read it.
17:25Right.
17:26But anyway, basically, you've got some fiber and some fiber bundles.
17:29They look at the at a point in light and they and they rather mean they look at a galaxy
17:36and they gather a whole lot of information about it.
17:39This 2D information, which is then turned into 3D using the the redshift as as the third dimension.
17:47Anyway, a lot of very accurate information is gathered, was gathered in that survey.
17:55There was 10,200.
17:57Now, 135 of those were repeat measurements.
18:01And there was some some other measurements in there that were incomplete and stuff.
18:07So I filtered I filtered out everything that was incomplete, basically.
18:12Right.
18:12So anything that had had the word in a N in any field or there were fields with the log
18:21negative nine, nine, nine, nine, I think.
18:24And anyway, I filtered all of those out.
18:26So I ended up with 10,096 galaxies from the manga database.
18:34Anyway, I ran those 10,096 galaxies through my equation.
18:40And it was absolutely astonishing.
18:45What I ended up with is a Hubble tension of basically zero.
18:50The Hubble tension reduced to zero if you average over a large number or an infinite population of galaxies.
18:57So this is absolute 110 percent confirmation that the Hubble tension is fictitious.
19:06It does not exist and that we have actually resolved the Hubble tension with equation one.
19:15Now, here's something else.
19:18Now, because I felt that that 10,096 galaxies wasn't enough.
19:27I went to another database, which had over 15,000 galaxies in it, not with the same precision that the
19:38manga database had, but still very, very useful.
19:44Anyway, I took out what I believe to be, you know, incorrect measurements, incorrect data in that galaxy.
19:56You know, again, same kind of thing, you know, NAN or minus 999, you know, these kinds of things, right?
20:03Anyway, and I filtered out what was obviously wrong.
20:09Anyway, I can't remember what it was, but it was just obvious that a good chunk of that data wasn't
20:16actually clean at all.
20:18Anyway, so I started off with over 15,000 in that database and I ended up with 11,060.
20:28So I remained about, I had about 70 percent of the original database.
20:36Okay, so I then ran that same database, or sorry, I ran that database over my same equation one again
20:45to see what results I got.
20:47Um, and again, I was shocked to see the same thing, I got the same result as the manga database
20:55result, which was convergence to the CMBR.
21:00So the Hubble tension disappeared, doesn't exist.
21:06It's imaginary.
21:08It's not a real phenomena.
21:09Um, so, um, I was totally shocked when I, when I saw these results, because, you know, here we've got,
21:21uh, one of the, the, the significant problems, uh, one of the most significant problems in cosmology that has just
21:29evaporated, right?
21:30Now, remember, I started, as I mentioned before, I started with 10, um, galaxies, and I got it to converge
21:38after only 10 galaxies.
21:41I then pumped through 10,000 galaxies, and the tension vanished completely.
21:49I then pumped through another 11,000 galaxies, and once again, the tension evaporated, okay?
21:57Now, I do got to mention, I must mention, that there's probably significant overlap between the second database that I
22:08used, which is, uh, uh, which is labeled 50MGC.
22:13So it's basically a massive survey of 15,000 galaxies within a 50 megaparsec distance from Earth, right?
22:21So, you know, nearby galaxies, okay?
22:27So there's probably a huge overlap, but in my paper, I don't, I don't merge those two databases, right?
22:34I don't put them together.
22:35Um, I, I assume that there's a big overlap from one to the other.
22:39In fact, I assume that, that 80% of the galaxies in the, um, 50MGC database already appear in the
22:51Manga database.
22:52I don't know if they do, I just made that assumption, right?
22:55So that means that, you know, only one in five of my original 50MGC database samples remain, you know?
23:02And when you add that, um, to, uh, to the existing Manga database, when you merge those two and you
23:09take, you know, your, your, your, your means and your standard deviations, et cetera, the Z score you get from
23:16either one of these databases or two even partially have merged is just absolutely enormous.
23:21And I'll write about this in the, in, in, in, in the article, basically the probability of not having resolved
23:30the Hubble tension statistically is zero.
23:35Seriously, you can't even put it, you can't put it into a spreadsheet or any other machine, um, at double
23:42precision and get anything other than zero, right?
23:47So the results really are absolutely overwhelming and literally are irrefutable.
23:55I've never made this claim before and I wouldn't be making it now unless I was absolutely certain.
24:01The results are conclusive, definitive and irrefutable, right?
24:08I, I don't, I don't mean to, to really push that barrow, but I just, I'm just trying to emphasize
24:15just how certain, not, not myself, not how certain I am, how certain the mathematics are.
24:24And here's something very, very important that I want to point out to you guys as well.
24:29Now, um, um, um, I had to determine from, um, each one of those two databases, uh, what the, uh,
24:39the actual radius is, um, of, of a galaxy in, in terms of kiloparsecs.
24:47So, so the way the, the, the, the, the data is gathered and stored, it's stored in angular terms, okay?
24:57So I had to convert that, that angular measurement into what I needed.
25:04So how did I do that?
25:06Good question, I'm glad you asked.
25:07Well, the way that I did that was I just used a standard off-the-shelf, um, equation.
25:13So an off-the-shelf, you know, um, astrophysics equation, and you can find that, um, in the paper as
25:22well.
25:23But, uh, the important point I'm getting to, that I'm getting to is that, uh, um, basically to use that
25:32equation, that off-the-shelf standard cosmology equation, it requires the Hubble constant.
25:37So what I did was, uh, um, because I wanted to stress test my solution and, um, ensure that I
25:48have absolutely no bias, I plug into, uh, that, um, standard, uh, astronomy equation.
25:58I plug into that, the cosmic distance ladder Hubble constant of 73 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
26:07That then goes into equation one, okay?
26:11So just think of it like this.
26:1373 goes into equation one, 67 comes out, all right?
26:20So there's no circular logic, there's no tautology, nothing like that, all right?
26:26Nothing like that because, of course, as you can imagine, I've run through the paper, I've run the paper through
26:31AI, you know, countless times.
26:33And every time that, that, that, that you, you put it through, it says, oh, no, it's, you know, it's
26:40circular logic until you, until you explain it to AI and it says, oh, well, I wasn't, wasn't I silly,
26:47you know?
26:47But anyway, so I just wanted to, to, to mention that, um, mention that up front.
26:52So you put 73 in, you get 67 out, all right?
26:57So equation one really does do what's written on the tin, all right?
27:04It really does do what it was intended to do.
27:07I was surprised, I was shocked to see that, that it worked, um, um, on, uh, on, on any galaxy,
27:15right?
27:15All right, and something else I want to point out.
27:18Now, at the front of equation one, there's, uh, uh, um, an experimental relationship function that I call K sub
27:25G, okay?
27:27Now, that experimental relationship function is, um, an artifact of the BPT method, all right?
27:36So you have to put that in to the equation because that, that, that, that experimental relationship function tells you,
27:44um, how similar your solution is to reality.
27:49If it's perfectly similar, K equals one, or in this case, KGE equals one, all right?
27:57If it's perfectly similar.
27:58So if what you've come up with in your head matches physical reality, that will equal one.
28:04If what you've come up doesn't, you'll end up with something enormous or something very small, okay?
28:10What I did was I set for, for, for all of those over 21,000 calculations, I said K sub
28:21G equals one for all of them, okay?
28:24There's, there's, there's no fine tuning, no dodgy stuff going on at all, all right?
28:31It's K, K sub G equals one for all of them, okay?
28:37So I just want to point that out because, again, you know, you put that through AI and AI, you
28:42know, being, acting like a gatekeeper, you know, blah, blah, blah.
28:48Uh, so I just wanted to mention that to you, all right?
28:52Um, because if you do download it and you put it through AI, you'll get the same kind of rubbish
28:57that, that, that, that I got.
28:59So everything's above all, everything's, uh, um, you know, honky dory.
29:04Um, so, yeah, I just wanted to, to sort of, uh, um, mention this, um, in this, in this video.
29:13I want to talk to you guys about it, uh, immediately following after this, uh, after my, my little chat
29:20with you here, um, you're going to see, and please stick around for it.
29:25Um, I used AI to generate one of those explainers, right?
29:30So, look, viewers, I realize, you know, people don't like to, you know, watch or listen to AI and stuff.
29:36Look, I get all that, you know, that's why you've got all these, all these new kinds of AI things
29:44coming out to, you know, showing all these flashing, you know, twinkly things to get people's attention.
29:51I get all that, right?
29:52But, look, seriously, viewers, if you can just, um, just stick around, listen through to the end of it, and
29:58you'll really have a solid understanding of what it is that we have achieved in this latest bit of research,
30:06um, it is really, uh, groundbreaking.
30:12There's, there's no other way to put it.
30:13And, and, uh, we have absolutely proven beyond any doubt that, uh, photons are massive.
30:24And, by the way, just on the topic, all of this, uh, business you might hear about gauge invariance and,
30:29oh, you're, that's, you know what, you, you, you know what, viewers, you can chuck all that out the window.
30:34Why?
30:35Because if photons have innate mass, the entire gauge invariance problem does not apply because symmetry, because symmetry breaking never
30:47occurs.
30:48Because the standard model of particle physics assumes, always assumes, that, uh, photons start off with zero mass and then
30:58maybe somehow acquire mass.
31:02And you need a mechanism to explain that symmetry breaking.
31:06However, if photons, uh, have, if they possess innate mass, that entire symmetry breaking problem does not occur.
31:17It doesn't need to be there.
31:19It's just, it's rubbish.
31:21Right?
31:21So, um, this is why I, I, I say to you that, uh, we have irrefutably, infinity percent, absolutely resolved
31:31the Hubble tension.
31:32And in doing so, we have, um, also proven, literally proven, that, uh, photons are, uh, uh, are massive.
31:44All right, viewers, I'm going to let you go.
31:45Uh, look, thanks for your time.
31:47Um, and look, try and please stick around and listen to the, um, you know, to the, to the voices,
31:53um, after this.
31:54They do a great job in explaining this, uh, this latest, uh, uh, paper, this latest article that, uh, that,
32:02that, that, that we've written.
32:03So, um, I'd really appreciate it if you could do it.
32:06I realize, you know, it's boring, et cetera, you know, but, you know, do it for me, right?
32:11Do it for Ricky.
32:12All right?
32:13All right, viewers, uh, I'll, uh, I'll talk to you soon.
32:17Cheers.
32:18Bye.
32:19Bye.
32:21All right, let's jump right into this explainer and crack open what is arguably the biggest paradox in modern cosmology.
32:28For years, astrophysicists have literally been tearing their hair out over a massive contradiction regarding how fast our universe is
32:35actually expanding.
32:36It's a mystery so deep that it's driven some folks to question whether our entire standard model is broken,
32:42or if we need to invent entirely new exotic physics just to make the math work.
32:47But what if the answer isn't new physics at all?
32:50What if it's simply a matter of where we're standing when we take our measurements?
32:53To really grasp the problem, we have to look at the discrepancy itself.
32:58Astrophysics has been facing this huge roadblock because our two gold standard measurements for the universe's expansion rate completely stubbornly
33:04disagree.
33:05On one hand, we have measurements from the early universe, derived from the cosmic microwave background radiation.
33:10Basically, the afterglow of the Big Bang.
33:12That gives us a Hubble constant of roughly 67.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
33:18But then, when we measure the late universe locally using the cosmic distance ladder, which relies on observing bright stars
33:23and supernovae, we get a value of 73.
33:27Now, these two numbers should absolutely match, but they don't.
33:30That gap is what scientists call the Hubble tension.
33:32So, to figure out why the laws of physics seem to be misbehaving, we've kind of got to treat this
33:37like a cosmic crime scene and dive into the newest evidence.
33:40We have to ask ourselves, are the measurements just wrong?
33:43Or is our underlying assumption, that the universe expands exactly the same way in every single location, fundamentally flawed?
33:49Well, some incredible recent research presents a definitive resolution.
33:53And it uses a truly staggering data set.
33:5610,096 independent galaxies from the final SDS DR-17 manga data release.
34:03We aren't just looking at a handful of localized anomalies here.
34:06We're talking a vast statistical scale.
34:08This data set represents the largest integral field spectroscopy survey ever conducted.
34:13That means we capture the entire visual footprint of a galaxy all at once, giving us over 10,000 distinct
34:19cosmic laboratories to test how space-time actually behaves.
34:23The research calls this approach tree-ring dating for the cosmos, and honestly, that hits the nail on the head.
34:28Because instead of just seeing a galaxy as a generic, fuzzy blob of light, this massive data set gives us
34:33a comprehensive, spatially-resolved map.
34:36We get to see stellar kinematics, exactly what the stars are made of, and precisely how they're moving.
34:41It essentially allows us to dissect a galaxy's entire life history.
34:45To really appreciate how revolutionary this is, think about the technological leap here.
34:50Historically, traditional galaxy surveys used a single fiber-optic cable.
34:54They'd capture this one single blurred measurement of a galaxy's center.
34:58It was kind of like trying to understand the layout of a whole city by peeking through a single keyhole.
35:03But the new method uses custom-designed fiber bundles to create full 3D data cubes.
35:08Instead of treating a galaxy as a single dot, we now have 3D maps capturing thousands of distinct data points
35:14across the entire structure of the galaxy.
35:16And here is where it gets absolutely fascinating.
35:20This 3D mapping reveals the exact mechanism causing our measurement issues.
35:25Local space-time behaves like a drain.
35:28According to the research, galactic structures act as space-time drains.
35:31Within a galaxy, space-time isn't just undergoing that general outward cosmological expansion that pushes the whole universe apart.
35:39It is also simultaneously flowing inward toward the galaxy's center of mass.
35:44This dual influence creates a highly localized stretching effect.
35:48So if you compare the dense centers of galaxies to their chaotic outer edges, you see a stark discrepancy in
35:54how space-time behaves locally.
35:56The centers of galaxies, what physicists call virialized cores, are gravitationally settled.
36:02They are dynamically stable.
36:03They are tightly bound to the cosmic frame, which makes them incredibly accurate representations of the true global expansion rate.
36:10But the peripheries?
36:11Those outer edges are chaotic, unrelaxed, and dominated by inward-falling material.
36:17Any measurements taken out there are systematically inflated because of that local space-time stretch.
36:22Which brings us to the crucial point.
36:25Our previous measurements were accidentally biased.
36:28Why?
36:28Because we were exclusively looking at the bright, stretching outskirts of galaxies, completely missing their stable centers.
36:35For decades, astronomers relied on standard candles, like Cepheid variables and Type-A supernovae.
36:41They're brilliant and easy to spot at vast distances.
36:43But those objects live almost exclusively in the chaotic peripheries of galaxies.
36:48We systematically avoided the crowded, dusty galactic centers because they were just too hard to measure.
36:54Until now.
36:55We basically created a cosmic optical illusion by only looking at the most dynamically biased locations in the universe.
37:02But this research introduces a single, parameter-free, unifying mathematical framework that proves this isn't just a coincidence.
37:09It's a systematic correction.
37:11The research states it perfectly.
37:1373 goes in, 67 comes out.
37:15There are no free parameters here, zero tuning, no fine adjustments.
37:19It is a fundamental equation that bridges the gap between local dynamics and global expansion.
37:24Let's look at the ultimate stress test for this and see how it builds a mathematical proof without needing to
37:29invent any new physics.
37:31First, the study takes that inflated local distance ladder value of 73.
37:35Then they explicitly feed it into their framework across that entire unprecedented data set of 10,096 galaxies.
37:42Finally, by actively correcting for the physical masses and radii of those galaxies, the output completely overrides the local bias
37:48and converges precisely to the true global rate.
37:51When they account for the local, inward flow of space-time in the galactic cores, the unified equation outputs a
37:57global mean of 66.95 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
38:01By averaging out the internal kinematics over 10,000 galaxies, rather than just zooming in on their bright, messy outer
38:07edges, that inflated value of 73 just drops away.
38:11The true, stable cosmological expansion rate finally reveals itself from the data.
38:16Think about that number for a second.
38:17That derived output of 66.95 is statistically identical to the early universe CMBR value of 67.4 to within
38:26less than 1%.
38:27That massive, highly debated gap between the distance ladder at 73 and the cosmic microwave background completely vanishes when we
38:35apply the Manga data set output.
38:37It proves that both measurements are actually correct within their own context.
38:41They've just been measuring entirely different physical space-time environments this whole time.
38:46Now, you might be thinking, okay, but could this just be a random statistical fluke?
38:50The data says, absolutely no way.
38:53With a vast sample size of over 10,000 galaxies, the statistical evidence here is completely overwhelming.
38:59The analysis yields a staggering Z-score of over 422.
39:04To put that into perspective, a Z-score of just 5 is usually the gold standard for a discovery in
39:08physics.
39:09At 422, the probability of this being a failure is mathematically indistinguishable from zero.
39:14It boasts a literal 100% probability of successfully resolving the tension.
39:19So what's the big takeaway from all this?
39:21It's that our standard model of cosmology is perfectly fine.
39:24It just requires applying the correct spatial math that accounts for local gravity.
39:28General relativity remains completely intact.
39:31We don't need to invent exotic, wild concepts like early dark energy to 6-R math.
39:35Instead, we just need to use the mathematical tools developed way back by Georges Lemaitre for an inhomogeneous universe.
39:41We have to stop pretending the universe is perfectly uniform on a local scale
39:44and embrace that spacetime is dynamic, rich, and heavily location-dependent.
39:49We've essentially discovered that our biggest cosmological paradox wasn't a crisis at all.
39:53It was just a mathematical illusion caused by where we were standing.
39:56The universe wasn't failing us.
39:58We were just failing to account for the gravitational weather right in our own cosmic neighborhood.
40:02By looking exclusively at the turbulent edges of galaxies, we skewed our entire perspective.
40:07But once we step back and look at the whole stabilized picture, everything aligns perfectly.
40:11It really makes you wonder, doesn't it, if local space-time stretches our reality this much,
40:17what other cosmic mysteries are just waiting for a simple change in perspective?
40:21We've solved the Hubble tension not by breaking the laws of physics,
40:25but by finally observing the universe with the nuance it actually deserves.
40:29So as we continue to gaze out into the cosmos, we really have to ask,
40:33what other assumptions are we making simply because of the highly biased gravity-warped location
40:39from which we are looking?
40:40Definitely something to think about the next time you look up at the night sky.