A Huge Cosmology Problem Might Just Have Disappeared

I hope after refinement we end up with 3 distinct outcomes, making everything even worse.

Thank you for this, I can definitely relate to the issue. In my household there is a tension between the amount of energy my kids state that they expend on chores, versus what I observe in my measurements. Research into the issue is ongoing, but no resolution is in sight.

“nobody wants to wait that long for a YouTube video.” perfectly drill delivery of that line. So funny!

Thanks for taking the time to respond to so many commentators. So few of your colleagues offer the same consideration. You're the tops, Sabine.

Hossi, [ if I may ] your sense of humor is just one reason why I follow your channel and it makes the dryer information much easier to follow. Thanks to you and your colleagues for such great videos.

4:58 got me distracted with those images, had to rewind 😂

Dr Becky also did recently a slightly more detailed video on this ("Has JWST SOLVED the crisis in cosmology?!").

I remember readding some time ago that the super nova work that won the Nobel had been shown to have been bad science from start to finish. Too few super novas. All in the same direction. And some other issues that aren't coming to mind. My English major mind has only a few slots of physics nerd data.

Fascinating. Looking forward to hear what they did differently from other studies about this same data. Thanks, Sabine! 😊 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

I remember well your talk with Subir Sarkar, Sabine and hope the fishyness with the supernovae analysis will not end up being too fishy for the Nobel laureates ....

Freedman et al. have been pushing for an Ho parity with LCDM for years, nothing new. They don’t pinpoint what might be a problem with the SNe/local distance ladder methods in their recent paper. Sarkar et al. were pushing for no accelerated expansion a few years ago, through a statistical re-analysis of SNe data, wiping out any tension. Clarifications.

Sabine misrepresents the study. Actually, the error does not lie directly with the SN data, but with the Cepheid data - which was used to calibrate the SN data! Dr. Becky explained that in much more detail.

Thanks for the excellent update.

Any problems with supernova measurements are unlikely to negate the Nobel prize work of Riess et al. Their results are based entirely on supernovae, so most systematic errors are likely to be common. The issue with the "Hubble tension" is that you are comparing results based on completely different physics. Their respective systematic errors are not common. I don't think that the Nobel Committee has much to worry about.

Good viewing thank you from New Zealand loving it

It is, in fact, Duck Season.

Anyone ever tried a patchwork approach to check if we are just getting these errors due to the expansion being uneven and not constant? Use 1 measuring method but group various parts of the sky to see if we can get results that are outside of each others error bars or at least close to it? The universes structure seems to suggest such a thing at this point and since the big bang was likely a super luminal expansion of a point in what is likely a much larger universe it seems reasonable that Dark energy is not constant over all points in space.

Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative video. Great job. Keep it up.

Thank you so much for your video.

Thanks. I've been looking for that Freedman paper. Also for the Migkas paper presented at the same conference.