Daniel Whiteson

And that's where the argument is.

And, you know, it takes a while to convince scientists and the mainstream to change course.

But I also think that there's wisdom in that.

We don't want to throw away everything we've built for the last few hundred years every time somebody publishes a new paper.

You wouldn't change careers every time you hear about a new one.

It takes some time to invest and explore.

You don't burn down your house every time you see somebody else's house that looks cool and start afresh.

So it should take a lot of data to change everybody's minds.

It should take an overwhelming argument.

And that's what happens.

And you see that at play right now in science.

Let's take, for example, our understanding of the early universe.

We have this description we talked about earlier, the Big Bang, the universe expands.

But there are problems with that.

We measure the expansion of the universe today.

We get a certain number.

We go back to the very early universe and we calculate how much stuff there was and we propagate that forward in time and say, well, how fast should the universe be expanding?

We get a different number.

So the early universe measurement of how fast the universe was expanding disagrees with the measurements we make today.

It's called the Hubble tension.