I'm a 4th year Masters student at Cambridge, and my research project is to develop methods for identifying Earth-like exoplanets, in Didier's research group. The field of exoplanet discovery has evolved into looking at not just Jupiter mass planets but much smaller ones too. I hope I can help make a very small contribution!
Those Nobel scientists deserve everything that their discovery deserves. I remember seeing their discovery, put forward in a BBC documentary called "The Planets" back in the early '90s !
It's surprising how new the whole field of exoplanets are. I assumed we knew about other planets for decades. Now that I know a fair bit more about exoplanets and cosmology in general, this does sound like a Nobel worthy achievement. Great video as always.
this was a really candid video. this just goes to show how most brilliant people are also some of the nicest people around. Even these profs really inspired more than a handful of viewers today itself, to embark on a humble journey to higher physics. Awesome video :)
I don't know where this idea comes from, that experts needs to be horrible people. It's more of the opposite (as soon as they have enough time and you're not wasting it).
HD 114762 is a catalog designation rather than a name. The star is, I believe, the 114,762nd entry in the Henry-Draper catalog of spectral classifications published 1918-24. Modern catalogs often just use the right ascension and declination of the star's position in the sky. For instance, this star is also designated 2MASS J13121982+1731016 (2MASS signifying it was the catalog produced by the Two Micron All-Sky Survey conducted at the turn of the century).
As a kid I was an avid reader of astronomy books, and I remember reading about the radial velocity and transit methods of detecting planets. This was in the late 1970s. It was all theoretical back then, but these ideas were already being considered.
Oh my goodnes. That animation at 19:50 has solved something that has been bugging be for years, how the picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation was captured. Weird how i didn't just imagine an orbiting satellite, or heck, a telescope on the orbiting earth pointed at different locations as time went on. lol. You have my allegiance, Sixty Symbols. xD!
I had a random thought: who the hell dislikes these kind of videos? There's nothing controversial, purely educational content is shot and edited well, and all around very likeable people are presenting it. So what is it? Is there a scientific explanation for this phenomenon?
If you read some of the comments, I assume it's the people asking claiming that physics is a waste of time/money because it doesn't directly benefit them.
My most likely explanation is that a majority of those people want to give a thumbs up but end up hitting the wrong icon (poor eyesight, sleepiness, and so on). It happened to me (but not on this video).
I would put 5 quid on it being those deluded, mentally challenged folk that cant accept that we are on a spherical mass rather that the tripe they believe.
Thank you for these great videos. I would appreciate if the professors could explain how a telescope works. Specifically the physics behind why the large telescope means more resolution. Thanks again!! Keep it up!
It has been decades since I have known that redshift is NOT what we were taught it was. For example: Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science - Halton Arp, published 1998. Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations - Halton Arp, published 2003. JWST - Maverick Quasars & Redshift Values - Wal Thornhill And it's really exciting to see the James Web Space Telescope is helping confirm Arps work.
16:07 "It's now [..] seen as about 2.7 kelvin but that's okay it was 3.5 ± 0.1 so they were perfectly okay." Isn't that still outside the margin of error? Not a bad result, but doesn't seem like they estimated it correctly.
The discovery and study of exoplanets is very exciting stuff even if we never visit one or receive extraterrestrial radio signals from intelligent life. I hope astronomers keep pushing for better and better instruments for detecting exoplanets.
The radial Doppler shift only works if the star has no movement without a exoplanet. What if that star has its own momentum that coincidentally matches the same type of movement
Ed Copeland doesn't make mistakes that I can understand (that is, any mistake he makes, I'm not smart enough to recognize as a mistake), but at 16:14, he says 3.5 plus or minus 0.1 (which is 3.4 to 3.6) is "perfectly okay" relative to a "correct" value of 2.7. Didn't he? I mean, 3.5 and 2.7 are close enough for a first-ever measurement versus a "final" measurement (the quotes are because in science nothing is correct or final), but why bring up the margin of error unless the final, correct measurement was within it? I know I'm wrong, but where?
Saying the temperature is 3.5 plus or minus 0.1 doesn't mean that the value is necessarily between 3.4 and 3.6. It can very well be outside of that range. That said I do not know if he misspoke or not.
I remember the road I was on and the park I was looking at out the car window as I heard on the radio that they had discovered an exoplanet back when I was 5 years old.
Yes, but it is a pretty reasonable assumption since the solar system should all form from the same disk of gas/dust that has some initial angular momentum. And by now we probably know whether that is true for other planetary systems or not.
No. We've known/predicted for a long time that all planetary systems spontaneously form incredibly flat discs. This result can be derived from Newtonian Mechanics. The total angular momentum of a planetary system is conserved, and the initial (assymmetric) distribution of matter will converge to a plane simply due to gravity and friction/collisions. This holds true for any gravitationally bound system with losses in kinetic energy, and is also why planetary rings are flat, galaxies are flat, and accretion discs around black holes are flat.
I am not sure that quantumelectrodynamics is bound to microscopic scales, relativity to macroscopic ones and classical physics to mesoscopic scales. To me it is more about the distance between the observing observed and the observed observer. So all three theories can be applied to all the scales. It is just like with classical euclidean and non-euclidean geometries...or to say it that way: city-maps are still drawn as if the earth is flat...while more global maps are drawn as if on a sphere...so it is the distance between the observer and the observed part of the earth. The closer we are the flatter it seems...the more distance between us and the observed the more non-euclidean it becomes. What we observe observes us at the same time, too by the way.
Why did they give him the prize on 2019, at 85, if his such a founding figure of cosmology, sounds by the video like a trascendental figure and then one's left with the question what made him get the nobel prize so late, an extraordinary figure that if dead at 84 wouldnt have gotten it.
I really wonder what a planet "around a solar type star" has above "first ever exo-solar" planet to chose one discovery over another. None seems an obvious greater breakthrough (both were know to be hostile to life at the point of publication). Was it so much harder technically or had greater impact on further research. I would like the Nobel committee to be more transparent over such an obvious choice. Even this video recognizes "1st ever" but avoids to give clear answer to this one, probably because it's really baffling.
The pulsr planets don't tell us much about how our solar system formed. Planetary systems around solar-type stars do. If extraterrestrial cilivizations are ever discovered, they will have evolved in this type of system.
So.......what I want to know is: For most of the late 80's ..90's, I was under the impression that up to 80% of all solar systems were binary. Is that still true or not?
One name: Wolszczan. He should have received a Nobel Prize for the discovery of the FIRST ever exoplanet. But well.. Nobel Prizes are not what they used to be and mean. Committee should have try harder with their own research.
It's kind of hard to hear, but if he is saying "naught point ones" with emphasis on the final "s" in "ones", then for me that changes the meaning to something along the lines of "naught point and then some number".
i expect to find planets orbiting pulsars because earth orbits pulsars... sunspots are black holes; stars are accretions disks; solar flares are pulsar bursts... where's my nobel??? children
its hardly surprising. science goes on the available data- and as he pointed out- our system was the only data we had at that point. once you get MORE data you update the model.
Not so much they didn't think they would exist, just that we wouldn't be able to detect them. I believe even if we were just a couple light years away we wouldn't be able to detect any of the planets in our own solar system even with current instruments/techniques. Our measurements are still heavily biased towards finding really big planets that are really close to their star.
it gives us knowledge, expands horizons, places us in the greater space. You could have all the benefits in the world and not knowing what's behind the mountain, past the forrest or in the next village. It may be pleasant, but dull and dangerous at times
The cosmology Prize, there's no discovery here. This is a failed model; 'a model in crisis' - by all accounts. From the outside, it looks like cosmology is back in the dark ages giving prizes to the likes of epicycles. It's in a bad place.
See our other physics Nobel videos at: bit.ly/SSNobel
Some extra interview footage with Ed: ua-cam.com/video/ro_K6-8ABqQ/v-deo.html
Can you translate it into Vietnamese?
Brilliant, as always Brady.
You're the best "celebrity scientist" interviewer around.
Thank you.
Western science has made everything unhealthy and everyone poor!!!
This is really the best part of the internet. Thanks for the videos, and thanks to the profs for their time. Greatly appreciated!
I'm a 4th year Masters student at Cambridge, and my research project is to develop methods for identifying Earth-like exoplanets, in Didier's research group. The field of exoplanet discovery has evolved into looking at not just Jupiter mass planets but much smaller ones too. I hope I can help make a very small contribution!
6:37 is that Cooper trying to communicate in that bookshelf?
Laimis B underrated comment
It's full of stars!
My favorite part of Nobel season is coming to this channel and learning about the great discoveries made by the winners. Thank you!
I wonder if Ed Copeland has ever been loud and upset in his life
No, he was not. He did not cry even as a baby. He just lie there contemplating.
S. Actually it was discovered that he did one time get loud and upset, just to see what it was like.
@@SHx589 No he did think about how it'd be like and came to the conclusion, that it would be bad
??
Those Nobel scientists deserve everything that their discovery deserves. I remember seeing their discovery, put forward in a BBC documentary called "The Planets" back in the early '90s !
It's surprising how new the whole field of exoplanets are. I assumed we knew about other planets for decades. Now that I know a fair bit more about exoplanets and cosmology in general, this does sound like a Nobel worthy achievement. Great video as always.
this was a really candid video. this just goes to show how most brilliant people are also some of the nicest people around. Even these profs really inspired more than a handful of viewers today itself, to embark on a humble journey to higher physics. Awesome video :)
I don't know where this idea comes from, that experts needs to be horrible people. It's more of the opposite (as soon as they have enough time and you're not wasting it).
9:00 Never would’ve thought that i would hear an astronomer skipping a star’s name and replacing it with a funny sketchy line.
That had me too ha
All of the Astrophysics people at my school kind of hate the naming convention, although it is pretty typical to refer to it as a phone number.
HD 114762 is a catalog designation rather than a name. The star is, I believe, the 114,762nd entry in the Henry-Draper catalog of spectral classifications published 1918-24. Modern catalogs often just use the right ascension and declination of the star's position in the sky. For instance, this star is also designated 2MASS J13121982+1731016 (2MASS signifying it was the catalog produced by the Two Micron All-Sky Survey conducted at the turn of the century).
He always does that. It's pretty irrelevant, since it's just its position. May as well call it an address
As a kid I was an avid reader of astronomy books, and I remember reading about the radial velocity and transit methods of detecting planets. This was in the late 1970s. It was all theoretical back then, but these ideas were already being considered.
"He goes where the science tells him". What a fantastic compliment!
Oh my goodnes. That animation at 19:50 has solved something that has been bugging be for years, how the picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation was captured. Weird how i didn't just imagine an orbiting satellite, or heck, a telescope on the orbiting earth pointed at different locations as time went on. lol.
You have my allegiance, Sixty Symbols. xD!
2:30 Brady, I would never skip through your videos!
I had a random thought: who the hell dislikes these kind of videos? There's nothing controversial, purely educational content is shot and edited well, and all around very likeable people are presenting it. So what is it? Is there a scientific explanation for this phenomenon?
If you read some of the comments, I assume it's the people asking claiming that physics is a waste of time/money because it doesn't directly benefit them.
My most likely explanation is that a majority of those people want to give a thumbs up but end up hitting the wrong icon (poor eyesight, sleepiness, and so on). It happened to me (but not on this video).
I would put 5 quid on it being those deluded, mentally challenged folk that cant accept that we are on a spherical mass rather that the tripe they believe.
Thank you for these great videos. I would appreciate if the professors could explain how a telescope works. Specifically the physics behind why the large telescope means more resolution. Thanks again!! Keep it up!
Really love listening to Ed Copeland, his voice is so relaxing
More videos you guys are awesome by far my favorite channel!!
Thanks! We have more in production.
Sixty Symbols awesome I look forward to them my unofficial schooling if you will
It has been decades since I have known that redshift is NOT what we were taught it was.
For example:
Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science - Halton Arp, published 1998.
Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations - Halton Arp, published 2003.
JWST - Maverick Quasars & Redshift Values - Wal Thornhill
And it's really exciting to see the James Web Space Telescope is helping confirm Arps work.
I don't know why, but them gushing about another scientist made me have a huge smile on my face
Typo at 00:28, the name is Queloz, not Quelor
Great video! Unfortunately, there is a small mistake in the name of one of the winners. It's Didier Queloz and not Didier Quelor.
Apologies to Professor Queloz... Good thing I don't engrave the medals... - Brady
@@sixtysymbols no problem. The video is so good that I'm sure he'll forgive you :)
New favorite channel confirmed
Amazing video as allways , plz more videos ...
16:07 "It's now [..] seen as about 2.7 kelvin but that's okay it was 3.5 ± 0.1 so they were perfectly okay."
Isn't that still outside the margin of error? Not a bad result, but doesn't seem like they estimated it correctly.
Checked the paper, they measured 3.5±1 K. Prof Copeland simply misspoke the number. They were in fact, perfectly okay. Impressive!
The discovery and study of exoplanets is very exciting stuff even if we never visit one or receive extraterrestrial radio signals from intelligent life. I hope astronomers keep pushing for better and better instruments for detecting exoplanets.
The astronomy/cosmology profs are so lovely. Always great to hear from them.
Astrology, uhh
Oh fck, you didn't see anything.
The radial Doppler shift only works if the star has no movement without a exoplanet. What if that star has its own momentum that coincidentally matches the same type of movement
Thanks for acknowledging Aleksander Wolszczan's discovery
Ed Copeland doesn't make mistakes that I can understand (that is, any mistake he makes, I'm not smart enough to recognize as a mistake), but at 16:14, he says 3.5 plus or minus 0.1 (which is 3.4 to 3.6) is "perfectly okay" relative to a "correct" value of 2.7. Didn't he? I mean, 3.5 and 2.7 are close enough for a first-ever measurement versus a "final" measurement (the quotes are because in science nothing is correct or final), but why bring up the margin of error unless the final, correct measurement was within it? I know I'm wrong, but where?
I think it's reasonable that he just misspoke. I believe these videos are all one take without a script, so he's just talking off the cuff.
Saying the temperature is 3.5 plus or minus 0.1 doesn't mean that the value is necessarily between 3.4 and 3.6. It can very well be outside of that range. That said I do not know if he misspoke or not.
thank you, explained much i didn't know. keep up the good work Ed & brady...
I find it strange that Butler and Marcy are not even mentioned here.
I remember the road I was on and the park I was looking at out the car window as I heard on the radio that they had discovered an exoplanet back when I was 5 years old.
More videos from 60symbols and nottinghamscience please Brady!
may the assumption at 12:50 be subject to the same flaw as the assumption at 6:10 ?
Yes, but it is a pretty reasonable assumption since the solar system should all form from the same disk of gas/dust that has some initial angular momentum. And by now we probably know whether that is true for other planetary systems or not.
No. We've known/predicted for a long time that all planetary systems spontaneously form incredibly flat discs. This result can be derived from Newtonian Mechanics. The total angular momentum of a planetary system is conserved, and the initial (assymmetric) distribution of matter will converge to a plane simply due to gravity and friction/collisions. This holds true for any gravitationally bound system with losses in kinetic energy, and is also why planetary rings are flat, galaxies are flat, and accretion discs around black holes are flat.
I am not sure that quantumelectrodynamics is bound to microscopic scales, relativity to macroscopic ones and classical physics to mesoscopic scales.
To me it is more about the distance between the observing observed and the observed observer.
So all three theories can be applied to all the scales.
It is just like with classical euclidean and non-euclidean geometries...or to say it that way: city-maps are still drawn as if the earth is flat...while more global maps are drawn as if on a sphere...so it is the distance between the observer and the observed part of the earth. The closer we are the flatter it seems...the more distance between us and the observed the more non-euclidean it becomes.
What we observe observes us at the same time, too by the way.
Lots of non-physical ideas in that comment on physics...
Sounds like a lifetime achievement award.
More nobel explanations
another fantastic video!
wheres this year video pls pls
0:00 "Better grab your baloons 'n' invite your friends"
So, where is the video for this year? Have you lost interest?
Subtítulos por favor.
Why did they give him the prize on 2019, at 85, if his such a founding figure of cosmology, sounds by the video like a trascendental figure and then one's left with the question what made him get the nobel prize so late, an extraordinary figure that if dead at 84 wouldnt have gotten it.
Its the Safire project Thunderbolts plasma time! Yay ⚡️🌞
There is a typo all over the video. It isn't Didier Quelor with a R, but Queloz, with a Z in the end!
I'm a simple man, I see Ed, I like. But I liked the whole video actually, not just Ed's part. Mike's part was very interesting as well.
Even your comment is complicated.
@@S.... Hahaha. I guess you are right.
Roger Penrose just got the Nobel Prize.
🎵Pegasi 51b planet uncovered🎶
Nice looking data, whoop whoop
I really wonder what a planet "around a solar type star" has above "first ever exo-solar" planet to chose one discovery over another. None seems an obvious greater breakthrough (both were know to be hostile to life at the point of publication). Was it so much harder technically or had greater impact on further research. I would like the Nobel committee to be more transparent over such an obvious choice. Even this video recognizes "1st ever" but avoids to give clear answer to this one, probably because it's really baffling.
The pulsr planets don't tell us much about how our solar system formed. Planetary systems around solar-type stars do. If extraterrestrial cilivizations are ever discovered, they will have evolved in this type of system.
@@davidhoward437 you cannot be sure about things like that. Cosmos keeps suprising us.
So.......what I want to know is:
For most of the late 80's ..90's, I was under the impression that up to 80% of all solar systems were binary.
Is that still true or not?
What? How can it be half? It's a quarter for the other 2.
"I want to hold your hand".
Pretty perfect to end what I've been calling "the decade of exoplanets" with this prize.
Why the weird portrait drawings?
One name: Wolszczan. He should have received a Nobel Prize for the discovery of the FIRST ever exoplanet. But well.. Nobel Prizes are not what they used to be and mean. Committee should have try harder with their own research.
@16m13s: 3.5K +/- "naught point one" doesn't include 2.7K. Was that a speako ?
It's kind of hard to hear, but if he is saying "naught point ones" with emphasis on the final "s" in "ones", then for me that changes the meaning to something along the lines of "naught point and then some number".
Ed 🥰
Hello people. Physics is really cool.
Edit: I hope more people learn and everyone learns. That would be a true utopia.
Do we have any future Nobel prize laureates in this comment section?
Statistically, no
2:22
"sixtps sgmbfls"?
Sixt-psi S-gamma-mb-phi-ls? :D
6:18 Thats interesting.
6:52 gotcha
i expect to find planets orbiting pulsars because earth orbits pulsars... sunspots are black holes; stars are accretions disks; solar flares are pulsar bursts... where's my nobel??? children
Wolszczan is a difficult name. Probably because the man who first discovered the first exoplanet did not receive the Nobel Prize.
How does one call the stones making up gravel in space?
Peebles.
I would love to talk to pebbles!!! Aw!
Doesn't all fall apart if space is not vaccua.....
Mike aged alot, but Ed seems like hasn't aged at all
He's operating at 50% light speed, so it only seems that way 😉
Finding exoplanets is not worth a Nobel prize. Peebles should have won the prize by himself.
Is it just me or does the video completely melt down at 0:29
@15m00s: CMB "...propagated out for the next 3.8 billion years..." 3.8 billion years?
@ 6:51 -- imagine that... ;-/
its hardly surprising. science goes on the available data- and as he pointed out- our system was the only data we had at that point. once you get MORE data you update the model.
to see the amazingly vast range between the most idiotic of people and the most intelligent, suffer through a few trump tweets then watch this
No WhatsApp. Its not secure.
& first man who discovered an exoplanet, didnt get his nobel prize, pathetic
I'm Early
You must be a medium 🎅👼🧟🧞♂️
Professor Ed looks more like Mr Weasley with every video.
Why the actual heck did people not expect to find planets outside of our solar system?
Not so much they didn't think they would exist, just that we wouldn't be able to detect them. I believe even if we were just a couple light years away we wouldn't be able to detect any of the planets in our own solar system even with current instruments/techniques. Our measurements are still heavily biased towards finding really big planets that are really close to their star.
The Nobel Prize has become so political, how can we trust anymore that a particular award is justified from a scientific perspective?
Well you can ask these guys
These are for papers from decades ago that have had plenty of time to prove their worth
This isn’t the peace prize.
Shouldn't the nobel prize be awarded to those how confer the greatest benefit on mankind? How does cosmology benefit mankind?
it gives us knowledge, expands horizons, places us in the greater space. You could have all the benefits in the world and not knowing what's behind the mountain, past the forrest or in the next village. It may be pleasant, but dull and dangerous at times
Some people might think understanding the Universe is a deeper benefit to mankind than longer-lasting phone batteries... Some people might not.
I think you have some deep misunderstandings of what the Nobel prize is, and what the propose of science is in general.
Because that's how we move forward and become more advanced and it benefits us in many ways
First view and comment!
I hope this silly UA-cam tradition never dies. Now to enjoy the new video lol
The cosmology Prize, there's no discovery here. This is a failed model; 'a model in crisis' - by all accounts. From the outside, it looks like cosmology is back in the dark ages giving prizes to the likes of epicycles. It's in a bad place.
He was one of the first to recognize and interpret the CMB. That on its own is worth a nobel prize.