I love it when a distinguished physicist uses expressions like "blows my mind." Regardless of how much we know there remains so much more to discover! Our universe endlessly fascinating.
Exactly! To use the numbers he gave here, even if we knew with 100% certainty, everything about everything in the 'visible' universe, we would at best know everything about only 1/125,000,000th of the entire Universe. How does that NOT blow every mind ever???
PEACE... ATLEAST..FROM NOW ON LET US THANK THE CREATOR..AS THIS SCIENTIST SAYS " IT BLOWS HIS MIND.."" EVERYTHING IN UNIVERSE RUNNING AWAY FROM ONE ANOTHER..AND THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE VERSES UN VISIBLE IS ONE IN 125 MILLIONS.. MY GOD IF ONE UNIVERSE IS SOOOO HUGE..WHAT ABOUT MULTIVERSES..AND WHAT IS THE SIZE OF SPACE..AS SAID ALL THE MATTER OF MULTIVERSES JUST FITS IN..5 % OF SPACE..AND 95 % OF SPACE IS UNSEEN DARK MATTER...OR GOD'S PARTICLE.... HIGH AND MIGHTY IS HE WHO CREATED..ALL OF THIS AND GOVERNS......YES HE IS HONEST IN SAYING "" MIND BLOWING..".. PEACE...
Its great that a lot of the content here from Fermilab is easy to understand for the average person. It would be wonderful if more people tuned in to learn more about the universe we live in.
@@classica1fungus its like taking a 360deg view photo and than finding out our galaxys relative speed via blue/red shift compared to cwb then editing that out to find if space is flat closed or open. I cant wait for first results from jwt
Wow, finally, a concise explanation of how to calculate the size of the entire universe, as opposed to the visible universe. Of course, it is still an estimate only because there will be no way to verify the actual size of the entire nonvisible universe. The explanation of how the estimate is determined with respect to the CMB is awesome. Fantastic presentation Dr. Don Lincoln!
Have you thought about it, the Big Bang remnants were 13.4 billion light-years away, according to Hubble's constant, when the radiation that we can now observe was emitted. If those big bang remnants then still move away from us at 97.5% of the speed of light, that radiation can now never be visible, because the radiation that comes this way is emitted by an object that travels with almost the speed of light and therefore that radiation. but coming our way at 2.5% of the speed of light, if we could observe it, that radiation would have been emitted at 1.975 times the speed of light, if one considers that if a neutrino appears a billionth of a part faster than light if the whole world falls over it, one would just have to blindly go at 1,975 times the speed of light to keep the big bang dream alive and this so-called scientist, pretending to be a physicist, then in the beginning of the big bang already had to say goodbye to the big bang, if the big bang starts with, there was no time and no space.
This is by far the best explanation of the CMB and the flatness measurements I have ever seen. Not only is it clearer, it answered several questions that the other explanations left me with.
I love listening to Dr. Don Lincoln talk, I feel some sort of nostalgia from one of my favorite shows. Dr. Don Lincoln realy reminds me of Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers.
I like how you are starting to go more into mechanistic detail than previous videos, yet keeping it relative easy to understand. Great content Doc, can't wait for the next one!
Wow, great description of how the CMB was measured and refined, along with the amount of info coming out of it. I've seen the same "photo" of it several times, but now understanding the minute variations and the information that is being determined by it is amazing!! I look forward to the next videos on this!!
It's a golden combination: the history of the various discoveries, and the scientific implications of those. It describes in a few minutes the things that scientists were taught about the CMB over the last 60 years., and it makes it very clear for us viewers. Thanks, this is the best explanation of the CMB that's I've seen!
Hi Don you and your Team are sooo good! Keep going and have a wonderful christmas and a happy and healthy new year! Thank you so much. We have good cosmology channels here but many a time your videos give me that last brain nudge to really get the point even thou its been a long way to learn all the scientific words... But your excellent clear pronounciation and language help a lot too. Matt from Germany
Wow, this is so cool. I didn't know that scientists have used the CMB data to make so many interesting measurements of the maximum curvature and dark matter ratio of the modern universe!
Awesome & totally mind numbing video Dr. Don! Looking forward to the final installment! Happy Holidays to you & your family! Be well and stay safe! 👍👍🎄🎄🎄🎄👍👍
Thank you Dr.Don, I feel privileged to know this information. What an exciting time to be alive and have knowledge of the universe. Thanks for breaking it down in an understandable way
I actually got to see the launch of the COBE satellite at VAFB as a young Mechanical Engineer with my Vintner buddy. Been hooked on Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, etc. ever since.
Since I'm a classical music geek I gotta ask. In linear distance, what was the wavelength of those early sound waves and, if such a comparison is valid, what frequency would that work out to under earth's atmospheric conditions? I guess what I'm asking is this: what note was the Big Bang playing? 🙂
Your question is like asking , "What temperature is middle C?" Even better - " What temperature is middle C today if it was played 13.5 billion years ago on a piano moving away from us at (some silly fast speed I can't begin to figure out .)
@@AB-qx3pf Valid point. @Edward Little Makes a very interesting hypothetical question which I also wondered about too. The only answer I can express is (being half series) it made the sound of Creation.
Quite simple. We know the peak is at about 1° of a 360° circle. We can calculate the angular size distance to CMB source was about 42. Mega light years (which was also our distance to it at that time). So we have a circle with perimeter of 264 Mega light years, divided by 360° we get a wave length of approx. 730'000 light years... Im not a musican so i dont know exactly which note this is. PS: From what I read, the source of density fluctuations is a bit older than the CMB. So the wavelength was estimated around 500'000 lightyears but stretched by the expansion of the universe at that time...
Thanks for the explanation. It is good to understand from where do these concepts of the ratio visible matter/dark matter came from. And the ratio visible/not visible universe, the flatness of the universe, and so on.
Great video, but I was a bit confused by how dark matter affects the spacing between the spots. By changing the angle does it not also affect the derived minimum size of the universe? How is the effect of dark matter figured into that calculation?
Yes, the amount of dark matter does affect the minimum size calculation and the curvature measurement. This should make sense as increasing or decreasing the amount of matter density in your model will change the spatial curvature (more stuff curves space more) along with the age of the universe (less time to expand). This does create ambiguity in the curvature result but that can be resolved by the more complicated things more or less dark matter does to the subsequent peaks in the graph shown. So you can determine the amount of dark matter with the relative heights of the first three peaks then look at the first peak for your curvature measurement. The first peak still ends up at about one degree-flat space. Note: there are still more variables that contribute to the location of that first peak but dark matter density is the primary one.
4:25 so the answer to the question "if a universe explodes into existence and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound" is a resounding yes, we can see the sound it made?
'That's science for ya", exactly, it's what I always loved when working in science and continue to do so. Even though I don't work in it anymore, as politics (mainly on the institute level) and such unfortunately have way more influence on the scientific work than I hoped it had.
Really excellent video. Are you still taking questions? At 6:00, you showed the CMB's temperature fluctuations as a function of angular scale has a maximum at about 1 degree. But, what do those other maxima at 0.5 degree, 0.25 degree, 0.18 degree, 0.15 degree, etc, represent?
There is a mind blowing fact I wish you could make a video about. When you look at something the further it is the smaller it appear to us, until a certain point, then it starts to appear bigger until it becomes so big it wraps around and we see the big bang.
I was not clear till today that the cosmic background is sphere and what presented is opened view like earth. Thanks for this enlightenment. I am sure plenty like me will get that clear now.👍🙏
Sir, it is super intelligent (aka astrophysicists / physicists) people like you who are taking humankind forward. The rest of us mortals are just hanging on for dear life. Maximum respect.
Don, you give the fractions of ordinary and dark matter as c. 4.86% and c. 25.89%. To what degree do those figures take into account other factors? Because it was my understanding that those or similar numbers were a compromise between fitting the CMB data proper and fitting the implied Hubble rate of expansion.
Hi Don ! Happy new year ! In one of your next videos, could please you do an update / a complement of "What's the truth about antigravity?", with the results of the BASE experiment at CERN. Thanks and best regards.
Curvature is a pretty good way of calculating the size, as best as we can. I had heard 1% was visible, but if the 0.2% number is accurate, then the universe is truly massive, you can’t even fathom a solar system, yet one galaxy contains hundreds of billions, or trillions of stars. It’s amazing to think that it could be 500 times bigger then what we see. That just makes me feel like a neutrino. It’s crazy that we exist and we see no real signs of life, yet the universe is so incredibly massive. Fucking life is so weird. The universe really trips me out.
The Big Bang remnants, according to Hubble's constant, are 13.4 billion light-years away and have a speed of 97.5% of the speed of light relative to us, which would mean that the radiation emitted at 1.975 times the speed of light, which then looks more like that there has been no big bang at all and that those so-called remnants just stand still in relation to our position, which would mean that it is 1 big misconception and we have to quickly go to the shrinking atom theory, at shrinking atoms, the frequency will increase and the time will also run faster with the frequency, then it can also be explained why people think that the universe is still accelerating and that there is no dark matter and dark energy, that is easy to explain with the shrinking atoms and it seems to me that the big bang theory has come to an end. With this knowledge you get a different picture of the universe, which is determined by the luminosity of stars at a distance, but it turns out with the shrinking atoms that the activity, due to the slower clock, the stars at a distance radiate less energy and their position is estimated too far, which leads to the galaxies being estimated too large and due to the rotational speed of galaxies a wrong image is created, where matter is missing to be able to justify the rotation. As our clock goes faster, the shrinking also gets faster, which causes a redshift, which shows that something is speeding up and that is our clock and we don't need dark energy to explain that.
I have a doubt sir. In wave propagation water or sound , how individual particle vibrations are transmitted from particle to particle in the direction of wave propagation? There are gaps between particles in solids, liquids and gases. Is this not against principle of locality?
Arond 3:07 you say that the red stripeacross the eqator is caused by microwave emitted by gas in the MilkyWay. To me all systems do have a equator and the niverse is not an exeption. What let astrophysics to that conclution?
Thank you for this amazing channel. Please, can you explain how it is possible a point-like particle (like an electron or a quark) has a cross section which is different from zero? Thanks!
Particles interact with other particles and fields and are scattered by them and the cross section is the surface area 'seen' by those particles. They are also quantum objects that take up space with their wavefunction. A point-like particle is just an approximation, in reality they are spread out.
If our galaxy causes a band of IR radiation to show up on the CMB, how do we know that the other variances in the CMB aren't just from other galaxies and other inter galactic phenomena? Like how do we know the variations are reflective of the early universe rather than just EM emissions from other objects in the universe?
Can I ask something? How come we have a static picture of the cmb? Isn't it a fuzzy constantly changing thing. Or is the image we see like taking a photo of a fire?
I'm impressed with how much information scientists have been able to gleam from the CMB. As a non-scientist it is a pretty picture of the distribution of matter in the early universe.
I don't understand why we can still detect the afterglow. Wouldn't the process that emits the microwaves cease at some point and all waves propagate past the earth where we wouldn't see them anymore?
So Planck measured density variations in the early universe. These density variations in a gaseous medium are sound by definition, but on a gargantuan scale. But such sound. I think, can't be noise, because there can't be an ear large enough to hear it. Sound that cannot be heard makes no noise. That is the first insight I have gleaned from this video. I have the answer to that riddle about the tree falling in the woods (well, the answer if the tree is really, really big).
Amazing video! But I'm a bit lost as to how you went from the curvature of space, to the size of the universe. Is that because if space is curved by a non zero number, even very small, at some point it wraps around itself? But I feel like there's a lot of assumptions there: That there would be stuff everywhere, that the experimental measurement would be accurate.. And all of that because the variations in the CMB are interpreted as sound waves? That sure seems far fetched from my perspective but eh, I'm not a physicist ^^
Aren't both Euclidean and Minkowski spaces (which are algebraically equivalent in their respective 3,1 space-times) flat by that definition? Light follows both a straight line through the bulk and along the expanding surface simultaneously so the angle won't differ regardless of curvature unless there's a separate overall gravitational curvature. If you could measure along the surface for a fixed moment in time, things would be different, but our measurements are limited by the speed of light. I also don't see any reason to believe gravity would cause curvature at large scales though it should retard the inherent geometric expansion somewhat. The surface of the hypersphere in Euclidean space-time would be finite unbounded with a radius of the age of the universe (times the speed of light if you aren't working in natural units) and a "surface area" of about 17 hubble volumes, though the distances involved are different from the usual definition. The equivalent straight line in Minkowski space appears at first blush to go on forever but for it to map to the same time like the hypersphere, it's actually a tesseract. That's gives you 56 hubble volumes with one of the more usual definitions of distance. Either way, it's still well shy of 500x the size of the observable universe whether you do that in comoving distances or not. I suppose it matters exactly what you consider to lie on the straight line in Minkowski space. You could expand those figures the same way you go from a 13.8 gly radius to a proper/comoving 46.5 gly for the observable universe but that seems like it's converting twice as both the hypersphere and tesseract already define all points equidistant (in time) from the big bang. If you do that coversion, you jump to infinite volume in Minkowski space as now you are mapping things to the infinite hyperbolic surfaces. Interestingly, I believe that it's still finite in Euclidean space and now maps to the 56 hubble volume tesseract. Again, though, that's using an unconventional definition of distance in terms of coordinate time instead of proper time. If that kind of distance measurement were to be what we actually measure, then there should be an anomaly in the angular size of objects over large distances which we do in fact see, though it's usually explained in a different way in terms of dark energy. So, I suppose the question should be, can we tell whether we are measuring ds²=c²dt² or ds²=c²d𝜏²? It would seem to matter rather a lot. Given that we are usually measuring redshift and equating that to intensity based measurements at shorter distances where those two definitions of distance are essentially the same to achievable precision, I'm really not certain.
I love it when a distinguished physicist uses expressions like "blows my mind." Regardless of how much we know there remains so much more to discover! Our universe endlessly fascinating.
Exactly! To use the numbers he gave here, even if we knew with 100% certainty, everything about everything in the 'visible' universe, we would at best know everything about only 1/125,000,000th of the entire Universe. How does that NOT blow every mind ever???
Some physicist are humans don't you know.
PEACE...
ATLEAST..FROM NOW ON LET US
THANK THE CREATOR..AS THIS
SCIENTIST SAYS " IT BLOWS HIS MIND.."" EVERYTHING IN UNIVERSE RUNNING AWAY FROM ONE ANOTHER..AND THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE VERSES UN VISIBLE IS
ONE IN 125 MILLIONS..
MY GOD IF ONE UNIVERSE IS SOOOO HUGE..WHAT ABOUT
MULTIVERSES..AND WHAT IS THE
SIZE OF SPACE..AS SAID ALL THE
MATTER OF MULTIVERSES JUST
FITS IN..5 % OF SPACE..AND 95 %
OF SPACE IS UNSEEN DARK MATTER...OR GOD'S PARTICLE....
HIGH AND MIGHTY IS HE WHO CREATED..ALL OF THIS AND
GOVERNS......YES HE IS HONEST
IN SAYING "" MIND BLOWING.."..
PEACE...
Everyone says that when they try to interpret everything from scratch in mind. In forms of mathematical statement everything is simple.
Its great that a lot of the content here from Fermilab is easy to understand for the average person. It would be wonderful if more people tuned in to learn more about the universe we live in.
It is the effort of Dr. Lincoln and the willingness of Fermi Lab to fund science outreach efforts that give us a glimpse of these science wonders.
Spread the jam!
Wait so you actually understood this
@@classica1fungus yeap!
@@classica1fungus its like taking a 360deg view photo and than finding out our galaxys relative speed via blue/red shift compared to cwb then editing that out to find if space is flat closed or open. I cant wait for first results from jwt
Wow, finally, a concise explanation of how to calculate the size of the entire universe, as opposed to the visible universe.
Of course, it is still an estimate only because there will be no way to verify the actual size of the entire nonvisible universe.
The explanation of how the estimate is determined with respect to the CMB is awesome.
Fantastic presentation Dr. Don Lincoln!
We don't know the size of the universe, only of the visible part.
This is the best explanation of the CMB I have ever seen! Science communication just keeps getting better and better with each passing year.
Have you thought about it, the Big Bang remnants were 13.4 billion light-years away, according to Hubble's constant, when the radiation that we can now observe was emitted. If those big bang remnants then still move away from us at 97.5% of the speed of light, that radiation can now never be visible, because the radiation that comes this way is emitted by an object that travels with almost the speed of light and therefore that radiation. but coming our way at 2.5% of the speed of light, if we could observe it, that radiation would have been emitted at 1.975 times the speed of light, if one considers that if a neutrino appears a billionth of a part faster than light if the whole world falls over it, one would just have to blindly go at 1,975 times the speed of light to keep the big bang dream alive and this so-called scientist, pretending to be a physicist, then in the beginning of the big bang already had to say goodbye to the big bang, if the big bang starts with, there was no time and no space.
This is by far the best explanation of the CMB and the flatness measurements I have ever seen. Not only is it clearer, it answered several questions that the other explanations left me with.
Dr. Don Lincoln is my favorite Scientist . I like his Style of explaining any Topic of the Astrophysics , Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics .
I love listening to Dr. Don Lincoln talk, I feel some sort of nostalgia from one of my favorite shows. Dr. Don Lincoln realy reminds me of Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers.
I like how you are starting to go more into mechanistic detail than previous videos, yet keeping it relative easy to understand. Great content Doc, can't wait for the next one!
Wow, great description of how the CMB was measured and refined, along with the amount of info coming out of it. I've seen the same "photo" of it several times, but now understanding the minute variations and the information that is being determined by it is amazing!! I look forward to the next videos on this!!
It's a golden combination: the history of the various discoveries, and the scientific implications of those. It describes in a few minutes the things that scientists were taught about the CMB over the last 60 years., and it makes it very clear for us viewers. Thanks, this is the best explanation of the CMB that's I've seen!
Hi Don you and your Team are sooo good! Keep going and have a wonderful christmas and a happy and healthy new year! Thank you so much. We have good cosmology channels here but many a time your videos give me that last brain nudge to really get the point even thou its been a long way to learn all the scientific words... But your excellent clear pronounciation and language help a lot too. Matt from Germany
Wow, this is so cool. I didn't know that scientists have used the CMB data to make so many interesting measurements of the maximum curvature and dark matter ratio of the modern universe!
Awesome & totally mind numbing video Dr. Don! Looking forward to the final installment! Happy Holidays to you & your family! Be well and stay safe! 👍👍🎄🎄🎄🎄👍👍
Thx Fermilab & Dr. Don. Have a merry Christmas and a science video rich new year 🙂
Thank you for helping dummies like me and taking time for these videos! I’m very appreciative of all the scientists out there.
Great video, thanks Don!
I love UA-cam. It offers lots of excellent science programs. Dr. Lincoln makes one of the best.
I need a tee shirt that has the quote 'Theres a lot of science in dem dare spots'!
Best Dan Lincoln ever!
Thank you Dr.Don, I feel privileged to know this information. What an exciting time to be alive and have knowledge of the universe. Thanks for breaking it down in an understandable way
It's amazing how much information can be inferred from that data set.
BTW I hope everyone at Fermilab has a wonderful Christmas!
I actually got to see the launch of the COBE satellite at VAFB as a young Mechanical Engineer with my Vintner buddy. Been hooked on Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, etc. ever since.
That was the best explanation of all of this stuff I have ever seen! Good on yer, doc !
Wonderful and fascinating content as usual.
Since I'm a classical music geek I gotta ask. In linear distance, what was the wavelength of those early sound waves and, if such a comparison is valid, what frequency would that work out to under earth's atmospheric conditions? I guess what I'm asking is this: what note was the Big Bang playing? 🙂
Your question is like asking , "What temperature is middle C?"
Even better - " What temperature is middle C today if it was played 13.5 billion years ago on a piano moving away from us at (some silly fast speed I can't begin to figure out .)
@@AB-qx3pf Valid point.
@Edward Little Makes a very interesting hypothetical question which I also wondered about too.
The only answer I can express is (being half series) it made the sound of Creation.
Quite simple. We know the peak is at about 1° of a 360° circle. We can calculate the angular size distance to CMB source was about 42. Mega light years (which was also our distance to it at that time). So we have a circle with perimeter of 264 Mega light years, divided by 360° we get a wave length of approx. 730'000 light years...
Im not a musican so i dont know exactly which note this is.
PS: From what I read, the source of density fluctuations is a bit older than the CMB. So the wavelength was estimated around 500'000 lightyears but stretched by the expansion of the universe at that time...
Merry Christmas to Fermilab!!
Explained very well. I really enjoyed it.
A fun romp into this area of Astronomy. Waiting for more.
Another brilliant video!
Wonderful explanations. What a great lecturer!
Good information that is well presented. Thank you. Hope to see more of these informative podcasts.
How do we know we aren't seeing the heleopause?
Amazing, great video as usual!!
Thanks for the explanation. It is good to understand from where do these concepts of the ratio visible matter/dark matter came from. And the ratio visible/not visible universe, the flatness of the universe, and so on.
This is the best and most informative video I have ever saw about the CMB. Congratulations!
Great video, but I was a bit confused by how dark matter affects the spacing between the spots. By changing the angle does it not also affect the derived minimum size of the universe? How is the effect of dark matter figured into that calculation?
Yes, the amount of dark matter does affect the minimum size calculation and the curvature measurement. This should make sense as increasing or decreasing the amount of matter density in your model will change the spatial curvature (more stuff curves space more) along with the age of the universe (less time to expand). This does create ambiguity in the curvature result but that can be resolved by the more complicated things more or less dark matter does to the subsequent peaks in the graph shown. So you can determine the amount of dark matter with the relative heights of the first three peaks then look at the first peak for your curvature measurement. The first peak still ends up at about one degree-flat space.
Note: there are still more variables that contribute to the location of that first peak but dark matter density is the primary one.
wonderful presentation
Thank you for a brief but superb explanation of the cosmic microwave background.
This is a lot to understand after only one time. I will need to watch it another time after having slept on it.
Thanks a lot Fermilab. Very informative video👍
Thanks, I was awaiting for this one.
In this lecture temp fluctuations are discussed, but why at 5:55 the Y-axis temp is squared?
Nice to hear a physicist say that the universe is much bigger than we can see. I feel like this point gets lost at times.
Ok, Doc. I trust you and furthermore I wish you and all your collaborators a Merry Christmas and a happy new "light" year!
Absolutely awesome. Thank you. Never understood the angular thing. You rock.
4:25 so the answer to the question "if a universe explodes into existence and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound" is a resounding yes, we can see the sound it made?
Amazing lecture
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
" Physics is everything"...!!!
Great content
'That's science for ya", exactly, it's what I always loved when working in science and continue to do so. Even though I don't work in it anymore, as politics (mainly on the institute level) and such unfortunately have way more influence on the scientific work than I hoped it had.
Really excellent video. Are you still taking questions?
At 6:00, you showed the CMB's temperature fluctuations as a function of angular scale has a maximum at about 1 degree. But, what do those other maxima at 0.5 degree, 0.25 degree, 0.18 degree, 0.15 degree, etc, represent?
Dr Lincoln told there were soundwave w/ fundamental wavelength of 1 deg. I assume those weaker amplitudes are harmonic wavelengths.
Do these local differences within the CMB vanish over time as space expands, or does it grow linearly with space?
There is a mind blowing fact I wish you could make a video about. When you look at something the further it is the smaller it appear to us, until a certain point, then it starts to appear bigger until it becomes so big it wraps around and we see the big bang.
Merry Christmas Dr Lincoln!
Live up to 100 years!
Why stop then?
And then drop dead? Hehe.
@@drdon5205 Live longer than a proton then! 😅
just *a m a z i n g* how much information is hidden in that picture.
*Physics Is Everything!!*
I was not clear till today that the cosmic background is sphere and what presented is opened view like earth.
Thanks for this enlightenment.
I am sure plenty like me will get that clear now.👍🙏
Great presentation!👍
Excellent, most respected Professor.
Sir, it is super intelligent (aka astrophysicists / physicists) people like you who are taking humankind forward. The rest of us mortals are just hanging on for dear life. Maximum respect.
What a wonderful Christmas present to all your fans. Thank you!
Don, you give the fractions of ordinary and dark matter as c. 4.86% and c. 25.89%. To what degree do those figures take into account other factors? Because it was my understanding that those or similar numbers were a compromise between fitting the CMB data proper and fitting the implied Hubble rate of expansion.
Good question, i assume that some liberties were taken.
Unequivocally the most inspired opening as well as closing cards in the game. !
For a certain point of view, it's a little ironic that the matter called ordinary is only 4.9%
Thank you all so much for these videos! ❤️ ^.^
Another great video
Thank you.
Hi Don ! Happy new year !
In one of your next videos, could please you do an update / a complement of "What's the truth about antigravity?", with the results of the BASE experiment at CERN.
Thanks and best regards.
That would be a very boring video. "antimatter behaves exactly as expected, see you next time."
BASE found no indication of anomalous behavior.
You're a godsend, Dr. Lincoln!
so space is flat moving linear on a time dimension?
Curvature is a pretty good way of calculating the size, as best as we can. I had heard 1% was visible, but if the 0.2% number is accurate, then the universe is truly massive, you can’t even fathom a solar system, yet one galaxy contains hundreds of billions, or trillions of stars. It’s amazing to think that it could be 500 times bigger then what we see. That just makes me feel like a neutrino. It’s crazy that we exist and we see no real signs of life, yet the universe is so incredibly massive.
Fucking life is so weird. The universe really trips me out.
Excellent, clear presentation of the most complex concepts, as usual.
I agree. I can't understand some other channels. I'm so glad we have geniuses doing this kind of research.
Now that is simply amazing. Maybe not simple, but extremely amazing.
Dr. Don thank you.. please understand this thank you is straight from the heart.
Thank you for the science.
is it only me? i just feel smarter by watching these videos :D
Just wow! I wouldn't mind if this was s bit longer with little bit of more details to chew on though...
This is the best explanation of such famous graph (5:55) I ever heard. I finally understand it. Thank you very much.
The Big Bang remnants, according to Hubble's constant, are 13.4 billion light-years away and have a speed of 97.5% of the speed of light relative to us, which would mean that the radiation emitted at 1.975 times the speed of light, which then looks more like that there has been no big bang at all and that those so-called remnants just stand still in relation to our position, which would mean that it is 1 big misconception and we have to quickly go to the shrinking atom theory, at shrinking atoms, the frequency will increase and the time will also run faster with the frequency, then it can also be explained why people think that the universe is still accelerating and that there is no dark matter and dark energy, that is easy to explain with the shrinking atoms and it seems to me that the big bang theory has come to an end. With this knowledge you get a different picture of the universe, which is determined by the luminosity of stars at a distance, but it turns out with the shrinking atoms that the activity, due to the slower clock, the stars at a distance radiate less energy and their position is estimated too far, which leads to the galaxies being estimated too large and due to the rotational speed of galaxies a wrong image is created, where matter is missing to be able to justify the rotation. As our clock goes faster, the shrinking also gets faster, which causes a redshift, which shows that something is speeding up and that is our clock and we don't need dark energy to explain that.
@@martinwillemse8923 quack quack
Thanks for going into some detail about the CMB, love your videos keep em coming ! Makes me wonder how come our galaxy is moving so fast / slow ?/
The information gained from the CMB is amazing.
Is it possible to see the variations of the CMB from earth at a resolution similar to COBE?
I like the last part when he says "well u know physics is everything"
I have a doubt sir. In wave propagation water or sound , how individual particle vibrations are transmitted from particle to particle in the direction of wave propagation? There are gaps between particles in solids, liquids and gases. Is this not against principle of locality?
Arond 3:07 you say that the red stripeacross the eqator is caused by microwave emitted by gas in the MilkyWay.
To me all systems do have a equator and the niverse is not an exeption.
What let astrophysics to that conclution?
Dr. Lincoln, what caused the sound waves within plasma? Thank you!
How are the CMB and vacuum energy correlated ?? In any way ??
Wow! Nice to finally know how that 500x size was estimated. Simply mind bending...
Thank you for this amazing channel.
Please, can you explain how it is possible a point-like particle (like an electron or a quark) has a cross section which is different from zero? Thanks!
Particles interact with other particles and fields and are scattered by them and the cross section is the surface area 'seen' by those particles. They are also quantum objects that take up space with their wavefunction. A point-like particle is just an approximation, in reality they are spread out.
Interesting... does the correction for the Doppler shift mean, that somewhere there is a stationary point, which does not move with respect to CMB?
How do we know where and how much Microwave does the objects in space emit. Do we analyse the wavelength spectra?
Now that we have the JWST running, what's new in this regard (if any)?
How can tthe cmb be directional?
If our galaxy causes a band of IR radiation to show up on the CMB, how do we know that the other variances in the CMB aren't just from other galaxies and other inter galactic phenomena? Like how do we know the variations are reflective of the early universe rather than just EM emissions from other objects in the universe?
Can I ask something? How come we have a static picture of the cmb? Isn't it a fuzzy constantly changing thing. Or is the image we see like taking a photo of a fire?
Any photo taken only reflects what is seen at that exact moment.
Yes, but the features are many million light-years in size. Thus the changes occur on geological timescales.
I'm impressed with how much information scientists have been able to gleam from the CMB. As a non-scientist it is a pretty picture of the distribution of matter in the early universe.
news.miami.edu/stories/2021/12/are-black-holes-and-dark-matter-the-same.html
Is it possible to move FTL relative to the CMB?
Can we please start another series like subatomic stories? Maybe for universe and the discoveries around bigger things in life.
I don't understand why we can still detect the afterglow. Wouldn't the process that emits the microwaves cease at some point and all waves propagate past the earth where we wouldn't see them anymore?
So Planck measured density variations in the early universe. These density variations in a gaseous medium are sound by definition, but on a gargantuan scale. But such sound. I think, can't be noise, because there can't be an ear large enough to hear it. Sound that cannot be heard makes no noise. That is the first insight I have gleaned from this video. I have the answer to that riddle about the tree falling in the woods (well, the answer if the tree is really, really big).
Amazing video! But I'm a bit lost as to how you went from the curvature of space, to the size of the universe. Is that because if space is curved by a non zero number, even very small, at some point it wraps around itself? But I feel like there's a lot of assumptions there: That there would be stuff everywhere, that the experimental measurement would be accurate.. And all of that because the variations in the CMB are interpreted as sound waves? That sure seems far fetched from my perspective but eh, I'm not a physicist ^^
Best CMB video!
Do you think the W map could be an optical allusion
Aren't both Euclidean and Minkowski spaces (which are algebraically equivalent in their respective 3,1 space-times) flat by that definition? Light follows both a straight line through the bulk and along the expanding surface simultaneously so the angle won't differ regardless of curvature unless there's a separate overall gravitational curvature. If you could measure along the surface for a fixed moment in time, things would be different, but our measurements are limited by the speed of light. I also don't see any reason to believe gravity would cause curvature at large scales though it should retard the inherent geometric expansion somewhat.
The surface of the hypersphere in Euclidean space-time would be finite unbounded with a radius of the age of the universe (times the speed of light if you aren't working in natural units) and a "surface area" of about 17 hubble volumes, though the distances involved are different from the usual definition. The equivalent straight line in Minkowski space appears at first blush to go on forever but for it to map to the same time like the hypersphere, it's actually a tesseract. That's gives you 56 hubble volumes with one of the more usual definitions of distance.
Either way, it's still well shy of 500x the size of the observable universe whether you do that in comoving distances or not. I suppose it matters exactly what you consider to lie on the straight line in Minkowski space. You could expand those figures the same way you go from a 13.8 gly radius to a proper/comoving 46.5 gly for the observable universe but that seems like it's converting twice as both the hypersphere and tesseract already define all points equidistant (in time) from the big bang. If you do that coversion, you jump to infinite volume in Minkowski space as now you are mapping things to the infinite hyperbolic surfaces. Interestingly, I believe that it's still finite in Euclidean space and now maps to the 56 hubble volume tesseract. Again, though, that's using an unconventional definition of distance in terms of coordinate time instead of proper time. If that kind of distance measurement were to be what we actually measure, then there should be an anomaly in the angular size of objects over large distances which we do in fact see, though it's usually explained in a different way in terms of dark energy.
So, I suppose the question should be, can we tell whether we are measuring ds²=c²dt² or ds²=c²d𝜏²? It would seem to matter rather a lot. Given that we are usually measuring redshift and equating that to intensity based measurements at shorter distances where those two definitions of distance are essentially the same to achievable precision, I'm really not certain.