The "temperature fluctuation of the universe being less than the room you're in" was really eye-opening. Shows you just how uniform it is. I love analogies like that which bring it "down to earth".
I'd argue we could use a more complicated episodes with some of these people. But it should only be a follow up to such simple episodes as this one so that we can stay on track.
This episode should've been one of the hour+ long episodes. Maybe even cut the hour+ into smaller portions for the masses. I would truly love to hear more of the same. ❤
@@sellnout4144 we cannot add links in replies since TH-cam flags it, search: *Inside NASA’s UAP Report with Commission Chair David Spergel & Neil deGrasse Tyson*
It's funny having two people, especially NDT who loves making jokes and humor, then the one who keeps trying to give the facts without pausing - a testament to his dedication
Thank-You Dr. Tyson & Dr. Spergel for your intriguing answers to today's questions. Special Thank-You to Paul Mercurio for sitting in for Lord Nice! You did a great job, Paul!😊 This episode seemed too short, and they always are to me, because the topics and questions posed are so fascinating! Best show on the internet!! Thanks for all you do!❤🪐✨💫
My oh my!!! Just signed up to receive these video presentations, and I could not be happier. What a breath of fresh air: solid, rewarding, satisfying conversations about the most eminent things!!! Important conversations, as Newton might say, of "giants" talking. Mr. Neil, thank you for posting this. Kind regards!
Extremely good insights from David Spergel there. Even if all this stuff has already been "discussed" elsewhere, this video was very insightful with more details.
N.D.T. has done so much for astronomy with his great personality and his tireless efforts to keep the public informed. He is what the "average Joe" needs to stay interested in science. Only a few come along in any given generation.
David is *EXACTLY* the type of guy you want in charge of the NASA's independent study on UAPs. He's one of the only people skeptics like me would believe if they actually turned out to be something more and I expect they won't.
That is not neseccarily good. You need a balance between both types of people so that one can find the unexpecged and another can make sure that we don't drift too far away with our imagination. The way i thought of david is, if you had too many of him jn the top we might be much less likely to bump into an unepexcted discovery. But uf we don't have him ppl like him at all we mivht end up wasting rss, energy and hopes over un-trustworthy concepts.
@@ryanforgo3500 why would people like david be less likely to bump into unexpected discoveries? He'll go where the evidence takes him - that's science.
@@helloyes2288because science also involves taking seemingly unrelated phenomena, mathematics, and abstractions of physical objects to try to not only explain natural phenomena but also predict it. In other words there may not be any easily identifiable “evidence” for a scientist to follow when trying to predict a natural phenomenon in the universe. Not only that but you may have to also create the idea of the phenomenon first in your mind and then try to apply what’s known in math, physics and geometry to make your initial theory before it can be tested. You need ppl like Einstein who can sit down and literally think up physics before an experimental scientist can try to test their validity.
@@helloyes2288I was going to say the same thing. You don’t create ideas or formulate a conclusion first supports your hypothesis. These things should be unbiased as should all science. I love skeptics and the conspiracies but never do I think science should be driven by either.
The beauty of Science is that it is self correcting or reinforced as new information is discovered and evaluated (unlike the human construct of religion where things are made up to continue support a previous claim).
incorrect.. I think you need to be scientific and self correct yourself that this statement is incorrect and in the least not applicable to all religions.. for eg, Hinduism has concepts of shastrarth and padarthas (google them for yourself).. also Hinduism supports all kind of schools of thoughts - monotheism to polytheism and even atheism aka nastika philosophy
This isn't necessarily true, religion has functions for updating itself. It just sort of happens that offshoots from the main branch tend to get labeled as pagan or nonsensical or w/e. For instance, Christianity and Islam might be interpreted as offshoots of Judaism, but Jews think Jesus was just some guy calling himself god. I don't know the Jewish theological understanding of prophet Mohammed. Somewhat similarly, Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, and despite how Mormons are the nicest people I've ever met, Christians think they're crazy. *not that I think any of these religious offshoots are better than any of the others. **but Ima die before I give up pork
Consider that, a hundred years ago, nobody had any idea the Universe was expanding. In fact, people were just discovering that many of those fuzzy “nebulae” were galaxies in their own right, just like our Milky Way. Round about that same time, Cecilia Payne was working on her PhD thesis. Up to that point, when people looked at the spectra of our Sun and other stars, they saw a similar mix of chemical elements to the make up of planetary bodies like our Earth. She was the one who pointed out that that was wrong, that in fact stars were primarily made of hydrogen and helium, and those extra spectral absorption lines were from trace materials in the stars’ coronae. Science works, not by consulting any religious book, but by looking at reality itself.
I must agree, since I’ve been thinking this myself, about the early stars being extremely massive. Because not only did they start off early with a lot of hydrogen around, but all of that hydrogen was with an easy reach of their gravitational pull. Today we have light years between the stars, and the hydrogen is blown away across light years until it finds enough mass again to form a new star. The beginning of the universe did not have that distance problem.
So what sbout peeka boo blue young small galaxy or green peas close to milkyway and mixed in all throughout ? It just sits around in a nebula 13 billion years then decides to collapse a billion years or less ago?
One reason why the stars _needed_ to be big was there was no carbon around to catalyze hydrogen fusion at the sorts of temperatures you find inside our own Sun. If the same mass of gas came together back then, it would not ignite. It needed to get much bigger and hotter before the fusion fires would start.
8:00 Sometimes I put you on when I'm working on my vehicle. I was working on my brake lines this time, just sitting there trying to get something accomplished, and then honk!, I dropped my tool and hit my head. 🤕 For goodness sakes will somebody buy their book already. My heart and my head can't take it anymore.😂
I'd love to hear some longer talk with visualizations about the (current state of) universe's geo(uni?)graphy - where's the center of the bang, where the earth/milkyway is, etc. how are getting to these conclusions (what the tech is) and what are the propositions & research questions.
To answer your question about where the center of the big bang is, the answer is not satisfying: depending on how you look at it, there either is no center, or everywhere is the center. If you go to any point in space, whether it be Earth, the center of the Milky Way, Andromeda, or anywhere else, you would see space moving away from you in all directions. The way we always see the big bang depicted is space radiating out from a point, because it would be hard to depict it any other way. But it gives the inaccurate impression that it has a center. Our current accepted understanding is that the universe is not expanding into anything, which is a mind-boggling thought that I cannot conceptualize or understand, and I think if you were to ask most physicists, they would say that it is not something you could intuit.
If I am not mistaken, we constantly loose matter ? With time we have less atoms , mostly converted to Energy and other radiations ? Energy is conserved.
My favourite way to watch startalk episodes is in the flight , so when Neil says , keep looking up , I gaze up from the flight window in the sky, to honour his appeal 😊.
I like to think of the Microwave Background as a photograph made of microwaves of the nano-scale environment of the super early universe, except blown up to a super galactic scale.
Time slows down near massive objects..So as the light from distant galaxies passes nearer massive objects on its way to us, it gets red shifted. Just an idea..IDK
Things are spread out father than you seem to think. You could drive a straight line through any of our asteroid belts and not have to swerve away from a rock once. Galaxies and "large objects" as you put it are even more spread out than that (to scale of course)
It's always best to discharge or confirm one's assumptions as much as possible before putting out any papers or press releases. Check, double-check, and recheck everything
That's what peer review is and why papers are released. The media jumps on hypothesis before they have been checked and uses the word theory as guess instead of hypothesis.
1:03: 🌌 The visible matter in the expanding universe is diluting as the universe expands. 3:58: 🔬 The tired light hypothesis suggests that the red shifting effect observed in distant galaxies is due to light losing energy as it travels, rather than the expansion of the universe. 7:05: ! The video discusses a recent paper claiming a much older age for the universe based on an analysis of colors of galaxies. 10:18: 😂 David Robertson rationalizes away a cool party idea and discusses anomalies in cosmic microwave background radiation. 14:15: ! The video discusses the theory of inflation and how it explains the rapid expansion of the universe. Recap by Tammy AI
is it possible that the universe could be so old that even the light of the early universe is so far away that the light has still has not had enough time to travel to us....or perhaps the energy they expell just simply loses all visible properties because it has traveled too far for anyone or anything to have been able to observe it???? 🤔
11:50 The only way you can know this shape of something, as if you can see the outer boundaries of it, draw a line around the boundary, and say this or that is the shape. But because we cannot see the edge of the universe, you therefore cannot see the shape of the universe.
@StarTalkRadio answer me this plz (bugging my mind) If information is also limited to the speed of light, when observing an electron wouldt the "possibility cloud" colide faster then light? (having in mind that the information that it was observed had to travel all atoms lenght)
Probability cloud. Use the right terms. Also what is the cloud colliding with exactly? Electrons repell each other and never touch. The electron clouds on the outer edge of your hand never touch any of the electron clouds of any object you've ever held. So what are you talking about.
I love StarTalk and it's amazing how big the universe is with the lights that reach us. Did these early massive stars eventually become a supermassive black hole at the end of their lifetime?
Can you use a sewing button ruler as an example of an expanding universe? Each point expands equally, however the relative rates of expansion would be different between point A and B, compared to A and H points. In a linear model
Very good explanation with the spread of duration of events on top of red shift. I think the appeal of rejecting red shift as expanding space comes from the difficulty of accepting that photons lose angular momentum without a clear idea of how such energy is transferred and to what. I see dark energy as "just" the calculation that gives more potential energy to matter when it is farther apart, like a ball that is higher over ground. Is this right? or is that energy in any other force field?
Can someone explain what exactly is meant when we say that the CMB radiation is normal? When I look at a map of it, the map just looks very irregular. Are are we saying those fluctuations are just random (but still somewhat large)? Or is it the deviations are so very small compared to the average? Thanks in advance!
Did you Google the variation in color and what the variation in color represents? It's a very small variation. I think it's way less than 0.1°C ( or 0.1°K or 0.1°F). Google says: "The actual temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 Kelvin. The middle image pair show the same map displayed in a scale such that blue corresponds to 2.721 Kelvin and red is 2.729 Kelvin" Therefore the variation in temperature is from 2.721 to 2.729, which is 2.729 - 2.721 = 0.008°K/C maximum temperature difference across the entire universe.
Tired light makes more sense given that the medium of space itself is made up of a complex soup of quarks in fluctuating densities. To assume that a photon could travel through space without ever interacting with any of those quarks thus never exchanging energy with any of them causing it in itself to lose any momentum seems like a big leap. Tired light makes more sense. It is also easier to explain and to understand. Someone once said something like "if you can't explain it to someone at a 4th grade level of understanding it's probably wrong"
*Dr.Tyson what do you think of this brainstorming idea* . *If a 4D being cast a 3D Shadow* . *To us it seems 3D* . *Is there a way to test how much of reality is actually just 3D Shadows* . *If I am understanding this correctly, if not I apologize* . *If I am then this will give humanity a better picture of 4D space* .
Can you do a short video or YT shorts on Pirates of Caribbean when Jack Sparrow and Will Turner was walking under the ocean while holding a boat upside-down?
I would love to discuss with you a concept I see ignored in most of these TH-cam videos. Including other channels as well. A concept that could explain dark matter. No matter where I look, no one seems to be discussing it.
time changes as universe expands. Its like calculating what was the price of house in 60's compare to price today. 1. Time is expanding and we don't know at what rate. Therefore its hard to calculate its age without that number. 2. Universal age should be in light years and not earth years.
I'm always taken back by why people are surprised by galaxies and black holes at the beginning of the universe. Obviously there was a lot of stuff in a small space at the beginning so you would get super large stars very easy and large black holes that had large stars and such to consume in a small space. The laws of physics formed at the first instant of the big bang. I beleive that we have a very good understanding of the expansion of space to know this is what happened. The question that one cannot answer is why the big bang started to begin with? and was it truly the start of time and space.
Neil a question for you about relativity...if a twin travels away from earth at close to the speed of light and come back he is now younger than the twin who was on earth correct? Now say there's triplets floating in nothing but space one starts moving away from the other 2 at close to the speed of light and then comes back is he now older than the other 2? Or are the 2 guys younger because if there's nothing else to compare the speed to the 2 guys could be seen as moving not the 1 guy. Is this a flaw?
At 15:32 David talks about "very long wavelength gravitational waves" related to "Inflation Theory"... Then, at 15:58 he mentions a radio telescope currently being built to search for these signals. Now, my question to that, is this: Since when can a radio telescope detect gravitational waves? I thought we needed LIGO-style detectors for that. What's the science behind this being a viable goal for that particular instrument? (sarc.) Is that what *_really_* happened at Arecibo or something? (/sarc.) Edited to include: ... and at 16:13, rather than question the whole idea of using a radio telescope to detect gravitational waves, Neil actually remains *_silent_* 😯 except for a quick "Hm" moment. What am I missing?
Why did that last question immediately bring Stargate Universe to my mind? The Alterrans found a weird fluctuation in the cosmic background radiation and Destiny was heading for it.
I have a many theories on this subject as of late, but in regards to the red shift, is it possible that because spacetime is already expanded and not just expanding at the location of distant objects, that what we see as red shift is not the stretching of space but the scaling of or the appearance of scaling of space and time, as far as I know it's understood that spacetime when compressed appears to slow down, if the opposite is true expanded space to us should appear accelerated and larger. My conclusion of sorts is that as light transitions to and from expanded and compressed space time what we see as shifts in color and wavelength is time dilation. Additionally the distance between two locations not in motion in expanding space never actually changes no matter how expanded or compressed, the time it takes for light to cross is the same except for when viewed from a different time frame / level of compression. I would assume that the faster then light parts of the expansion that we see is an optical illusion of sorts caused by time accelerating and distance appearing further.
Is tired light coming from photon losing energy from charge interaction ? We observed it with photon interacting with électron but do not take in account for red shift...
1:10 I was just thinking of a queston like this, about the concept of a black hole "swallowing" in something and then flushing something else out. Could it be that as it swallows matter, the matter that previously occupied space now allows space to "stretch" again, and therefore that is causing some of the expansion (spacial expansion) of the universe ?
I'd love to see how these guys handle the growing Earth hypothesis. I personally think it's real, but the mechanism is elusive. Some people think it correlates to the expansion of the universe, others think that the gravitational constant is lower now than it was in the past. What do you guys think?
What happens to a photon when it bounces off a surface? I know that it can impart momentum to what it hit, so does the photon lose energy? What does that mean to the photon? Change it's wavelength, it's size, slow it down? If it just kept bouncing between surfaces would it eventually just disappear? Since photons can bounce off surfaces, can it bounce off another photon? If not, why not?
@@bobman929 NOPE. Well, not always. Reflection: When photons encounter a reflective surface, such as a mirror or a polished metal, a significant portion of them are typically reflected. This means that they bounce off the surface without being absorbed. The angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence, as described by the law of reflection. This is why you can see your reflection in a mirror; photons from your face strike the mirror's surface and bounce back towards your eyes. Absorption and Re-emission: While a reflective surface predominantly reflects photons, some may be absorbed temporarily by the surface's atoms or molecules. However, these absorbed photons are usually re-emitted shortly afterward. The key point is that they are re-emitted in random directions, not in a well-defined angle like in reflection. This re-emission is what gives some materials their reflective properties. It's important to note that the absorbed photons are not typically "released" as new photons, but rather they are re-emitted as the same photons, maintaining their energy and properties.
@@RogerGarrett sorry buddy but you have confused yourself there. Don't know where you got your info from but the energy of the photon is always absorbed by the electron it hits. If the frequency matches the electrons it will turn that energy into thermal energy, meaning the photon was "absorbed" If it doesn't, the energy is initially absorbed by the electron but then emitted (reflected) back out with the exact same energy properties. So it seems like the same photon but actually isn't. Atoms/paticles in general emit other particles such as photons when elections jump to a lower shell/level as a way to keep the conservation of energy. You have to remember that everything is just waves of energy, not solid objects. You want to google quantum physics of light flection.
12:03 Not only is the universe larger than we can see, we also think the universe is flat. So the donut must be large enough that we can’t measure the curvature.
Sir I was reading the Swami Vivekananda philosophy and he wrote about when there was no universe or you can say it was in super tiny shape so he wrote when there was no universe there was no time, there was no death and there was darkness of darkness. So my question is what scientists think when there was no universe. what was inside this tiny universe. My English is not good so please manage
My belief on gravitational waves is based on utilizing the 11 dimensions. Imagine 11 layered pieces of glass with steel filings. With a charge between each layer the metal files would move eargo gravity.
"We can't be in the centre"! Of course, but where are we in relation to the middle, edges? Is most of it to which side of us, or under/over? Never really thought about that!
This microwave chart I can see three basic lines each red shift microwave pattern South Pole to right side one connected with middle one to top top one is coming from North Pole left one is separated
hey am anthony, kenyan from africa. a physics enthusiast, no digree nor diplomer but just with maybe i say least knowladge. Maybe because we have genius like you guys. Well i have a question i don't know weather it's somewhere within the topic or out but i believe am within the umbrella , so what do you think if, i wake up in aday like today and decide to say that the entire universe is stuck somewhere in one of the blackhole. what do you think of it.
The "temperature fluctuation of the universe being less than the room you're in" was really eye-opening. Shows you just how uniform it is. I love analogies like that which bring it "down to earth".
2 years late but I bought the startalk book! Sitting here with it right now ready to read
You guys get the complexity just right, not too dumbed down and not too complicated
I'd argue we could use a more complicated episodes with some of these people. But it should only be a follow up to such simple episodes as this one so that we can stay on track.
@@ryanforgo3500That's why I watch PBS SpaceTime.
This episode should've been one of the hour+ long episodes. Maybe even cut the hour+ into smaller portions for the masses. I would truly love to hear more of the same. ❤
it is!!! it's an old episode I think it's only like 4 months old!!
@KiDDopee11 Thanks for the heads up! I'm going to find it now. 👍👌
What’s the episode called?
@@sellnout4144 we cannot add links in replies since TH-cam flags it, search: *Inside NASA’s UAP Report with Commission Chair David Spergel & Neil deGrasse Tyson*
@@joshinnc1520 Name of episode: *Inside NASA’s UAP Report with Commission Chair David Spergel & Neil deGrasse Tyson*
It's funny having two people, especially NDT who loves making jokes and humor, then the one who keeps trying to give the facts without pausing - a testament to his dedication
Thank-You Dr. Tyson & Dr. Spergel for your intriguing answers to today's questions. Special Thank-You to Paul Mercurio for sitting in for Lord Nice! You did a great job, Paul!😊 This episode seemed too short, and they always are to me, because the topics and questions posed are so fascinating! Best show on the internet!! Thanks for all you do!❤🪐✨💫
My oh my!!! Just signed up to receive these video presentations, and I could not be happier.
What a breath of fresh air: solid, rewarding, satisfying conversations about the most eminent things!!! Important conversations, as Newton might say, of "giants" talking.
Mr. Neil, thank you for posting this.
Kind regards!
Another great one y’all!! Had to watch this one twice!! . As usually, this show is massive!.
Tips hat to editors
Extremely good insights from David Spergel there. Even if all this stuff has already been "discussed" elsewhere, this video was very insightful with more details.
N.D.T. has done so much for astronomy with his great personality and his tireless efforts to keep the public informed. He is what the "average Joe" needs to stay interested in science. Only a few come along in any given generation.
Thank you so much for all this work! I never miss a video, my best regards from México 💕
I've been waiting for this! 💗💗
David is *EXACTLY* the type of guy you want in charge of the NASA's independent study on UAPs. He's one of the only people skeptics like me would believe if they actually turned out to be something more and I expect they won't.
That is not neseccarily good. You need a balance between both types of people so that one can find the unexpecged and another can make sure that we don't drift too far away with our imagination. The way i thought of david is, if you had too many of him jn the top we might be much less likely to bump into an unepexcted discovery. But uf we don't have him ppl like him at all we mivht end up wasting rss, energy and hopes over un-trustworthy concepts.
@@ryanforgo3500 why would people like david be less likely to bump into unexpected discoveries? He'll go where the evidence takes him - that's science.
@@helloyes2288because science also involves taking seemingly unrelated phenomena, mathematics, and abstractions of physical objects to try to not only explain natural phenomena but also predict it. In other words there may not be any easily identifiable “evidence” for a scientist to follow when trying to predict a natural phenomenon in the universe. Not only that but you may have to also create the idea of the phenomenon first in your mind and then try to apply what’s known in math, physics and geometry to make your initial theory before it can be tested. You need ppl like Einstein who can sit down and literally think up physics before an experimental scientist can try to test their validity.
@@rey3468 That's not how it works. Besides, the first step to proving a hypothesis is creating an experiment, you're skipping that step.
@@helloyes2288I was going to say the same thing. You don’t create ideas or formulate a conclusion first supports your hypothesis. These things should be unbiased as should all science. I love skeptics and the conspiracies but never do I think science should be driven by either.
It's ageless and timeless although the Tired Light theory explains why Red Shift and the CMB have been misinterpreted.
Another great one y’all!! Had to watch this one twice!! 🎉🎉
Universe isn't old.... ITS CLASSIC VINTAGE!
Well, technically, it is an antique. ;-P
Lmao, we're all hipsters
😂😂😂 love it!
Retro
I think it's a bit older. It's antique
I heard the analogy that if you took the visible universe and skrunk it to the size of the ocean. We have only explored a single glass of water.
A small drop of water maybe.
Excellent Conversation ⭐⭐⭐⭐
The beauty of Science is that it is self correcting or reinforced as new information is discovered and evaluated (unlike the human construct of religion where things are made up to continue support a previous claim).
@@Va1demar
Definitely Maybe. Which case?
Is science not a human construct as well ? Obviously science is a great tool but it doesn’t exist on its own apart from humans.
incorrect.. I think you need to be scientific and self correct yourself that this statement is incorrect and in the least not applicable to all religions.. for eg, Hinduism has concepts of shastrarth and padarthas (google them for yourself).. also Hinduism supports all kind of schools of thoughts - monotheism to polytheism and even atheism aka nastika philosophy
This isn't necessarily true, religion has functions for updating itself. It just sort of happens that offshoots from the main branch tend to get labeled as pagan or nonsensical or w/e. For instance, Christianity and Islam might be interpreted as offshoots of Judaism, but Jews think Jesus was just some guy calling himself god. I don't know the Jewish theological understanding of prophet Mohammed. Somewhat similarly, Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, and despite how Mormons are the nicest people I've ever met, Christians think they're crazy.
*not that I think any of these religious offshoots are better than any of the others.
**but Ima die before I give up pork
Consider that, a hundred years ago, nobody had any idea the Universe was expanding. In fact, people were just discovering that many of those fuzzy “nebulae” were galaxies in their own right, just like our Milky Way.
Round about that same time, Cecilia Payne was working on her PhD thesis. Up to that point, when people looked at the spectra of our Sun and other stars, they saw a similar mix of chemical elements to the make up of planetary bodies like our Earth. She was the one who pointed out that that was wrong, that in fact stars were primarily made of hydrogen and helium, and those extra spectral absorption lines were from trace materials in the stars’ coronae.
Science works, not by consulting any religious book, but by looking at reality itself.
I must agree, since I’ve been thinking this myself, about the early stars being extremely massive. Because not only did they start off early with a lot of hydrogen around, but all of that hydrogen was with an easy reach of their gravitational pull.
Today we have light years between the stars, and the hydrogen is blown away across light years until it finds enough mass again to form a new star. The beginning of the universe did not have that distance problem.
So what sbout peeka boo blue young small galaxy or green peas close to milkyway and mixed in all throughout ?
It just sits around in a nebula 13 billion years then decides to collapse a billion years or less ago?
One reason why the stars _needed_ to be big was there was no carbon around to catalyze hydrogen fusion at the sorts of temperatures you find inside our own Sun. If the same mass of gas came together back then, it would not ignite. It needed to get much bigger and hotter before the fusion fires would start.
I loved this episode. One of the best so far. It's great to watch educated men discuss important topics without the "comic" intervention
8:00 Sometimes I put you on when I'm working on my vehicle.
I was working on my brake lines this time, just sitting there trying to get something accomplished, and then honk!, I dropped my tool and hit my head. 🤕
For goodness sakes will somebody buy their book already.
My heart and my head can't take it anymore.😂
I'd love to hear some longer talk with visualizations about the (current state of) universe's geo(uni?)graphy - where's the center of the bang, where the earth/milkyway is, etc. how are getting to these conclusions (what the tech is) and what are the propositions & research questions.
To answer your question about where the center of the big bang is, the answer is not satisfying: depending on how you look at it, there either is no center, or everywhere is the center. If you go to any point in space, whether it be Earth, the center of the Milky Way, Andromeda, or anywhere else, you would see space moving away from you in all directions. The way we always see the big bang depicted is space radiating out from a point, because it would be hard to depict it any other way. But it gives the inaccurate impression that it has a center. Our current accepted understanding is that the universe is not expanding into anything, which is a mind-boggling thought that I cannot conceptualize or understand, and I think if you were to ask most physicists, they would say that it is not something you could intuit.
to answer these questions in a way that my brain can cope with is a triumph!
If I am not mistaken, we constantly loose matter ? With time we have less atoms , mostly converted to Energy and other radiations ? Energy is conserved.
Niel, David and Paul y'all rock! Peace
My favourite way to watch startalk episodes is in the flight , so when Neil says , keep looking up , I gaze up from the flight window in the sky, to honour his appeal 😊.
Enjoy these interviews with just you and the interviewees 8),Paul was a blast,keep him on.
So glad to hear that the most advanced understanding of our existence is that the Universe is very big! 🙂
I like to think of the Microwave Background as a photograph made of microwaves of the nano-scale environment of the super early universe, except blown up to a super galactic scale.
The amazing fact that the universe continues to expand is mind boggling.
*hypothesis that is currently being edited to fit the data.
I love this editing
This is a good vid to watch now.
Time slows down near massive objects..So as the light from distant galaxies passes nearer massive objects on its way to us, it gets red shifted. Just an idea..IDK
Things are spread out father than you seem to think. You could drive a straight line through any of our asteroid belts and not have to swerve away from a rock once. Galaxies and "large objects" as you put it are even more spread out than that (to scale of course)
As usually, this show is massive!
Neil, we need to make this program longer
Time itself is expanding/stretching was quite a surprise.
Love Paul Mercurio. Hilarious! Love Neil! Love Startalk! Just purchased the new 📖
It's always best to discharge or confirm one's assumptions as much as possible before putting out any papers or press releases. Check, double-check, and recheck everything
That's what peer review is and why papers are released. The media jumps on hypothesis before they have been checked and uses the word theory as guess instead of hypothesis.
Thank God for sound waves!
Another COSMIC lesson tanks mate
Fascinating
David Spergel is giving me Jeff Bridges from Iron Man 1's Obadiah Stane vibes. Minus the villain arc. :D
1:03: 🌌 The visible matter in the expanding universe is diluting as the universe expands.
3:58: 🔬 The tired light hypothesis suggests that the red shifting effect observed in distant galaxies is due to light losing energy as it travels, rather than the expansion of the universe.
7:05: ! The video discusses a recent paper claiming a much older age for the universe based on an analysis of colors of galaxies.
10:18: 😂 David Robertson rationalizes away a cool party idea and discusses anomalies in cosmic microwave background radiation.
14:15: ! The video discusses the theory of inflation and how it explains the rapid expansion of the universe.
Recap by Tammy AI
Great video.
As always, i learned alot from you guys! Thx for that 👍
I'm so happy when you like the video and it's just the right number so you can see the number change
is it possible that the universe could be so old that even the light of the early universe is so far away that the light has still has not had enough time to travel to us....or perhaps the energy they expell just simply loses all visible properties because it has traveled too far for anyone or anything to have been able to observe it????
🤔
I love rabbit hole vids...
Hilarious. Short and sweet.
This David sergle is my new favorite Neil Degrassi Tyson.
2hr session next plz😊
Interesting and looking to work on any of the observatories in Chile
Please please please never stop ♥️
11:50 The only way you can know this shape of something, as if you can see the outer boundaries of it, draw a line around the boundary, and say this or that is the shape.
But because we cannot see the edge of the universe, you therefore cannot see the shape of the universe.
@StarTalkRadio
answer me this plz (bugging my mind)
If information is also limited to the speed of light, when observing an electron wouldt the "possibility cloud" colide faster then light? (having in mind that the information that it was observed had to travel all atoms lenght)
Probability cloud. Use the right terms. Also what is the cloud colliding with exactly? Electrons repell each other and never touch. The electron clouds on the outer edge of your hand never touch any of the electron clouds of any object you've ever held. So what are you talking about.
I love StarTalk and it's amazing how big the universe is with the lights that reach us.
Did these early massive stars eventually become a supermassive black hole at the end of their lifetime?
Stars turn into 3 things when they die so maybe won't won't know for sure
Science doesn't have an understanding right now of how supermassive black holes form.
Can you use a sewing button ruler as an example of an expanding universe? Each point expands equally, however the relative rates of expansion would be different between point A and B, compared to A and H points. In a linear model
Very good explanation with the spread of duration of events on top of red shift.
I think the appeal of rejecting red shift as expanding space comes from the difficulty of accepting that photons lose angular momentum without a clear idea of how such energy is transferred and to what.
I see dark energy as "just" the calculation that gives more potential energy to matter when it is farther apart, like a ball that is higher over ground. Is this right? or is that energy in any other force field?
Thank you!
Bring back Chuck.
Can someone explain what exactly is meant when we say that the CMB radiation is normal? When I look at a map of it, the map just looks very irregular. Are are we saying those fluctuations are just random (but still somewhat large)? Or is it the deviations are so very small compared to the average? Thanks in advance!
Did you Google the variation in color and what the variation in color represents? It's a very small variation. I think it's way less than 0.1°C ( or 0.1°K or 0.1°F).
Google says:
"The actual temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 Kelvin. The middle image pair show the same map displayed in a scale such that blue corresponds to 2.721 Kelvin and red is 2.729 Kelvin"
Therefore the variation in temperature is from 2.721 to 2.729, which is 2.729 - 2.721 = 0.008°K/C maximum temperature difference across the entire universe.
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now ah thanks! super helpful
I was literally just looking into this
Tired light makes more sense given that the medium of space itself is made up of a complex soup of quarks in fluctuating densities. To assume that a photon could travel through space without ever interacting with any of those quarks thus never exchanging energy with any of them causing it in itself to lose any momentum seems like a big leap. Tired light makes more sense. It is also easier to explain and to understand. Someone once said something like "if you can't explain it to someone at a 4th grade level of understanding it's probably wrong"
"it's been a delight, an honor, and a privelege even just to be your friend and colleague, and Paul...uh...good to have you here..." 🤣
*Dr.Tyson what do you think of this brainstorming idea* .
*If a 4D being cast a 3D Shadow* .
*To us it seems 3D* .
*Is there a way to test how much of reality is actually just 3D Shadows* .
*If I am understanding this correctly, if not I apologize* .
*If I am then this will give humanity a better picture of 4D space* .
Can you do a short video or YT shorts on Pirates of Caribbean when Jack Sparrow and Will Turner was walking under the ocean while holding a boat upside-down?
This David guy is awesome lol
I would love to discuss with you a concept I see ignored in most of these TH-cam videos. Including other channels as well. A concept that could explain dark matter. No matter where I look, no one seems to be discussing it.
It is the emergency chain mechanism of universal recreation if we do not find how to tap that vacuum energy
Love ya mr Tyson ❤
Banquet halls I worked in would fill in the good bottles with cheap liquor all the time.😂
time changes as universe expands. Its like calculating what was the price of house in 60's compare to price today.
1. Time is expanding and we don't know at what rate. Therefore its hard to calculate its age without that number.
2. Universal age should be in light years and not earth years.
I'm always taken back by why people are surprised by galaxies and black holes at the beginning of the universe. Obviously there was a lot of stuff in a small space at the beginning so you would get super large stars very easy and large black holes that had large stars and such to consume in a small space. The laws of physics formed at the first instant of the big bang. I beleive that we have a very good understanding of the expansion of space to know this is what happened. The question that one cannot answer is why the big bang started to begin with? and was it truly the start of time and space.
Neil a question for you about relativity...if a twin travels away from earth at close to the speed of light and come back he is now younger than the twin who was on earth correct?
Now say there's triplets floating in nothing but space one starts moving away from the other 2 at close to the speed of light and then comes back is he now older than the other 2? Or are the 2 guys younger because if there's nothing else to compare the speed to the 2 guys could be seen as moving not the 1 guy.
Is this a flaw?
In my humble opinion, the universe goes on infinitely in all directions
Neil sweet sixteen and waiting for forty two, the meaning of life the universe and everything
At 15:32 David talks about "very long wavelength gravitational waves" related to "Inflation Theory"... Then, at 15:58 he mentions a radio telescope currently being built to search for these signals.
Now, my question to that, is this:
Since when can a radio telescope detect gravitational waves? I thought we needed LIGO-style detectors for that. What's the science behind this being a viable goal for that particular instrument?
(sarc.) Is that what *_really_* happened at Arecibo or something? (/sarc.)
Edited to include: ... and at 16:13, rather than question the whole idea of using a radio telescope to detect gravitational waves, Neil actually remains *_silent_* 😯 except for a quick "Hm" moment. What am I missing?
Why did that last question immediately bring Stargate Universe to my mind? The Alterrans found a weird fluctuation in the cosmic background radiation and Destiny was heading for it.
I have a many theories on this subject as of late, but in regards to the red shift, is it possible that because spacetime is already expanded and not just expanding at the location of distant objects, that what we see as red shift is not the stretching of space but the scaling of or the appearance of scaling of space and time, as far as I know it's understood that spacetime when compressed appears to slow down, if the opposite is true expanded space to us should appear accelerated and larger.
My conclusion of sorts is that as light transitions to and from expanded and compressed space time what we see as shifts in color and wavelength is time dilation. Additionally the distance between two locations not in motion in expanding space never actually changes no matter how expanded or compressed, the time it takes for light to cross is the same except for when viewed from a different time frame / level of compression. I would assume that the faster then light parts of the expansion that we see is an optical illusion of sorts caused by time accelerating and distance appearing further.
An analogy would be to magnify words with a domed lens, the space between words only appear larger the words aren't actually further apart.
Does the mass of things in orbit affect the gravity of the star/planet/black hole?
....yes.....
Is tired light coming from photon losing energy from charge interaction ? We observed it with photon interacting with électron but do not take in account for red shift...
Is time dilation relevant to light itself?
We've got a great video on that! th-cam.com/video/1BCkSYQ0NRQ/w-d-xo.html
1:10 I was just thinking of a queston like this, about the concept of a black hole "swallowing" in something and then flushing something else out.
Could it be that as it swallows matter, the matter that previously occupied space now allows space to "stretch" again, and therefore that is causing some of the expansion (spacial expansion) of the universe ?
I'd love to see how these guys handle the growing Earth hypothesis. I personally think it's real, but the mechanism is elusive. Some people think it correlates to the expansion of the universe, others think that the gravitational constant is lower now than it was in the past. What do you guys think?
I feel we should consider the observers belief on the size vs the components and how the oberserver may assume It to be .
Good thing science doesn't care about your "feelings."
What happens to a photon when it bounces off a surface? I know that it can impart momentum to what it hit, so does the photon lose energy? What does that mean to the photon? Change it's wavelength, it's size, slow it down? If it just kept bouncing between surfaces would it eventually just disappear? Since photons can bounce off surfaces, can it bounce off another photon? If not, why not?
It doesn't bounce off. It is absorbed and then another is released.
@@bobman929 NOPE. Well, not always.
Reflection: When photons encounter a reflective surface, such as a mirror or a polished metal, a significant portion of them are typically reflected. This means that they bounce off the surface without being absorbed. The angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence, as described by the law of reflection. This is why you can see your reflection in a mirror; photons from your face strike the mirror's surface and bounce back towards your eyes.
Absorption and Re-emission: While a reflective surface predominantly reflects photons, some may be absorbed temporarily by the surface's atoms or molecules. However, these absorbed photons are usually re-emitted shortly afterward. The key point is that they are re-emitted in random directions, not in a well-defined angle like in reflection. This re-emission is what gives some materials their reflective properties. It's important to note that the absorbed photons are not typically "released" as new photons, but rather they are re-emitted as the same photons, maintaining their energy and properties.
@@RogerGarrett sorry buddy but you have confused yourself there. Don't know where you got your info from but the energy of the photon is always absorbed by the electron it hits.
If the frequency matches the electrons it will turn that energy into thermal energy, meaning the photon was "absorbed"
If it doesn't, the energy is initially absorbed by the electron but then emitted (reflected) back out with the exact same energy properties. So it seems like the same photon but actually isn't.
Atoms/paticles in general emit other particles such as photons when elections jump to a lower shell/level as a way to keep the conservation of energy. You have to remember that everything is just waves of energy, not solid objects.
You want to google quantum physics of light flection.
'we can't be in the center' :) i agree with that
12:03 Not only is the universe larger than we can see, we also think the universe is flat. So the donut must be large enough that we can’t measure the curvature.
electromagnetic waves of universal scale are vital for the fundamental physics of higher frequencies.
Sir I was reading the Swami Vivekananda philosophy and he wrote about when there was no universe or you can say it was in super tiny shape so he wrote when there was no universe there was no time, there was no death and there was darkness of darkness. So my question is what scientists think when there was no universe. what was inside this tiny universe. My English is not good so please manage
Could the initial galaxies and their super massive blackhole not be the remnants of one huge star. Where the remnants later occasionaly merged.
we're so used learning together with the Chucker its just not the same without him
well the other guy was funny too.
Does the distance calculated using standard candles match the distance calculated using red shift and
My belief on gravitational waves is based on utilizing the 11 dimensions. Imagine 11 layered pieces of glass with steel filings. With a charge between each layer the metal files would move eargo gravity.
This just made the dumbest comment ever list.
"We can't be in the centre"! Of course, but where are we in relation to the middle, edges? Is most of it to which side of us, or under/over? Never really thought about that!
This microwave chart I can see three basic lines each red shift microwave pattern South Pole to right side one connected with middle one to top top one is coming from North Pole left one is separated
hey am anthony, kenyan from africa. a physics
enthusiast, no digree nor diplomer but just with maybe i say least knowladge. Maybe because we have genius like you guys. Well i have a question i don't know weather it's somewhere within the topic or out but i believe am within the umbrella , so what do you think if, i wake up in aday like today and decide to say that the entire
universe is stuck somewhere in one of the blackhole. what do you think of it.
whats the math say about the assumption that stars had grater mass in the early universe vs what we see from younger galactic clusters?