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.
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!❤🪐✨💫
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*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.😂
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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???? 🤔
About the age of the universe, could you imagine that, everything is invisible but surfaces, at night, we can see space black that could be, a gigantic planet that we float on, that is turning real slow and someday, could light the whole sky at night white, and during day blue. Age of that size rotation is important.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
*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* .
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 ?
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.
@StarTalk Are you guys doing an event for the US solar eclipse next april? I am planning on going to Buffalo, NY to see it, right in centre of path of totality
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...
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?
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?
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'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.
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?
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?
A lot of light has not reached us yet. If all light had reached us, then we would cease to see distant galaxies. However, there are multiple ways of expressing a so-called "cosmic horizon", wherein at a certain distance from us in the universe, you will not see any light beyond that point. These horizons exist due to the expansion of the universe and the speed of light. Inside of these horizons, you have the observable universe. However, the universe, itself, is even larger than that.
"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!
Can someone explain the graph that appears at the 12:55 mark to me like I know nothing? I can't make heads or tails out of the X-axis, the Y-axis or the legend. You don't need to explain what a gaussian distribution is
Personally I would say yes. Im interested in evidence base evidence in the form of observations, text, tangible (If possible) and most importantly data. Time and light have to be the focus of that conversation and how they move. To me time goes forward and back. Light so far is expansive and cockusive
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.
![KRK - ชนิสรา Ft.WanMai , N/A [Official MV] Prod. By Sakarin](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C-WMwwYobcU/mqdefault.jpg)
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".
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.
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
2 years late but I bought the startalk book! Sitting here with it right now ready to read
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!❤🪐✨💫
I've been waiting for this! 💗💗
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*
Another great one y’all!! Had to watch this one twice!! . As usually, this show is massive!.
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.
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!
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
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.
Tips hat to editors
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.
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.
Thank you so much for all this work! I never miss a video, my best regards from México 💕
Another great one y’all!! Had to watch this one twice!! 🎉🎉
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.
Niel, David and Paul y'all rock! Peace
It's ageless and timeless although the Tired Light theory explains why Red Shift and the CMB have been misinterpreted.
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
Excellent Conversation ⭐⭐⭐⭐
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.😂
Neil, we need to make this program longer
The amazing fact that the universe continues to expand is mind boggling.
*hypothesis that is currently being edited to fit the data.
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.
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.
I love this editing
As always, i learned alot from you guys! Thx for that 👍
I loved this episode. One of the best so far. It's great to watch educated men discuss important topics without the "comic" intervention
This is a good vid to watch now.
@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.
So glad to hear that the most advanced understanding of our existence is that the Universe is very big! 🙂
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 😊.
Love Paul Mercurio. Hilarious! Love Neil! Love Startalk! Just purchased the new 📖
Great video.
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.
As usually, this show is massive!
Enjoy these interviews with just you and the interviewees 8),Paul was a blast,keep him on.
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????
🤔
to answer these questions in a way that my brain can cope with is a triumph!
Another COSMIC lesson tanks mate
About the age of the universe, could you imagine that, everything is invisible but surfaces, at night, we can see space black that could be, a gigantic planet that we float on, that is turning real slow and someday, could light the whole sky at night white, and during day blue. Age of that size rotation is important.
Fascinating
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
Thank God for sound waves!
Time itself is expanding/stretching was quite a surprise.
Neil and Chuck for 2024!
Bring back Chuck.
I'm so happy when you like the video and it's just the right number so you can see the number change
In my humble opinion, the universe goes on infinitely in all directions
Hilarious. Short and sweet.
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)
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.
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
This David sergle is my new favorite Neil Degrassi Tyson.
Interesting and looking to work on any of the observatories in Chile
Thank you!
David Spergel is giving me Jeff Bridges from Iron Man 1's Obadiah Stane vibes. Minus the villain arc. :D
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.
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.
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"
Could the initial galaxies and their super massive blackhole not be the remnants of one huge star. Where the remnants later occasionaly merged.
Please please please never stop ♥️
Love ya mr Tyson ❤
we're so used learning together with the Chucker its just not the same without him
well the other guy was funny too.
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.
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?
*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* .
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 ?
"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..." 🤣
I love rabbit hole vids...
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.
@StarTalk Are you guys doing an event for the US solar eclipse next april? I am planning on going to Buffalo, NY to see it, right in centre of path of totality
For the last eclipse, Neil went off somewhere by himself to watch it. So based on that, I don't think there will be an official event.
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...
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?
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?
Is time dilation relevant to light itself?
We've got a great video on that! th-cam.com/video/1BCkSYQ0NRQ/w-d-xo.html
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'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?
Time being relevant makes the universe eternal.
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.
2hr session next plz😊
Would the time stretching not affect the frequency of the light???
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.
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?
It ain’t old, it’s endless and eternal, always had been and always will be.
I think it’s possible that not all light in the universe has reached us yet. It could be older.
A lot of light has not reached us yet. If all light had reached us, then we would cease to see distant galaxies. However, there are multiple ways of expressing a so-called "cosmic horizon", wherein at a certain distance from us in the universe, you will not see any light beyond that point. These horizons exist due to the expansion of the universe and the speed of light. Inside of these horizons, you have the observable universe. However, the universe, itself, is even larger than that.
Does the mass of things in orbit affect the gravity of the star/planet/black hole?
....yes.....
Neil sweet sixteen and waiting for forty two, the meaning of life the universe and everything
"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!
What is before expansion R why what are we expansion into?
It is the emergency chain mechanism of universal recreation if we do not find how to tap that vacuum energy
Banquet halls I worked in would fill in the good bottles with cheap liquor all the time.😂
Can someone explain the graph that appears at the 12:55 mark to me like I know nothing? I can't make heads or tails out of the X-axis, the Y-axis or the legend. You don't need to explain what a gaussian distribution is
Personally I would say yes. Im interested in evidence base evidence in the form of observations, text, tangible (If possible) and most importantly data. Time and light have to be the focus of that conversation and how they move. To me time goes forward and back. Light so far is expansive and cockusive
This David guy is awesome lol
electromagnetic waves of universal scale are vital for the fundamental physics of higher frequencies.
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.
I was literally just looking into this