This comment is a bit off-topic and is related to a certain comment thread in this video that is indicative of a growing trend in modern science that I find both interesting and disturbing. Nick feel free to delete this comment if you feel it is not appropriate. The comment thread in this video that I am referring to is what I have come to call cultism. It is obviously a term taken from theology but is appropriate in this instance as well. I define cultism, both theological and scientific, as a belief in an idea or system that has little to no supporting evidence, and is held in spite of a body of evidence that refutes the idea or system. I define evidence in the scientific realm as an experimently verified result. If an idea has not been experimentally verified it is a conjecture, not evidence. Now, this idea is usually associated with so-called fringe groups, like the Flat Earth Society and the person posting in this video, but I see the same idea in the so-called mainstream scientific community that I find quite puzzling. In fact, it appears to be growing as more and more esoteric theories are put forth to explain both quantum mechanics and cosmology. The general problem with many of these theories is that despite being unable to prove the results experimentally, they are held as correct. I will cite just a couple of examples just to keep this comment brief, but there many that could be examined. The idea of alien civilizations has captured the imaginations of both science and non-science for ages and while I like the notion of alien civilizations, being a fan and writer of science fiction, there is simply no evidence that aliens exist anywhere within the observable universe. The Fermi Paradox (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) is quite difficult to get around but that doesn't stop true believers from trying to find these imaginary aliens. To say that aliens have/will exist but are too difficult to detect is simple cultism because if we can't detect them it is exactly the same as if they don't exist. There are a multitude reasons why aliens don't exist and have probably never existed, but in the interest of brevity, I will leave it at that. The Fermi Paradox is the best answer to this cultic notion. An example seemingly less controversial is the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Here is a portion of the definition of the man worlds theory: "MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely[2] many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.[7]" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation). Notice the phrase, "non-communicating" because this is at the heart of why this is a cultic idea. Non-communicating means that this interpretation can never be verified, by definition. It is impossible to know if this interpretation is correct, and yet it is the third most held interpretation of quantum mechanic following Information-based and the Copenhagen interpretation. (www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/). Of course, none of the interpretations have much if any evidence to support them, but I find it interesting that many-worlds is even on the list considering that you can never know if it is true. It is the very definition of cultism. The same is true of the general case as well, just not to this extent. Many of the new theories being developed work in specific cases and but fail in the general case and consistently fail in the general case. Yet these theories are hailed as being "true" despite the evidence to the contrary. If a methodology consistently fails outside of a specially designed test case, then you need to question whether the approach is simply wrong. Back in the day when I programmed for a living, my programs had to work for more than just a single case. It had to work for both the special and general case, otherwise, the program was useless. This idea does not seem to hold much water these days (as we say in Texas). The theories are becoming less testable and yet are accepted as being the truth despite any real evidence. Of course, the counter is always, it is in the math. All the theories are "in the math", even many worlds, so this counter is meaningless. A meaningless counter is a common response of cultism and this particular response is a current favorite of the true believer. Not every theory can be right, and yet all the theories are supported by some version of math, which means that the math can say just about anything you want it to say. Only prediction and experimentation can produce real evidence. Anything else is simply conjecture and conjectures always need to be verified as being true in order for them to be considered real evidence. The problem is that we have entered into the realm of the esoteric and it is impossible to test some of these ideas being developed since the technology doesn't exist and will never exist outside of the big bang itself. The problem may very well be that we will never be able to verify whether a certain theory is actually true. I hope this isn't the case, but it isn't a strong hope on my part. Cultism may ultimately define modern science and as there may not be any other avenue to explore when the theories outstrip the technology that makes it possible to verify them in the end.
This is all very important. Not only will I not delete this comment, but I've pinned it to the top of the comments. I think I would put ideas in 3 categories: 1) Falsehoods - These are already shown to be false with experimental evidence. 2) Scientific Philosophy - These are interesting and fun to discuss, but currently have no way of being experimentally verified. While these can be an important part of the scientific process, they are not yet scientific fact. They may become that in the future, but they are not yet. 3) Scientific Facts - These are scientific philosophies that have been tested experimentally (in the real world) MANY times and have been shown to be true. One or two studies is not enough. Some Examples of 1 and 2: 1) The flat Earth, the young Earth, hollow Earth, intelligent design, faked Moon landing, the Bermuda triangle, and healing crystals. 2) Any interpretation of quantum mechanics, the ancestor simulation, the existence of aliens, and string theory (which should really be called "string hypothesis")
Rick, have you asked Sean Carroll about the many worlds hypothesis? He is well-known among science fans, and if I'm not mistaken, he's a proponent of the hypothesis. I agree that in recent times the line between science and philosophy has been blurred.
I don't like it when people say things that are proven to be false. But otherwise, I do not see a big problem. As long as hypothesis, theory and fact are distinguished.
about 1 min of your explanations about the emission and absorption lines helped me understand faster than my 1 week of trying to figure out the lessons in my textbook
In that case, your learning style may be Visual and not so much Verbal. This may help you choose your means of study - I, for one, understand visuals much quicker then I do by reading textbooks.
Thanks Jade :-) I work really hard to make that happen. It's also probably the reason my audience remains on the smaller side after 4 years. Accurate is rarely simple and most people prefer simple.
I know what you mean. But your channel has been picking up a lot lately! When we met you were at 10K and now you're at 15! Not long before you're at 20K :)
I think the information density of your videos is a bigger reason for the lack of huge popularity. The very rapid pace combined with the many visual elements that can be on-screen at the same time (e.g. graphs, drawings and equations all showing simultaneously) almost guarantees that the scientifically illiterate won't be able to follow you without pausing a lot. If you look at a show like StarTalk, the science is presented slowly and deliberately, which is part of the reason why it has such a huge following. Don't get me wrong, personally I love this channel and I'm a subscriber, and I think you serve a very important niche. I don't know any other science channel that has the same wit and style as you do. But sometimes I wonder if you're just preaching to the converted.
Our sun is definitely NOT a yellow/white dwarf. It is an G star shining yellow/green. G stars are not dwarfs. In fact, the sun is 15% bigger and heavier than the average star.
Fraunhofer lines are a result of gas in the photosphere, the outer region of the sun. The photosphere gas has lower temperatures than gas in the inner regions, and absorbs a little of the light emitted from those regions. Respectfully. This little bit of detail enhances your explanation. Thank you so much for all your fantastic work.
Yes, that's correct. Fraunhofer lines are lines of absorption in the outermost layers of the Sun. The inner layers are too dense for us to detect spectral lines.
The Fraunhofer lines are, in my opinion, one of the most significant scientific discoveries made in the past ~200 years. It's as if it brought the stars much closer to us, in a sense. It broke down the distinction between our sun and other stars. Upgrading them from 'weird pretty night lights' to 'made of the same elements closer to home.' Which is pretty amazing in the quest for understanding the distant parts of the universe and our place in it. Nick, you're awesome and keep it up.
Sorry for digging up such an old comment, but watching this vid was the first time I ever heard that, and I thought I misheard. So...fingerprints aren't unique? Am I misunderstanding something here or have I been lied to all my life?
@@hisss fingerprints are almost unique. The chance of two people sharing a fingerprint is (I think, I should probably look it up again.) about 1 in a billion. However, DNA is completely unique. That's why detectives prefer DNA evidence like hairs, blood, etc.
Very clear explication on spectroscopy. I wonder if the observed data is at all as clearly displayed the way you have illustrated. Only recently I have realised how enormously data driven physics has become. In less that a working life it seems an astronomer went from someone who looks through scopes (or looks at pictures taken through scopes) to being something of a hard core statistician.
Big fan of your channel - I do not skip ads hoping it adds to your account - I found somewhere this widely repeated statement: "Stars are formed in clouds of gas and dust, known as nebulae", I also heard/read this kind of statements: "the formation of planets out of a dust cloud". So dust cloud here and dust cloud there. What makes is a star and what makes it a planet, why is there a left-over for planets? I have seen many videos about star future and their deaths, but seeing or being told how those gases and dust turn into a star, how clumps are created (if there are), what kind of dust material it is, the "ignition" moment, I could not find it explained in the sane way.
The biggest difference between a star and a planet is their mass. In fact, our Sun is over 99% the mass of the entire solar system. Watch this video for some perspective: th-cam.com/video/iGV4y2W2SOE/w-d-xo.html 🤯 There needs to be enough mass for hydrogen fusion to occur.
Since neutron stars are made fully of ACTUALLY TOUCHING neutrons (due to lack of electrons), and so do not contain any atoms (so no elements), does that mean the emission spectrum of a neutron star follows blackbody radiation exactly? Would that mean it is impossible to determine how redshifted it is?
So we actually had to EXPECT something when we are watching the stars? That's not very convenient! What if the star's composition is something we may never expect? I know a case of pulsar where it's moving so fast that the hydrogen lines redshifted so much, astrophysists can't see the pattern. Also how do we know what exoplanets are made of? How do we find them? How do we know if they are suitable for life? Please make a video on that if you can!
That little comment about the shifting of absorption lines (Doppler) just answered a question I thought if yesterday - how we know it's shifted. Is there an analogous concept in gravitational waves? 🥰
thank you for your craziness and your powerful vibration . Well i can feel the vibration of the light by such people , we need such thing on earth . Being crazy is the normal act who leads us to the infinite.
I talked about it a little in my last video: th-cam.com/video/LE_wbOw39Mk/w-d-xo.html But there's more detail here if you really want it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift It requires very precise measurements of the wavelengths of those dark lines.
@@ScienceAsylum Sorry for digging up a corpse here, but please tell me you made a video on that. Magenta isn't real? Colour me confused, if you'll excuse that horrible pun...
one of the best explanations for this topic I've seen! congratulations Nick :) I'm Curious as to the process of the absorption of the energy by the particles, couldn't the energy from thr stars be enough to excite the hydrogen atoms and create the excitation bands instead of the hydrogen absorbing the energy? or is it a matter of more atoms absorb than emit? I'm not sure if I phrased this correctly...
The atoms on the outside of the chromosphere, while still pretty hot, are too cold (low energy) to emit that much light. They mostly absorb. The Sun /does/ have an emission spectrum from lower in the photosphere, but it's hard to find because the black body light is so bright and overpowering.
Hello. Fantastic video as always. I have a few questions about some things mentioned in this video. Some light is absorbed as it leaves a star. What causes this absorption? What is it absorbed by? How exactly do we excite electrons in order to create emission lines? What are the plasma and nuclear physics used to determine the atomic makeup of the inside of stars? Thank you and if these questions elicit long, complicated answers a point in the right direction is all I need!
1) The light is absorbed by gases in the Sun's corona. 2) We excite electrons in a gas by firing free electrons through the gas inside a closed tube. It's called a cathode ray tube or CRT. 3) I just mean that we use physical models to predict what we'd expect to find below the Sun's surface. Those models are based on a lot thing, including plasma physics and nuclear physics.
Trust me, I cant even begin to explain how much this video helped me in doing my project. Can anybody explain this any better?? Definitely not! Thank You So Much!
Question: Do we only use visible light for identifying elements? Surely, there are absorption/emission lines in all of the wavelengths of light, otherwise those wavelengths wouldn't exist, right?
Is it possible that relativity is the reason for redshift rather than the doppler effect? I read this in one of my classes and thought it was interesting: “In 1977 Jayant Narlikar, an astrophysicist, succeeded in generalizing the equations of relativity so as to allow the masses of fundamental particles to increase with time." So by this logic light that left a star many years ago would have come from a relatively less massive electron, thus less energy was transferred to those electrons to create those absorption lines
1) Relativity is the reason that _all_ redshift of light occurs. That's true for Doppler, gravitational, _and_ cosmological redshift. 2) We have no evidence that the masses of elementary particles increases over time. In fact, our observation imply that the masses remain the same.
Wow, I made it into one of your videos! Thanks Nick Lucid, I feel honored! I have to say that this is by far the best explanation on this topic that I have seen. It definitely answered my questions! Thank you!
Please answer that question. Unfortunately i'm not from the physics field. If I am in a System and it is moving close to the speed of light. Lets say its a rocket. Then time goes much slower for me, than for people on earth. NOW. If INSIDE of that System again I accelerate something relatively to me to light speed. Will the time for that object be again slower aging than I and is that effect somehow doubled or something relative to the very first system (Earth)? And yes it is should be possible to do that theoretical experiment. I think you don't violate the faster than speed of light rule because of space curvature?? Sorry for bad english and that it is out of topic. Great video as always.
Well first, time doesn't go slower for you. You always experience 1 second per second. Clocks moving relative to you tick more slowly. So, if you're moving really fast relative to Earth, then from your point of view, Earth is moving really fast relative to you, and clocks there tick slower for you. But for them, it's your clock that is slow. Anyway, velocities don't add linearly. You have to use the relativistic velocity addition formula, which is (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 * v2 / c^2)). With this formula, as long as your starting velocities are less than the speed of light, the result will be as well. When the velocities are very small relative to the speed of light, it's pretty much equal to just v1 + v2. So, if something inside your ship moves close to the speed of light relative to you, a clock on that object would tick slower from your perspective.
Yes, time for the fast moving thing inside your rocket would be going even slower, but the effect is not doubled as viewed from Earth. If your rocket is moving at 90% the speed of light and you move that smaller thing inside your rocket at 90% the speed of light, Earth will NOT see it move at 180% the speed of light. The speeds don't add together in the way you expect. The speed of that small thing will be less than the speed of light for anyone who might measure.
The Science Asylum thank you both very much. Now I get it. That's what I wanted to say with "space curvature". Relatively to me it would look like it is moving like 90% of the speed of light. But for the people on earth, because of space curvature (I mean that distances appear different for every observer), it would still not be faster than light. Thanks! Now I get, that it can't somehow be multiplied. And by the way. WOW Nick has answered my question. Yeeeeaaahhhhhhh
Hi Nick! I have a bit silly question: could we teoretically send and gather data from some sort of object inside\ on the surface of the sun? and if it could be possible what kind of properties should have the object material for ? if not why? love your videos by the way, keep up the good work!
Great videos! Subscribed - With notifications :) This channel should be wayyyy more popular than Veritasium... Maybe its because he gets people involved?
I am a high school student and my teacher told me that these lines are explained by kirchhoff law but I didn't understand how kirchhoff law has anything to do with this? kirchhoff law is just that if a body is in thermal equilibrium with the black body then the ratio of emissive to the absorptive power of that body is equal to the emissive power of black body( from this we can say that emissivity of a body is equal to its absorptivity if it is in thermal equilibrium with a black body, but I also didn't understood that if its only true at thermal equilibrium then why don't we use emissivity and absorptivity separately while using the formula for heat loss due to radiation?) and how is this law explains fraunhofer lines? could you please explain in simple language?
I don't see how Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation explains the absorption spectra (Fraunhofer lines). According to Kirchhoff's law, the plasma should emit every kind of light in certain proportions. If there are dark lines, that means light _isn't_ being emitted in that tiny range, which means Kirchhoff's law is being broken.
@@ScienceAsylum I am also confused in one more thing please help, suppose that we have a red colored body at a constant temperature kept in sunlight ,I think that it is looking red because it is absorbing most of the wavelengths in visible range except red i.e it is reflecting red and absorbing others but if its temperature is not that high then it will surely emit most the energy it absorbed not in visible range but in infrared range otherwise it will look white if it is emitting those wavelengths with same intensity with which it has absorbed them,,,,but when we talk of gases ,they absorb only few wavelengths and emit the same? why? and do they emit them with the same intensity or some of which they use to increase their temperature?
ok so do the fraunhofer lines appear because after an atom has absorbed a photon, it takes part in nuclear fusion before it can re-emit radiation of the same wavelength? or is it mainly due to radiation-free relaxation, converting the energy into heat through interactions with surrounding atoms? because otherwise those wavelenghts should still reach us eventually after being absorbed and re-emitted many times. anyway those lines arent completely black right? just much lower in intensity? Edit after devoting today's shower thoughts to this topic: its gotta be option 2, since fusion takes place only on the inside of the sun. therefore the spectrum emitted in the outer layers wouldnt be affected by it. right? this raises another question though: is radiation-free relaxation also the main process in absorption spectroscopy? i always thought the reason why we could measure absorption spectrums was that the re-emission takes place in all directions, so that only a small portion of those photons reach the detector.
If an electron absorbs a photon and jumps to a higher energy state, that energy often gets spread through the gas/plasma through collisions before the electron has a chance to fall back down and re-emit the light.
ok yeah thats what i thought. thanks for your remarkable efforts to answer so many questions from viewers, even under old videos. also your sense of humor is so relatably immature. i love it. keep up the great work.
What is the longest distance light can travel? When will it be exhausted like a human long distance runner? Will it travel to eternity? Why will light suddenly disappear when I switch off the lamp? Where have all the Protons gone? Will they suddenly die when lamp is off? What is rest light? How do these rest light amplifiers work? Questions over questions and no idea at all.
Individual photons don't have a range. They will travel as long as they don't run into anything. There are tons of photons arriving at Earth that have been traveling for 13.8 billion years or so.
The Fraunhofer lines are in the same spots of a spectrum for the same type of atom. If you see those lines with the same pattern, but uniformly shifted towards the blue or red direction, then the star must be moving towards or away from you. This is the classic doppler effect
Can you do a video kinda like this but explaining how molecular motion gives rise to infrared radiation? I understand how the individual electrons in atoms falling down levels gives rise to a lot of the visible light we see, but it gets harder to understand where the light for thermal radiation comes from.
No, it's not _actually_ bouncing. There is some randomness to which photons are reflected and which are absorbed. It's the material they're interacting with that decides how many of them are reflected and how many are absorbed.
Um no, completely wrong. The sun is NOT a white dwarf, it's a main sequence. They mean completely different things. This video is inaccurate, don't believe it just because it's flashy.
*I did **_not_** say it was a "white dwarf."* Here's a whole video on those if you're interested: th-cam.com/video/QhONoxabmdo/w-d-xo.html My exact words were "It's a yellow-white dwarf, but it's mostly white." Yellow-white dwarf is very standard name for stars near the middle of the main sequence.
Are all stars made of the same elements? Is there a distinct pattern to every element that cannot be can be distinguished from other elements no matter how red shifted they are? Is neutron star spectrum match hydrogen?
They're made of a lot of the same elements. All stars are _mostly_ hydrogen and helium. It's the trace amounts of heavier elements that allow us to tell them apart and judge what generation they are.
Here's my problem. Because people on earth established what colors represent a particular element, how does that mean those colors definitely represent that element? For example, if we, hypothetically, determine that yellow represents helium, whose to say that yellow *_absolutely_* doesn't represent nitrogen outside of what we have determined to be the standard?
We have no reason to think the physics on Earth is different than the physics in the Sun or anywhere else in the rest of the universe. In fact, experience has taught us that it's the _same._ If we turn Helium into a plasma on Earth, we expect it to work the same when it's a plasma in the Sun.
@@ScienceAsylum There's plenty of reason to believe that the physics of earth is different from the physics of celestial bodies throughout the universe. It has yet to be explained as to why Saturn has a perfect hexagon on it's pole. Is it possible that our standards do not apply to the rest of the universe?
What about in the case of gravity because gravity with all the red shift the light different wavelengths and if you don’t take this into account your estimate the temperature of the star in correctly
Gravitational redshift from a star does happen, but it's pretty negligible. It's really only noticeable with compact stellar remnants (neutron stars, black holes, etc.)
Color is a weird thing. Some of them are single wavelengths of light. Others are our brains trying to figure out multiple wavelengths of light at the same time. Brains have a hard time with multiple wavelengths, so it pretends like they're just one color and it tries to guess what that color should look like. That's what magenta is. It's a color your brain makes up.
I think of magenta like a light equivalent of a two note musical chord. Monochromatic red, green, etc. are like single musical notes. Imagine only being able to hear just three distinct sound intensities: in slightly overlapping ranges around a A, C or E note. Hearing a single B note would sound indistinguishable from hearing both A and C notes together. But if I heard just A and E together, it would sound weird because I could hear that there's no C sound - it's more likely I'd hear it as "all sound except C". So magenta is my brain's version of "all light except green".
Plzzz can u make a full length video on atoms nature,behaviour'reaction and complications related to atoms....and also on differnces with matter particle....in little more detail....how can u explain transparent nature and refraction in little more detail and dark energy and matter
Ah, I see the confusion. Technically, the spectrum in the background is shifting left too. You just can't tell because some of the red light shifts to infrared (off screen) and some of the ultraviolet shifts into the visible to fill up the right side (so it looks like it stays the same).
Oh, you're saying the primary focus should be the absorption frequencies shifting (decreasing), and any colour change we detect is due to non uniformly distributed intensity of emission at different frequencies. Simply put the intensity curve at 2:08 shifts to the right, reddening the EM waves. That makes sense, thank you for replying.
They will have changed if they're traveling a long way, but we have a record of what those lines look like up-close. We can compare the star data to the record we have and shift it accordingly. Also, the amount of that shift is important because it tells us how the star is moving relative to us. It's not a problem. It's extra information :-) It's a bonus.
Sir can u please make a video on time because time is the only thing about which non of the physicists except Albert Einstein tried yo understand it. That's why we don't know much about it
I have a simple question but I need some explanation analytically why do electrons in atoms occupy only certain definite energy levels why not those energy levels are continuos
Yes, but to be clear: they're all redshifted by the same _factor._ It's not an addition or subtraction thing. It's a multiplication thing. Example: If one wavelength is double due to redshift, then they're all double due to redshift.
This comment is a bit off-topic and is related to a certain comment thread in this video that is indicative of a growing trend in modern science that I find both interesting and disturbing. Nick feel free to delete this comment if you feel it is not appropriate. The comment thread in this video that I am referring to is what I have come to call cultism. It is obviously a term taken from theology but is appropriate in this instance as well. I define cultism, both theological and scientific, as a belief in an idea or system that has little to no supporting evidence, and is held in spite of a body of evidence that refutes the idea or system. I define evidence in the scientific realm as an experimently verified result. If an idea has not been experimentally verified it is a conjecture, not evidence.
Now, this idea is usually associated with so-called fringe groups, like the Flat Earth Society and the person posting in this video, but I see the same idea in the so-called mainstream scientific community that I find quite puzzling. In fact, it appears to be growing as more and more esoteric theories are put forth to explain both quantum mechanics and cosmology. The general problem with many of these theories is that despite being unable to prove the results experimentally, they are held as correct. I will cite just a couple of examples just to keep this comment brief, but there many that could be examined.
The idea of alien civilizations has captured the imaginations of both science and non-science for ages and while I like the notion of alien civilizations, being a fan and writer of science fiction, there is simply no evidence that aliens exist anywhere within the observable universe. The Fermi Paradox (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) is quite difficult to get around but that doesn't stop true believers from trying to find these imaginary aliens. To say that aliens have/will exist but are too difficult to detect is simple cultism because if we can't detect them it is exactly the same as if they don't exist. There are a multitude reasons why aliens don't exist and have probably never existed, but in the interest of brevity, I will leave it at that. The Fermi Paradox is the best answer to this cultic notion.
An example seemingly less controversial is the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Here is a portion of the definition of the man worlds theory: "MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely[2] many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.[7]" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation). Notice the phrase, "non-communicating" because this is at the heart of why this is a cultic idea. Non-communicating means that this interpretation can never be verified, by definition. It is impossible to know if this interpretation is correct, and yet it is the third most held interpretation of quantum mechanic following Information-based and the Copenhagen interpretation. (www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/). Of course, none of the interpretations have much if any evidence to support them, but I find it interesting that many-worlds is even on the list considering that you can never know if it is true. It is the very definition of cultism.
The same is true of the general case as well, just not to this extent. Many of the new theories being developed work in specific cases and but fail in the general case and consistently fail in the general case. Yet these theories are hailed as being "true" despite the evidence to the contrary. If a methodology consistently fails outside of a specially designed test case, then you need to question whether the approach is simply wrong. Back in the day when I programmed for a living, my programs had to work for more than just a single case. It had to work for both the special and general case, otherwise, the program was useless. This idea does not seem to hold much water these days (as we say in Texas). The theories are becoming less testable and yet are accepted as being the truth despite any real evidence.
Of course, the counter is always, it is in the math. All the theories are "in the math", even many worlds, so this counter is meaningless. A meaningless counter is a common response of cultism and this particular response is a current favorite of the true believer. Not every theory can be right, and yet all the theories are supported by some version of math, which means that the math can say just about anything you want it to say. Only prediction and experimentation can produce real evidence. Anything else is simply conjecture and conjectures always need to be verified as being true in order for them to be considered real evidence.
The problem is that we have entered into the realm of the esoteric and it is impossible to test some of these ideas being developed since the technology doesn't exist and will never exist outside of the big bang itself. The problem may very well be that we will never be able to verify whether a certain theory is actually true. I hope this isn't the case, but it isn't a strong hope on my part. Cultism may ultimately define modern science and as there may not be any other avenue to explore when the theories outstrip the technology that makes it possible to verify them in the end.
This is all very important. Not only will I not delete this comment, but I've pinned it to the top of the comments.
I think I would put ideas in 3 categories:
1) Falsehoods - These are already shown to be false with experimental evidence.
2) Scientific Philosophy - These are interesting and fun to discuss, but currently have no way of being experimentally verified. While these can be an important part of the scientific process, they are not yet scientific fact. They may become that in the future, but they are not yet.
3) Scientific Facts - These are scientific philosophies that have been tested experimentally (in the real world) MANY times and have been shown to be true. One or two studies is not enough.
Some Examples of 1 and 2:
1) The flat Earth, the young Earth, hollow Earth, intelligent design, faked Moon landing, the Bermuda triangle, and healing crystals.
2) Any interpretation of quantum mechanics, the ancestor simulation, the existence of aliens, and string theory (which should really be called "string hypothesis")
Rick Clark yes, esoteric is correct as in how long before Darwin's evolution shelved as junk science and we can move into more realistic " theories".
Rick, have you asked Sean Carroll about the many worlds hypothesis? He is well-known among science fans, and if I'm not mistaken, he's a proponent of the hypothesis. I agree that in recent times the line between science and philosophy has been blurred.
That last part is depressing indeed
I don't like it when people say things that are proven to be false. But otherwise, I do not see a big problem. As long as hypothesis, theory and fact are distinguished.
about 1 min of your explanations about the emission and absorption lines helped me understand faster than my 1 week of trying to figure out the lessons in my textbook
In that case, your learning style may be Visual and not so much Verbal. This may help you choose your means of study - I, for one, understand visuals much quicker then I do by reading textbooks.
I like how accurate your videos are :)
Thanks Jade :-) I work really hard to make that happen. It's also probably the reason my audience remains on the smaller side after 4 years. Accurate is rarely simple and most people prefer simple.
I know what you mean. But your channel has been picking up a lot lately! When we met you were at 10K and now you're at 15! Not long before you're at 20K :)
I think the information density of your videos is a bigger reason for the lack of huge popularity. The very rapid pace combined with the many visual elements that can be on-screen at the same time (e.g. graphs, drawings and equations all showing simultaneously) almost guarantees that the scientifically illiterate won't be able to follow you without pausing a lot. If you look at a show like StarTalk, the science is presented slowly and deliberately, which is part of the reason why it has such a huge following.
Don't get me wrong, personally I love this channel and I'm a subscriber, and I think you serve a very important niche. I don't know any other science channel that has the same wit and style as you do. But sometimes I wonder if you're just preaching to the converted.
Perhaps the best channel for physics on you tube
3:02 Atoms exited"and this animation..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH
QUALITY BRO!
Our sun is definitely NOT a yellow/white dwarf. It is an G star shining yellow/green. G stars are not dwarfs. In fact, the sun is 15% bigger and heavier than the average star.
Great video Nick, nice work with the animations! The complications makes it lot more interesting than scary.
Fraunhofer lines are a result of gas in the photosphere, the outer region of the sun. The photosphere gas has lower temperatures than gas in the inner regions, and absorbs a little of the light emitted from those regions.
Respectfully. This little bit of detail enhances your explanation. Thank you so much for all your fantastic work.
Yes, that's correct. Fraunhofer lines are lines of absorption in the outermost layers of the Sun. The inner layers are too dense for us to detect spectral lines.
the editing in this video is too good
This explanation makes it way more interesting!
The Fraunhofer lines are, in my opinion, one of the most significant scientific discoveries made in the past ~200 years. It's as if it brought the stars much closer to us, in a sense. It broke down the distinction between our sun and other stars. Upgrading them from 'weird pretty night lights' to 'made of the same elements closer to home.' Which is pretty amazing in the quest for understanding the distant parts of the universe and our place in it. Nick, you're awesome and keep it up.
Agreed. It was a huge deal!
And the Wilhelm scream makes it perfect!
It demanded the Wilhelm scream.
I heard about this star fingerprint thing a lot but have never understand it completely until now . Thank you for making science easy to lern.
You are very welcome :-)
Going great!
That was an amazing video!
It makes it challenging and fun.
I'm so glad i found this channel.
Thanks for saying that on such an old video 🙂
@@ScienceAsylum
You are very welcome
Im steadily catching up!
I started watching this video being scared and ended it being interested in a topic I never thought about.
Nice to see that you mentioned the misconception that the fingerprint is entirely unique.
Keep up the great work nick.
Sorry for digging up such an old comment, but watching this vid was the first time I ever heard that, and I thought I misheard. So...fingerprints aren't unique? Am I misunderstanding something here or have I been lied to all my life?
@@hisss fingerprints are almost unique. The chance of two people sharing a fingerprint is (I think, I should probably look it up again.) about 1 in a billion. However, DNA is completely unique. That's why detectives prefer DNA evidence like hairs, blood, etc.
Except people with identical dna (twins) will still have different fingerprints.
@@shayanmoosavi9139 Unless they're identical twins.
thank you for the explanation!
Very clear explication on spectroscopy. I wonder if the observed data is at all as clearly displayed the way you have illustrated.
Only recently I have realised how enormously data driven physics has become. In less that a working life it seems an astronomer went from someone who looks through scopes (or looks at pictures taken through scopes) to being something of a hard core statistician.
We've kind of exhausted the whole taking pictures thing. All that's left is the invisible and the very subtle.
I like how you talk about liking and sunscrining you channel
Wonderful Sir
Big fan of your channel - I do not skip ads hoping it adds to your account - I found somewhere this widely repeated statement: "Stars are formed in clouds of gas and dust, known as nebulae", I also heard/read this kind of statements: "the formation of planets out of a dust cloud". So dust cloud here and dust cloud there. What makes is a star and what makes it a planet, why is there a left-over for planets?
I have seen many videos about star future and their deaths, but seeing or being told how those gases and dust turn into a star, how clumps are created (if there are), what kind of dust material it is, the "ignition" moment, I could not find it explained in the sane way.
The biggest difference between a star and a planet is their mass. In fact, our Sun is over 99% the mass of the entire solar system. Watch this video for some perspective: th-cam.com/video/iGV4y2W2SOE/w-d-xo.html 🤯 There needs to be enough mass for hydrogen fusion to occur.
Scarier to me! Thanks so much for posting. I'll definitely subscribe.
I just found out about this channel and it's awesome thanks for the videos :)
Glad you like them!
always more interesting
Both, but definitely more interesting than scary.
Since neutron stars are made fully of ACTUALLY TOUCHING neutrons (due to lack of electrons), and so do not contain any atoms (so no elements), does that mean the emission spectrum of a neutron star follows blackbody radiation exactly? Would that mean it is impossible to determine how redshifted it is?
subbed already .keep up the good work
This video is great! Good job!
Thanks!
Both!
dude, your channel and videos are great. i hope you succeed
Thanks!
So we actually had to EXPECT something when we are watching the stars? That's not very convenient! What if the star's composition is something we may never expect? I know a case of pulsar where it's moving so fast that the hydrogen lines redshifted so much, astrophysists can't see the pattern.
Also how do we know what exoplanets are made of? How do we find them? How do we know if they are suitable for life? Please make a video on that if you can!
I'll get around to this... eventually.
That little comment about the shifting of absorption lines (Doppler) just answered a question I thought if yesterday - how we know it's shifted.
Is there an analogous concept in gravitational waves? 🥰
Your explanation is very comprehensible ,
Thanks for such contribution.
Glad you liked it :-)
thank you for your craziness and your powerful vibration . Well i can feel the vibration of the light by such people , we need such thing on earth . Being crazy is the normal act who leads us to the infinite.
1:32 woah, I think it just kicked in.
3:40-3:46. Now I want to know about that "bunch of physics" and equation that it took to get there.
You definitely made this more interesting, not frightened at all by any of this.
I talked about it a little in my last video: th-cam.com/video/LE_wbOw39Mk/w-d-xo.html
But there's more detail here if you really want it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
It requires very precise measurements of the wavelengths of those dark lines.
awesome videos :) glad i found this channel :)))
this video is inredibly helpful, thank you very much ^.^
You're welcome :-)
Interesting. Very interesting. Thank you very much.
This is one awesome video. Learned a lot.
Magenta doesn’t exist? Love your goofiness!
Magenta is a color we see in our minds, but there isn't actually any light that is that color.
@@ScienceAsylum Sorry for digging up a corpse here, but please tell me you made a video on that. Magenta isn't real? Colour me confused, if you'll excuse that horrible pun...
one of the best explanations for this topic I've seen! congratulations Nick :) I'm Curious as to the process of the absorption of the energy by the particles, couldn't the energy from thr stars be enough to excite the hydrogen atoms and create the excitation bands instead of the hydrogen absorbing the energy? or is it a matter of more atoms absorb than emit? I'm not sure if I phrased this correctly...
The atoms on the outside of the chromosphere, while still pretty hot, are too cold (low energy) to emit that much light. They mostly absorb. The Sun /does/ have an emission spectrum from lower in the photosphere, but it's hard to find because the black body light is so bright and overpowering.
Hello. Fantastic video as always. I have a few questions about some things mentioned in this video.
Some light is absorbed as it leaves a star. What causes this absorption? What is it absorbed by?
How exactly do we excite electrons in order to create emission lines?
What are the plasma and nuclear physics used to determine the atomic makeup of the inside of stars?
Thank you and if these questions elicit long, complicated answers a point in the right direction is all I need!
1) The light is absorbed by gases in the Sun's corona.
2) We excite electrons in a gas by firing free electrons through the gas inside a closed tube. It's called a cathode ray tube or CRT.
3) I just mean that we use physical models to predict what we'd expect to find below the Sun's surface. Those models are based on a lot thing, including plasma physics and nuclear physics.
The Science Asylum You sir, are amazing! Thank you so much I really appreciate your replies!
Interesting !
good stuff.
Great vids, liked and subscribed.
More interesting!
Just Love ur videos Sir...Clears all my doubts always 😋😋
I just become a patreon. You deserve more subs.
Thank you so much!
Thanks bro
Trust me, I cant even begin to explain how much this video helped me in doing my project. Can anybody explain this any better?? Definitely not! Thank You So Much!
Question: Do we only use visible light for identifying elements? Surely, there are absorption/emission lines in all of the wavelengths of light, otherwise those wavelengths wouldn't exist, right?
Good job. This is accurate! Liked.
You should have more views, your videos are Great in a way that you answer the most confusing part when learning, like confusing terms or namings.
Thanks!
Dr. Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin is the astrophysicist astronomer who discovered what the sun in made of.
Interesting :D
Is it possible that relativity is the reason for redshift rather than the doppler effect?
I read this in one of my classes and thought it was interesting:
“In 1977 Jayant Narlikar, an astrophysicist, succeeded in generalizing the equations of relativity so as to allow the masses of fundamental particles to increase with time."
So by this logic light that left a star many years ago would have come from a relatively less massive electron, thus less energy was transferred to those electrons to create those absorption lines
1) Relativity is the reason that _all_ redshift of light occurs. That's true for Doppler, gravitational, _and_ cosmological redshift.
2) We have no evidence that the masses of elementary particles increases over time. In fact, our observation imply that the masses remain the same.
More from this please
Wow, I made it into one of your videos! Thanks Nick Lucid, I feel honored!
I have to say that this is by far the best explanation on this topic that I have seen. It definitely answered my questions! Thank you!
It was a great question! Also, everyone has been loving this video in the comments. I wasn't expecting that...
could you talk about kugelblitz sometime?
Defiantly both.
How do the stars emit the light? And why will the star absorb these light?
Please answer that question. Unfortunately i'm not from the physics field. If I am in a System and it is moving close to the speed of light. Lets say its a rocket. Then time goes much slower for me, than for people on earth. NOW. If INSIDE of that System again I accelerate something relatively to me to light speed. Will the time for that object be again slower aging than I and is that effect somehow doubled or something relative to the very first system (Earth)? And yes it is should be possible to do that theoretical experiment. I think you don't violate the faster than speed of light rule because of space curvature?? Sorry for bad english and that it is out of topic. Great video as always.
I would be interested to hear the answer to that
Well first, time doesn't go slower for you. You always experience 1 second per second. Clocks moving relative to you tick more slowly. So, if you're moving really fast relative to Earth, then from your point of view, Earth is moving really fast relative to you, and clocks there tick slower for you. But for them, it's your clock that is slow.
Anyway, velocities don't add linearly. You have to use the relativistic velocity addition formula, which is (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 * v2 / c^2)). With this formula, as long as your starting velocities are less than the speed of light, the result will be as well. When the velocities are very small relative to the speed of light, it's pretty much equal to just v1 + v2. So, if something inside your ship moves close to the speed of light relative to you, a clock on that object would tick slower from your perspective.
Yes, time for the fast moving thing inside your rocket would be going even slower, but the effect is not doubled as viewed from Earth. If your rocket is moving at 90% the speed of light and you move that smaller thing inside your rocket at 90% the speed of light, Earth will NOT see it move at 180% the speed of light. The speeds don't add together in the way you expect. The speed of that small thing will be less than the speed of light for anyone who might measure.
The Science Asylum thank you both very much. Now I get it. That's what I wanted to say with "space curvature". Relatively to me it would look like it is moving like 90% of the speed of light. But for the people on earth, because of space curvature (I mean that distances appear different for every observer), it would still not be faster than light. Thanks! Now I get, that it can't somehow be multiplied.
And by the way.
WOW Nick has answered my question. Yeeeeaaahhhhhhh
I'm pretty sure Superman has done deep dives to the light of the stars.
Why don't we ask him? :P
Hi Nick! I have a bit silly question: could we teoretically send and gather data from some sort of object inside\ on the surface of the sun? and if it could be possible what kind of properties should have the object material for ? if not why? love your videos by the way, keep up the good work!
It's just too hot. The surface of the Sun is so hot it can turn metals into plasma. That would happen with whatever probe we sent into it too.
Great videos! Subscribed - With notifications :)
This channel should be wayyyy more popular than Veritasium... Maybe its because he gets people involved?
Physics' Rawrs!
I am a high school student and my teacher told me that these lines are explained by kirchhoff law but I didn't understand how kirchhoff law has anything to do with this? kirchhoff law is just that if a body is in thermal equilibrium with the black body then the ratio of emissive to the absorptive power of that body is equal to the emissive power of black body( from this we can say that emissivity of a body is equal to its absorptivity if it is in thermal equilibrium with a black body, but I also didn't understood that if its only true at thermal equilibrium then why don't we use emissivity and absorptivity separately while using the formula for heat loss due to radiation?) and how is this law explains fraunhofer lines? could you please explain in simple language?
I don't see how Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation explains the absorption spectra (Fraunhofer lines). According to Kirchhoff's law, the plasma should emit every kind of light in certain proportions. If there are dark lines, that means light _isn't_ being emitted in that tiny range, which means Kirchhoff's law is being broken.
@@ScienceAsylum I am also confused in one more thing please help, suppose that we have a red colored body at a constant temperature kept in sunlight ,I think that it is looking red because it is absorbing most of the wavelengths in visible range except red i.e it is reflecting red and absorbing others but if its temperature is not that high then it will surely emit most the energy it absorbed not in visible range but in infrared range otherwise it will look white if it is emitting those wavelengths with same intensity with which it has absorbed them,,,,but when we talk of gases ,they absorb only few wavelengths and emit the same? why? and do they emit them with the same intensity or some of which they use to increase their temperature?
ok so do the fraunhofer lines appear because after an atom has absorbed a photon, it takes part in nuclear fusion before it can re-emit radiation of the same wavelength? or is it mainly due to radiation-free relaxation, converting the energy into heat through interactions with surrounding atoms? because otherwise those wavelenghts should still reach us eventually after being absorbed and re-emitted many times.
anyway those lines arent completely black right? just much lower in intensity?
Edit after devoting today's shower thoughts to this topic: its gotta be option 2, since fusion takes place only on the inside of the sun. therefore the spectrum emitted in the outer layers wouldnt be affected by it. right?
this raises another question though: is radiation-free relaxation also the main process in absorption spectroscopy? i always thought the reason why we could measure absorption spectrums was that the re-emission takes place in all directions, so that only a small portion of those photons reach the detector.
If an electron absorbs a photon and jumps to a higher energy state, that energy often gets spread through the gas/plasma through collisions before the electron has a chance to fall back down and re-emit the light.
ok yeah thats what i thought.
thanks for your remarkable efforts to answer so many questions from viewers, even under old videos. also your sense of humor is so relatably immature. i love it. keep up the great work.
So what was the colour of light in the beginning of the universe?
I didn't get that
That video will be released at the end of this month!
@@ScienceAsylum Thanks sir
Why didn't you break for viewers a spectral classification of the stars: O, B, A, F, G, K, M? That would be much easier to understand.
I can't even remember those spectral class letters. I'm always looking them up. I prefer colors.
Perhaps this clip will help you: th-cam.com/video/WFJJsr3yyaE/w-d-xo.html
ma shaa Allah..can you explain us the theory of taylor brook the next time in shaa Allah..??
thank you for your amazing videos respect from morocco
What is the longest distance light can travel? When will it be exhausted like a human long distance runner? Will it travel to eternity? Why will light suddenly disappear when I switch off the lamp? Where have all the Protons gone? Will they suddenly die when lamp is off? What is rest light? How do these rest light amplifiers work? Questions over questions and no idea at all.
Individual photons don't have a range. They will travel as long as they don't run into anything. There are tons of photons arriving at Earth that have been traveling for 13.8 billion years or so.
how does the color spectrum tell us how fast the star is going?
The Fraunhofer lines are in the same spots of a spectrum for the same type of atom. If you see those lines with the same pattern, but uniformly shifted towards the blue or red direction, then the star must be moving towards or away from you. This is the classic doppler effect
@@snowthemegaabsol6819 i thought the doppler effect was about sound
That is one manifestation. The doppler effect describes a change in frequency for any kind of wave activity, not just sound.
Can you do a video kinda like this but explaining how molecular motion gives rise to infrared radiation? I understand how the individual electrons in atoms falling down levels gives rise to a lot of the visible light we see, but it gets harder to understand where the light for thermal radiation comes from.
That's a cool video topic. It'll give me an excuse to borrow my father-in-law's FLIR camera 🤓
Do weet! Do weet! That would be awesome!
Any chance there's a tentative date?
*fingers crossed*
Short answer… because light innit.
BOTH
Do photons bounce actually off of mirrors? What determines if a photon is reflected or absorbed?
No, it's not _actually_ bouncing. There is some randomness to which photons are reflected and which are absorbed. It's the material they're interacting with that decides how many of them are reflected and how many are absorbed.
Is it bad that the only thing I took from this was that its "okay to be a little crazy." :) Because I quite agree.
Um no, completely wrong. The sun is NOT a white dwarf, it's a main sequence. They mean completely different things. This video is inaccurate, don't believe it just because it's flashy.
*I did **_not_** say it was a "white dwarf."* Here's a whole video on those if you're interested: th-cam.com/video/QhONoxabmdo/w-d-xo.html My exact words were "It's a yellow-white dwarf, but it's mostly white." Yellow-white dwarf is very standard name for stars near the middle of the main sequence.
Are all stars made of the same elements?
Is there a distinct pattern to every element that cannot be can be distinguished from other elements no matter how red shifted they are?
Is neutron star spectrum match hydrogen?
They're made of a lot of the same elements. All stars are _mostly_ hydrogen and helium. It's the trace amounts of heavier elements that allow us to tell them apart and judge what generation they are.
Always dodging the tough questions: what is the spectrum from a neutron star?
As we only recieve just a part of light from any star( say sun here) how come we know the composition of different atoms in a star?
Here's my problem. Because people on earth established what colors represent a particular element, how does that mean those colors definitely represent that element? For example, if we, hypothetically, determine that yellow represents helium, whose to say that yellow *_absolutely_* doesn't represent nitrogen outside of what we have determined to be the standard?
We have no reason to think the physics on Earth is different than the physics in the Sun or anywhere else in the rest of the universe. In fact, experience has taught us that it's the _same._ If we turn Helium into a plasma on Earth, we expect it to work the same when it's a plasma in the Sun.
@@ScienceAsylum There's plenty of reason to believe that the physics of earth is different from the physics of celestial bodies throughout the universe. It has yet to be explained as to why Saturn has a perfect hexagon on it's pole. Is it possible that our standards do not apply to the rest of the universe?
CAN U PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO ON WHAT WAS GOING ON BEFORE THE BIG BANG ITSELF
There's no way for us to know.
Seriously both
What about in the case of gravity because gravity with all the red shift the light different wavelengths and if you don’t take this into account your estimate the temperature of the star in correctly
Gravitational redshift from a star does happen, but it's pretty negligible. It's really only noticeable with compact stellar remnants (neutron stars, black holes, etc.)
noob question.
soo when the black line appears do they appear at the same time or one line at that energy/heat level?
We see them all at once in a spectroscope (or a spectrometer).
*raises hand* You just said magenta isn't real and casually moved on. ...Why isn't magenta real?
Color is a weird thing. Some of them are single wavelengths of light. Others are our brains trying to figure out multiple wavelengths of light at the same time. Brains have a hard time with multiple wavelengths, so it pretends like they're just one color and it tries to guess what that color should look like. That's what magenta is. It's a color your brain makes up.
Yo. Huh.
I think of magenta like a light equivalent of a two note musical chord. Monochromatic red, green, etc. are like single musical notes.
Imagine only being able to hear just three distinct sound intensities: in slightly overlapping ranges around a A, C or E note. Hearing a single B note would sound indistinguishable from hearing both A and C notes together. But if I heard just A and E together, it would sound weird because I could hear that there's no C sound - it's more likely I'd hear it as "all sound except C". So magenta is my brain's version of "all light except green".
Plzzz can u make a full length video on atoms nature,behaviour'reaction and complications related to atoms....and also on differnces with matter particle....in little more detail....how can u explain transparent nature and refraction in little more detail and dark energy and matter
Why Are Some Things Transparent? th-cam.com/video/wDu0KMdDD1I/w-d-xo.html
All Optics is Scattering: th-cam.com/video/mv_90PC5XKw/w-d-xo.html
3:36 Shouldn't the diagram have shifted to the right instead of to the left?
Nope. If it's redshifted, it needs to shift toward the red... which is left (in that picture).
The demonstration seems counter intuitive though. It appears as though, by shifting the diagram, we are seeing "less of red" and "more of blue".
Ah, I see the confusion. Technically, the spectrum in the background is shifting left too. You just can't tell because some of the red light shifts to infrared (off screen) and some of the ultraviolet shifts into the visible to fill up the right side (so it looks like it stays the same).
Oh, you're saying the primary focus should be the absorption frequencies shifting (decreasing), and any colour change we detect is due to non uniformly distributed intensity of emission at different frequencies. Simply put the intensity curve at 2:08 shifts to the right, reddening the EM waves. That makes sense, thank you for replying.
Exactly :-)
Just wondering when the light gets to us won't the wavelengths have changed due to red shift so won't we see different absorbtion lines?
They will have changed if they're traveling a long way, but we have a record of what those lines look like up-close. We can compare the star data to the record we have and shift it accordingly. Also, the amount of that shift is important because it tells us how the star is moving relative to us. It's not a problem. It's extra information :-) It's a bonus.
Sir can u please make a video on time because time is the only thing about which non of the physicists except Albert Einstein tried yo understand it. That's why we don't know much about it
I've done a few.
th-cam.com/video/o5WLYPCB8yY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/TzupkDwOXEM/w-d-xo.html
Can you do a video on how the human eye sees light?
th-cam.com/video/-E6dxybpUvo/w-d-xo.html 🤓
I have a simple question but I need some explanation analytically why do electrons in atoms occupy only certain definite energy levels why not those energy levels are continuos
I have a video in the works to answer this exact question. Mathy Answer: It's the result of a power-series solution to Schrodinger's equation.
The Science Asylum thanks a lot
thanks if i didnt watch this i would've failed my science assigment
Are all absorption lines redshifted at the same amount?
Yes, but to be clear: they're all redshifted by the same _factor._ It's not an addition or subtraction thing. It's a multiplication thing. Example: If one wavelength is double due to redshift, then they're all double due to redshift.
intresting