To be fair my first thought was "But there is no sound in space!". Until it dawned on me that we were talking about that far back in time before atoms formed. And then the matter density was high enough to promote sound waves.
I had a dream where my dog was explaining quantum mechanics over coffee and a cigarette. When I woke up I told him that if he was going to smoke he'd have to do it in the garage.
I love your videos because you don't sugar coat the data or talk down to your audience . I might not understand the details but the overall point is very clear and very interesting thanks for being a genuine person . keep it up
Hi Becky ! The expansion rate observable is 20% minus a diminishing rate of production of dark matter since the Big Bang. The result is an apparent acceleration of the space expansion although it was and is still 20%. The production of dark matter contradicts the belief that matter is energy. Instead, matter is a producer of energy in the form of new particle of matter (dark, photon and electron) that constantly produces gravity effect, energy of a fall in space. Due to the expansion, less and less new matter is produced with time by dispersion.
its neat to get a description of something we haven't already heard a million times, like "black holes are places where nothing can escape - not even light!"
What if dark energy concentrations differ, not only in time, but in location as well? Scientiest already think that dark matter has different concentrations. And since matter is concentrated more in galaxies (yes, I say it like this) than outside of the galaxies. One of the energy sources emitted named light, is also more concentrated in those galaxies. I am not saying here that dark energy is concentrated more around dark matter though.
Is the assumption that BAO's are the same size based on timing conditions during the rapid expansion and cooling of the universe? For them to be standard rulers, the pulsation timing would have to have been very uniform - any difference in pulse occurrence would cause an appearance closer to a water surface flash-frozen during rain, with ripples of varying sizes instead of uniform distribution.
Hey Dr Becky thanks for doing what you do. I have a question and I don't understand why the hubble tension is a problem. my thinking is this no explosion travels equally in all directions at the same time there are mortises and convolutions and areas where the fabric of the material that is being expanded contracts cools so that the hotter material can expand past it and that will then cool and then recycle back into the center and will heat up again in the continue expansion why does the universe do that why isn't it the fact that what we're seeing is a different expansion rates are could be due to vortices in the space time fabric? is that possible? And why if it is possible has anybody thought that that was the answer Or a possible answer?. I had another thought I was watching a program about pizza electrical generation where things like silicon rods get compressed and they generate electricity small amounts What if we made just to test it we made a silica rod a kilometer long and used gravity waves or to see if we could use gravity waves to compress and contract it to create electricity? Is anybody looking into this? if so is it possible by using this this could be another way for detecting gravity instead of using Lego and other programs like that and the space ones they're going to put up soon to detect these gravity waves and generate electricity at the same time? if possible could we then generate enough sufficient electricity they just bearing these rods in the ground hundreds of them all over the world to generate electricity freely I mean we're still paying for the cost of the silica in creating these silica rods but if it can create electricity wouldn't it be a nice new free source of electricity for us That we haven't thought of before to use gravity waves and silica. do you think that's feasible At all even just to use to detect the gravity waves Would be a breakthrough I think is anyone had to put everything with light and and mirrors and the refractors and splitters you just have a rod of quartz crystal silicon crystal and you just detect whether or not it's creating electricity From being contracted compressed and uncompressed.
Love your videos. The more BAO data we get the better we will realize that it is diverging from the model and that “the world is in fact not flat”. And again we will learn more.
I think you’re missing the fact that it’s the _sea monsters_ that surround the Antarctica “ring” that prevent us from learning the TRUTH about the flat Earth! (jk. And these people always love to capitalize “truth,” lol!)
Great video! One suggestion: please add a specific chapter for sponsor message and a heads-up when the sponsor message is about to start. I think it makes it easier for people who don't watch the sponsor content to skip straight to the next chapter. And I think it works better than the progress bar.
Love this one! Very technical! Definitely one to follow up on as the experiment continues! Also love the B.A.O. story! Soooooo relatable as a fellow nerd frequently talking to non-nerds!
This is so fascinating! I wish I had focused harder as a kid and stuck with my early interests as in Astronomy/Physics. These videos are helpful for us laypeople.
Ok, Dr Becky please do a video explaining baryonic acoustic oscillations. It’s a wave of what because it’s locally connected how across how many light years. These are awesome effects and interactions playing out across millions of light years.
I find it funny that all the sponsors do stuff we only need because of the drawbacks of social media: Ground News we need to break through our filter bubble, Better help we need to get out of our Social Media caused Depression, and DeleteMe to get rid off part of the giant Data Gathering / „Stolen Data“; it’s like selling blue pills on pron sites… - this is like a protection racket. We only used to need „Anti-Virus“… - now we expect our OS to come with an inbuilt solution, but now we have three other problems we didn’t have before… Edit: forgot the VPN‘s we need to get beyond the geographical market restrictions the media companies placed on us… (To be honest VPNs are probably legal loopholes, so the security services get the data of the local population without breaking the law (that in some countries forbids spying on your own people), because the data is now seemingly via a different country.)
Yep. It still surprises me how many youtubers just take the money, and dont really care about their audience. One time, i even got trash talked by a sizable youtuber, by pointing out his Better Help sponsorship.
because they got outted for leaking personal data, conversations, texts, basically any form of communication with your therapist through betterhelp is leaked and sold. Nothing is private when you get help thru betterhelp. But then I found out all therapist companies do it, all of em. So its not just better help. Its a pretty cold feeling to find out companies are trying to bank off your misery.
The lighting in your new office / studio is vastly superior to your old one. Have you thought of using the blue background as a green screen ( don’t need to change color ) to show graphics you can point at while you explain them.
That would imply a monitor showing the composited video, which is in @DrBecky 's line-of-sight, plus her *learning* to invert her proprioception (sense of "knowing where your hand/ foot/ pseudopod is) to correspond to the composited view, not normal sensations. There is a reason weather presenters do screen tests, then undergo a lot of training before you see them. This is a large part of it. The sticky symbols were relatively simple. to handle. (I got presented with this one day in Siberia - on top of having to deliver my presentation through an interpreter. It is difficult.)
👍 This is one of the best BAO explaimer vids of its kind. Well done. (Also the BAO joke is like 90% of astrophysicist jokes- meaning completely hilarious.)
Great show I used to contemplate the idea that the Universe had a couple of bounces against itself so it's like two layers that's why that's a question of why they're so little antimatter because there have been a couple of fast bounces off two layers of the universe with a 1st pop, I can only make an analogous to a solar storm leaving the sun's surface and blowing all of the material out of the way of a second blast leaving shortly thereafter making it travel faster than the first blast and possibly bouncing off of each other slowing one back down and then speeding the other back up but they're just so many different ideas that is almost impossible to contemplate finding the truth lol, thank you for the great show and your brain!
What's the mechanism that means all BAO bubbles are the same size? I assume it is suggesting they all happened at the same time but why would that be when theres such variation in position? Is there actually size variation but we can "correct" for it? Or have we observed that they are all uniform? In which case, again, why?
Well Miss Becky you have out done yourself in tap dancing. I understood little of the BAO but do question how well this represents anything, especially dark energy. I guess my discomfort is the ‘something’ you can not see, measure or define that somehow saves your cosmic model. That sees backward from science in that you don’t use pixy dust as a define certainly, by none other than consensus, that a bunch of selected data to support your position. I think BOA measurement are in the same category, just more selective data.
You explained that carefully and succinctly. Thank you. I mean, I still didn't get it, but I love your infectious enthusiasm despite myself sadly being the reason shampoo bottles have instructions on them.
given that the universe is expected to be homogeneous at the largest scales, and this difference only occurs in the recent time 1. is it possible we are measuring some type of local inhomogeneity or are the scales to big? 2. would further results over a wider area change the results, or only decrease the error via the margins (the red point would have to shift by twice its entire error bar, and the orange would have to also shift by its error bar, so 0.05^3 chance - 1/8000 here, unless there is systematic uncertainty from somewhere? 3. why does the dashed 'line of best fit' 10:04 curve up at the end?
These videos where you cover new results and clarify them are extremely welcome. Expansion of the universe and the increase in rate of expansion are things which keep bewildering me. The first thing is; into what is the universe expanding - simply coming into "appearing" further and further away into a void? More confusing for me, though are aspects of space-time. Is space-time absent beyond the edge of the universe? What is the warping effect of the expansion of the universe on space-time? As the "edge" of the gravity well of the universe expands into surrounding space-time what would the "ripple look like"? I need more than a normal life time to be able to be alive as all these answers are found.
It's stretching. The universe always contains the same amount of stuff (atoms, quarks, photons, etc etc etc), it's just wider. The analogy that I understood first was a balloon inflating. The universe is the *surface* of the balloon [or a higher dimensional version of a balloon's surface]. As the balloon inflates the surface gets bigger. It doesn't expand into anywhere, it doesn't replace anything, it just stretches out and gets bigger and bigger. That said, there's still debate as to if the balloon is 'inside' anything - it's pretty much unprovable, but potentially our universe could be just one bubble expanding in a higher-dimensional space that contains countless other bubble universes!
What's the explanation behind the first and bigger bump on the plot at 7:35 where you first introduce the BAO peak, which is smaller and at larger scale? Thanks Becky, keep up the good work!
Hey! Huge fan of your work, but I gotta chime in with the people saying that sound quality has degraded recently. Maybe consider bringing the mic closer? It's picking up a lot of room reverb.
The previous filming location had a lot of work done to it to soften up the surfaces and reduce the unwanted reverb. I suspect that Dr. Becky may want to do more of that type of work in this new location as well. But you are right that bringing the microphone closer could also help.
@LesterJamesMusic I think the disproportionate amount of reverb is mostly to blame, the room likely absorbs the high end, leaving us with a muffled echoey mess. It’s a shame, this content deserves the crispest sound in the multiverse. It could also be an impedance issue, but it doubt that the mic itself is solely responsible.
Something I always wondered, is with current maps of the observable universe, are the locations of objects like galaxies and such, represented as they are seen, or are they temporally corrected, using observation and modelling, to put the object where we THINK they ought to be NOW relative to our position? I feel like there would be something to be gained from knowing where stuff actually is, rather than where it used to be.
We tend to only think of it how it appears now, as we observe it. It is meaningless to try and project from where they were because light (and gravity) travels at the speed of light. They (to us) behave as if they really are there right now. This is all because of relativity. There is no useful definition of where things are 'now' except that all the events on our past light cone are happening 'now'. This is why we see the stars as they were so long ago (for them). (for intuition on this, recall that a photon travelling at the speed of light does not experience any time) As a side note, even if we wanted to try to do it, it is not meaningfully possible because of galaxy collisions and the N body problem being chaotic (so integrating forward in time by billions of years would be inherantly inaccurate - therefore unhelpful)
They are represented as they are seen though you’re also correct in a way to wonder about that. Everything in the universe is in motion relative to everything else and due to the sheer distance to the observable universe we can see and the time it takes for the light from them to travel to us, very little of what we can see is where we observe it to be. For instance, a universe located 10 billion light years from us naturally would have had 10 billion years to move to somewhere else since the light we are seeing was created.
Another example, if the sun stopped shining at the very moment you read this comment, the speed of light (speed of causality) dictates that it would be 8 minutes before we would know it. In that 8 minutes, we would still perceive the sun to be shining.
Usually astrophysicists just use the redshift of the galaxy, but using models we can calculate how old they are, how far away they were when they emitted that light (and it is possible to do that since the motion of galaxies is only a small fraction of the motion due to expansion, recession velocity), and how far away they should be now after expanding in space for all of that time. We can also estimate their distance from using standard candles, such as Cepheid variables.
@@tonywells6990 Do you feel it’s possible that the parallax data (from Hipparcos, HST Wide Field Camera) could be “off” enough - due to the puny 1AU baseline (and resultant skinny triangles) - to cause _all_ of the standard candle measurements to be off, and that THAT’S a big factor in the current “crisis in cosmology?” As I understand it, if that first rung on the cosmic distance ladder is off, the whole _thing_ is off!
The most mine boggling thing to me, is time seems to move at a certain pace (unit) when I’m just sitting at my desk, noticing how it feels, time, when I am motionless and in the moment. I don’t know where I’m going with this, just that time & time space is going to be one of the deepest dives science will delve into.
I was explaining this to a friend last weekend. You can’t measure the rate that the universe is expanding at. Because wherever you look, you are seeing the older universe. So we can only measure how fast it was expanding in the past, and that’s different depending on how far away we look.
Actually we can measure the rate that the universe is expanding at now, it is called the Hubble constant, H0, where the 0 means 'now'. We can measure the redshift of a galaxy and plot that against distance (using standard candles such as Cepheid variables) and we get the 'Hubble redshift distance relation', which is a straight line graph, and the gradient of the line gives us the Hubble constant. We can also calculate how fast the universe was expanding at different times by using calculations that model the expansion, for example about 200 million years after the big bang the universe was expanding about 60 times faster than today.
Well things change. I remember taking the first computer programming course offered at my major state University. Little did we suspect where that would lead. That was not that long ago, on the scale of human endeavors. So new instruments bring new measurements.
When the graph in 10:04 show that the rate of expansion may be not constant, does it mean it is slower or faster than the standard model? Is the expansion rate getting faster than predicted or sower than predicted?
QUESTION: 6:50 "...if you know what the size (of a BAO) was then by looking at the cosmic microwave background..." WHAT SIZE WAS IT? It's 490 million light years in today's universe, but I'd like to get a feel for what the expansion has been been since recombination. THANKS!
@@tonywells6990 I edited the BAO article on Wikipedia: "At this age, the size of BAO bubbles were 450,000 light-years (0.14 Mpc) in radius (490 million light-years today divided by z = 1089)." Your information is much appreciated!
@@tonywells6990 Which, since the CMB is a structure formed approximately 300,000 years after the big bang, implies that the far edges of a BAO wavefront were outside each other's "observable universe", having been carried there by the expansion of the universe between the BAO "ping" and the CMB "last scattering". I am suspicious of my argument. I suspect a trap powered by using intuition near General Relativity.
Every astrophysics paper should have a doodle version. Could dark energy changing over time also explain the problem with Hubble tension (cosmology crisis)?
@@ClaireLamman "Evolving dark energy is not enough to explain the Hubble tension." Because the tension exists between differing measurement techniques at differing epochs? [Thinks bubbles form, doodle, scrunch doodles up and project bin-wards.) No, that can't be it. Well, there's a comment for @DrBecky to unpack in more detail if she can.
Which is why they're not reading too much into them. This is the first data release of an observation programme that will be continuing (and probing deeper into the past, in particular) for another decade. So, maybe those seeming deviations will evaporate with more data. Or strengthen.
A thought: if spacetime turns out to be an emergent phenomenon, like say a result of entanglement playing out on information on the Beckenstein bound of the Universe, then it wouldn't be surprising that "dark energy" is actually emergent too and depends on information density of a particular region. So it wouldn't only change with time, but with location. And the regions of some tracers, like large elliptical galaxies, might experience different rates of expansion than others.
@@juzoli the same explanation as for conventional "dark energy" applies - since galaxies are small compared to the scales at which the expansion of space is apparent, they hold themselves together gravitationally and the 'extra' spacetime ends up in between them.
Is it possible that the difference between the model and the observation (09:24) in the nearby universe might be caused by the fact that we may be in a supervoid?
@@a.karley4672 - Not sure, the surviving Pythons are very upset at the cancelling/censorship world we live in now. They were a product of the "cultural revolution" of the 60s-80s, today they'd be buried under accusations, disdain and silencing. Sad but probably true.
Excellent content as usual, thank you. Dr. Becky would you consider getting some pro audio input on your new studio? There is room reverb and your narration sounds a bit like it's coming from inside a cave. I would also suggest getting input on lighting and... makeup to reduce skin shine. This may not be super important compared to the amazing content you provide, but you do such a pro job and you have so many subscribers that you deserve the best setup! Sorry if you did talk to pros already, maybe a second opinion would help 🙂
Fascinating. Though, just like understanding why standard candle luminosities are known and can be used to calculate distances, I was hoping to understand how BAOs can be used as a source of standard distances. However this is just quickly mentioned here and not explained. I don't understand why we would expect all BAOs to be the same size during the epoch of recombination. I get that this epoch lasted only 120,000 years and can be considered instantaneous in the Gand scheme of things. But BAOs being waves, travelling I Imagine at or near the speed of light, wouldn't their sizes depend on when they originated? And why would all BAOs captured in the MWB have originated at the same moment in time? Since these BAOs would pulse (similarly to a star pulsing between its internal energy and gravity when you think of it), I'd imagine they'd have no reason whatsoever to be in sync, right? "Because they had the same size in the universe when the last ripple went through that period that the MWB was released" is the only comment addressing this, and it doesn't explain it. The assumption that they can be trusted as a distance standard has such important outcomes, as in possibly leading us astray for decades about the rate of expansion of the universe, that it seems to me this is a very, very important point.
Thank you, for sharing your brilliant self!I love the new information I find watching every single one of your shows! If I could ask you a question- it may sound stupid, however I wonder if anyone takes into account baryenters of all of the matter in the universe for the apparent odd movement of the matter in the universe and gravitational lensing, when there's apparently nothing massive causing it to occur-does that make sense? eek! Rich
Always enjoy and learn from your content . I have a movie suggestion for you The Dish not si fi rather the part the Parks radio telescope played in the 1st moon landing with a healthy dose of Australia humour l think you would like it and would love to hear your thoughts on the choice of the cricket pitch
So 1) BAO refers strictly to the pre-atomic era, when light couldn't go anywhere? so the "sound" waves were a sort of larger scale form of the mechanical-thermal vibrations? 2) the atomic transition resulted in transparency, which resulted in cooling by light emission, so at this time a significant fraction of the energy in the universe converted from mechanical-thermal to electromagnetic (in the form of the CMB), yes?
Unrelated question that I've never gotten a good answer to: Is the expansion of space isomorphic to the slowing of time? It seems like it very well could be but I don't know enough to have an opinion.
How does one distinguish what portion of the apparent velocity of celestial bodies is due to past acceleration of its matter, and what part is due to the expansion of space itself?
Hello ma'am I'm from India and highly interested in cosmology and astrophysics. I'm pursuing that. Love your work Bought your book "brief history of black hole".
It saddens my heart to see young Physicists dedicate their lives and careers to the study and research of things that don't exist. Such as Dark Matter and Black Holes. How depressing. Like the String Theory Physicists that learned that their entire life's work was for nothing, we are on the precipice of the realization, as many have been saying for decades, that the electromagnetic currents generated by Plasma flows that connect every object in space actually resolve the anomalies found in our observations. Indeed, the rotational assistance created by rotating networks of Plasma actually eliminate the requirements for Dark Matter to resolve the expected rotational velocities of galaxies. And because, as shown in the lab, Plasma accelerates in a vacuum, which dispenses with the need for Dark Energy. No "new physics" required at all. Much of the physics that we know about Plasma was discovered at the turn of the last century. Furthermore, instead of Black Holes whose physics actually breaks down and can't be mathematically justified, and are simultaneously supposed to have such great gravitational force that not even light can escape - while ALSO ejecting matter thousands of light years into space, AWAY from the inescapable gravity... Instead, what we have predicted and are quickly learning is that these objects are not Black Holes at all. They are massive Plasmoids, which generate the tremendous magnetic fields that we now observe, and also eject streams of Plasma from their cores, EXACTLY as we have now observed, and as they have been shown to do in the lab. So just based on this preliminary information, we can dispense with the need for Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Black Holes. Again, this has been predicted for decades, but diverting funding AWAY from the entrenched institutions dedicated to Dark Matter and Dark Energy research is basically impossible - because so many have staked their careers and lives in these fields. Including those peers responsible for reviewing and approving the research grants themselves. The current system is broken and is self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. It will be difficult to defeat this paradigm. But as more and more observational evidence reveals the presence of an interconnected network of charged particles (Plasma) between all objects in space, and no object can be observed as an independent entity, and that space itself is NOT empty, but an intricate tangle of layered Birkeland currents with magnetic and electric fields whose forces are thousands (millions) of times stronger than gravity, it will become undeniable to ignore this reality. Unfortunately, like String Theory, those who dedicated their entire lives to chasing Dark Matter and Black Holes will come to the realization that their work has been in vain, and this saddens me. But I am excited to see where these long awaited observations and science takes us...
that's so cool, i thought for a while that the expansion rate of the universe could be variable but i didnt think there was any way we could determine that. but it looks like this method makes it feasible?! may be able to resolve the hubble tension with more data and analysis
I actually think we have been observing for too little time to determine if there is any expansion at all. We could be seeing one flex of gravitational fluctuations that have yet to reverse direction. Consider a giant bowl full of jiggling jello specs with grapes and raisins and how an atom sized being might perceive the state of its universe between jiggles, which to it might seem like a vast span of time in an expanding or contracting expanse.
Last week I had a chnace to listen to David Schlegel's talk. He talked about the first year of DESI's results and it was noïce. He also talked about upgrading DESI.
Ignore the first 5 minutes of preamble - too much background noise. This will probably answer my "nuclear time, or plasma time" question up-thread. [It didn't.] YT doesn't allow comment on one video, while watching (listening to) another? "Dark Energy was discovered a quarter of a century ago" !! but yeah, it's true! "We sawed off the top of the telescope" ... 1.1m diameter lens !! A 1970s telescope constructed so it could be fitted with a 6m mirror!. That is AMBITION! Very interesting (and taste-bud whetting) presentation. Now, will YT please accept my comment?
@9:44 on the left there it says bubble adjusted for univers expansion; was the data altered to form these graphs, or are these graphs direct observationd, because those things are differet. also, the zed on all tye charts before this go from 0 to 2.5, not 11; thats a few billion years difference. also, also, the sizes barely vary, and fluctuate alot. suspicious.
Dr. Becky, I know you just moved in to that new place and studio, but I feel after these last few videos I need to say it: The studio has a pretty bad bass-y echo going on. I think you need to figure out on some noise cancelling stuff in that room. Perhaps it's the windows and some curtains are in order, or a piece of art on the ceiling... *shrugs* I'm not an audio expert. I just know my ears are being rattled with extra bass. :) Thanks for all you do and keeping us informed about the universe out there! Edit: Now getting to the 'pressure waves' bit, and that's kinda ironically funny right there.
Great video. Is it cheesy to say Dr Becky is a star. Such a pity that broadcast tv can’t make programmes of this quality and reach a wider audience. I despair at the dumbed down level with all the ‘awesome ‘ music and presenters gazing into the distance. This video again shows it’s perfectly possible to present complex subjects to an audience with a curious mind.
They used to but suddenly dumbed down because stuff like this is not popular with the mass audience. We used to have the Royal Society's Christmas Lectures but they were replaced with umpteen repeats of Mrs Brown's Boys! Feck!
@@mikehipperson the RI lectures are still on. But they used to do 5 and now it’s 2 or 3. And they are more about the props and explosions. No where near as in depth as they used to be
Trying to explain BAOs to a lay audience in a short video is quite a heroic feat! Well done.
Yeah, I'm sure most people watching this video were just fed it by the algorithm because of their interest in Mr Beast and Alex Meyers. /s
To be fair my first thought was "But there is no sound in space!". Until it dawned on me that we were talking about that far back in time before atoms formed. And then the matter density was high enough to promote sound waves.
I had a dream where my dog was explaining quantum mechanics over coffee and a cigarette.
When I woke up I told him that if he was going to smoke he'd have to do it in the garage.
BAO is such a general name for it for what i know i'm hearing them
@@mastpg Who? And Who?
Or are they the same person?
Becky Announcing Observations!
Peak content
I love your videos because you don't sugar coat the data or talk down to your audience . I might not understand the details but the overall point is very clear and very interesting
thanks for being a genuine person . keep it up
She is an incredible science communicator
100%! I wish she did live lectures or Q&A's 💪
@@musicfan89100 she does misinformation.
Dark matter doesn't exist. Space isn't a thing with any properties - it can't expand.
I like the advertisement annotation and the progress bar.
Hi Becky, that was by far absolutely the best explanation of BAO that I’ve ever heard on TH-cam. Thank you so much. Finally, I understood.
Hi Becky ! The expansion rate observable is 20% minus a diminishing rate of production of dark matter since the Big Bang. The result is an apparent acceleration of the space expansion although it was and is still 20%.
The production of dark matter contradicts the belief that matter is energy. Instead, matter is a producer of energy in the form of new particle of matter (dark, photon and electron) that constantly produces gravity effect, energy of a fall in space. Due to the expansion, less and less new matter is produced with time by dispersion.
Love your stuff, Dr Becky!
Edit: I can always rely on these videos to clearly breakdown headlines etc into reasonable bits.
Since the expansion rate changes in different areas of space of course it changes over time.
its neat to get a description of something we haven't already heard a million times, like "black holes are places where nothing can escape - not even light!"
You are totally awesome at this.
תודה!
Last time I was this early the expansion of the universe was progressing at a different rate
Literally true. 👍
The headline figure, or the mean plus/minus the error bars?
Thank You, Dr. Becky
Publish, publish, publish! Sounds groovy.
*_TRUST !!_*
What if dark energy concentrations differ, not only in time, but in location as well?
Scientiest already think that dark matter has different concentrations.
And since matter is concentrated more in galaxies (yes, I say it like this) than outside of the galaxies. One of the energy sources emitted named light, is also more concentrated in those galaxies.
I am not saying here that dark energy is concentrated more around dark matter though.
Best video yet!!!! Hubble tension has nothing on this. My mind was blown! Thank you for such an amazing educational video!
The explanation of what BAOs are blowed my mind. Science is beautiful. Thanks!
Thank you, despite having had an interest in all things space since childhood I had never heard of BAO. Now I have the beginnings of an understanding!
Is the assumption that BAO's are the same size based on timing conditions during the rapid expansion and cooling of the universe? For them to be standard rulers, the pulsation timing would have to have been very uniform - any difference in pulse occurrence would cause an appearance closer to a water surface flash-frozen during rain, with ripples of varying sizes instead of uniform distribution.
I would be far more sceptical about a consistent rate of expansion...
I love that you throw astrophysics acronyms at the general public. Honestly, it super on brand!
Hey Dr Becky thanks for doing what you do. I have a question and I don't understand why the hubble tension is a problem. my thinking is this no explosion travels equally in all directions at the same time there are mortises and convolutions and areas where the fabric of the material that is being expanded contracts cools so that the hotter material can expand past it and that will then cool and then recycle back into the center and will heat up again in the continue expansion why does the universe do that why isn't it the fact that what we're seeing is a different expansion rates are could be due to vortices in the space time fabric? is that possible? And why if it is possible has anybody thought that that was the answer Or a possible answer?.
I had another thought I was watching a program about pizza electrical generation where things like silicon rods get compressed and they generate electricity small amounts What if we made just to test it we made a silica rod a kilometer long and used gravity waves or to see if we could use gravity waves to compress and contract it to create electricity? Is anybody looking into this? if so is it possible by using this this could be another way for detecting gravity instead of using Lego and other programs like that and the space ones they're going to put up soon to detect these gravity waves and generate electricity at the same time? if possible could we then generate enough sufficient electricity they just bearing these rods in the ground hundreds of them all over the world to generate electricity freely I mean we're still paying for the cost of the silica in creating these silica rods but if it can create electricity wouldn't it be a nice new free source of electricity for us That we haven't thought of before to use gravity waves and silica. do you think that's feasible At all even just to use to detect the gravity waves Would be a breakthrough I think is anyone had to put everything with light and and mirrors and the refractors and splitters you just have a rod of quartz crystal silicon crystal and you just detect whether or not it's creating electricity From being contracted compressed and uncompressed.
Really excellent lecture, Dr. B. 👍
Love your videos. The more BAO data we get the better we will realize that it is diverging from the model and that “the world is in fact not flat”. And again we will learn more.
I think you’re missing the fact that it’s the _sea monsters_ that surround the Antarctica “ring” that prevent us from learning the TRUTH about the flat Earth! (jk. And these people always love to capitalize “truth,” lol!)
Was waiting for this video ever since the paper dropped.
Hi Becky - you explain things so good.
Thanks Dr. Becky for being so damn cool and showing us all these things
Great video! One suggestion: please add a specific chapter for sponsor message and a heads-up when the sponsor message is about to start. I think it makes it easier for people who don't watch the sponsor content to skip straight to the next chapter. And I think it works better than the progress bar.
Love this one! Very technical! Definitely one to follow up on as the experiment continues! Also love the B.A.O. story! Soooooo relatable as a fellow nerd frequently talking to non-nerds!
This is so fascinating! I wish I had focused harder as a kid and stuck with my early interests as in Astronomy/Physics. These videos are helpful for us laypeople.
Ok, Dr Becky please do a video explaining baryonic acoustic oscillations. It’s a wave of what because it’s locally connected how across how many light years. These are awesome effects and interactions playing out across millions of light years.
Thank you, Dr. Becky, for keeping us informed at a street-level understanding.
Thank you for having the video sponsored by Squarespace rather than Better Help!
I find it funny that all the sponsors do stuff we only need because of the drawbacks of social media: Ground News we need to break through our filter bubble, Better help we need to get out of our Social Media caused Depression, and DeleteMe to get rid off part of the giant Data Gathering / „Stolen Data“; it’s like selling blue pills on pron sites… - this is like a protection racket.
We only used to need „Anti-Virus“… - now we expect our OS to come with an inbuilt solution, but now we have three other problems we didn’t have before…
Edit: forgot the VPN‘s we need to get beyond the geographical market restrictions the media companies placed on us…
(To be honest VPNs are probably legal loopholes, so the security services get the data of the local population without breaking the law (that in some countries forbids spying on your own people), because the data is now seemingly via a different country.)
Yep. It still surprises me how many youtubers just take the money, and dont really care about their audience.
One time, i even got trash talked by a sizable youtuber, by pointing out his Better Help sponsorship.
Genuine question: Why is Better Help a bad place to advertise for?
@@sandra.helianthus They sell their customers/patients' health information to Facebook and other ad companies, and they use unqualified therapists.
because they got outted for leaking personal data, conversations, texts, basically any form of communication with your therapist through betterhelp is leaked and sold. Nothing is private when you get help thru betterhelp. But then I found out all therapist companies do it, all of em. So its not just better help. Its a pretty cold feeling to find out companies are trying to bank off your misery.
The lighting in your new office / studio is vastly superior to your old one. Have you thought of using the blue background as a green screen ( don’t need to change color ) to show graphics you can point at while you explain them.
That would imply a monitor showing the composited video, which is in @DrBecky 's line-of-sight, plus her *learning* to invert her proprioception (sense of "knowing where your hand/ foot/ pseudopod is) to correspond to the composited view, not normal sensations.
There is a reason weather presenters do screen tests, then undergo a lot of training before you see them. This is a large part of it. The sticky symbols were relatively simple. to handle.
(I got presented with this one day in Siberia - on top of having to deliver my presentation through an interpreter. It is difficult.)
👍 This is one of the best BAO explaimer vids of its kind. Well done. (Also the BAO joke is like 90% of astrophysicist jokes- meaning completely hilarious.)
Great show I used to contemplate the idea that the Universe had a couple of bounces against itself so it's like two layers that's why that's a question of why they're so little antimatter because there have been a couple of fast bounces off two layers of the universe with a 1st pop, I can only make an analogous to a solar storm leaving the sun's surface and blowing all of the material out of the way of a second blast leaving shortly thereafter making it travel faster than the first blast and possibly bouncing off of each other slowing one back down and then speeding the other back up but they're just so many different ideas that is almost impossible to contemplate finding the truth lol, thank you for the great show and your brain!
You BAO video is the best science video I have seen. Brilliant
The video turned out to be informative, thank you Becky!
What's the mechanism that means all BAO bubbles are the same size?
I assume it is suggesting they all happened at the same time but why would that be when theres such variation in position? Is there actually size variation but we can "correct" for it? Or have we observed that they are all uniform? In which case, again, why?
Well Miss Becky you have out done yourself in tap dancing. I understood little of the BAO but do question how well this represents anything, especially dark energy. I guess my discomfort is the ‘something’ you can not see, measure or define that somehow saves your cosmic model. That sees backward from science in that you don’t use pixy dust as a define certainly, by none other than consensus, that a bunch of selected data to support your position. I think BOA measurement are in the same category, just more selective data.
You explained that carefully and succinctly. Thank you. I mean, I still didn't get it, but I love your infectious enthusiasm despite myself sadly being the reason shampoo bottles have instructions on them.
Revux revolutionary impact on loyalty programs is thrilling - glad to be in early!
given that the universe is expected to be homogeneous at the largest scales, and this difference only occurs in the recent time
1. is it possible we are measuring some type of local inhomogeneity or are the scales to big?
2. would further results over a wider area change the results, or only decrease the error via the margins (the red point would have to shift by twice its entire error bar, and the orange would have to also shift by its error bar, so 0.05^3 chance - 1/8000 here, unless there is systematic uncertainty from somewhere?
3. why does the dashed 'line of best fit' 10:04 curve up at the end?
Squarespace is a great sponsor, thank you :)
superb...the universe is truly a living process
Fascinating, thank you!
Loved the video and sent it to my grandsons to watch.
Thanks, Dr. Becky.🤜💥🤛
Amazing the amount new knowledge that is coming at us
These videos where you cover new results and clarify them are extremely welcome.
Expansion of the universe and the increase in rate of expansion are things which keep bewildering me. The first thing is; into what is the universe expanding - simply coming into "appearing" further and further away into a void? More confusing for me, though are aspects of space-time. Is space-time absent beyond the edge of the universe? What is the warping effect of the expansion of the universe on space-time? As the "edge" of the gravity well of the universe expands into surrounding space-time what would the "ripple look like"? I need more than a normal life time to be able to be alive as all these answers are found.
It's stretching. The universe always contains the same amount of stuff (atoms, quarks, photons, etc etc etc), it's just wider.
The analogy that I understood first was a balloon inflating. The universe is the *surface* of the balloon [or a higher dimensional version of a balloon's surface]. As the balloon inflates the surface gets bigger. It doesn't expand into anywhere, it doesn't replace anything, it just stretches out and gets bigger and bigger.
That said, there's still debate as to if the balloon is 'inside' anything - it's pretty much unprovable, but potentially our universe could be just one bubble expanding in a higher-dimensional space that contains countless other bubble universes!
The simple answer is that space is expanding, it is increasing in size, it does not push anything out of the way.
Actually, the simple answer is that the universe is not expanding at all.
Great video, really clear explanation. Thanks Dr. B.
What's the explanation behind the first and bigger bump on the plot at 7:35 where you first introduce the BAO peak, which is smaller and at larger scale? Thanks Becky, keep up the good work!
Hey! Huge fan of your work, but I gotta chime in with the people saying that sound quality has degraded recently. Maybe consider bringing the mic closer? It's picking up a lot of room reverb.
The previous filming location had a lot of work done to it to soften up the surfaces and reduce the unwanted reverb. I suspect that Dr. Becky may want to do more of that type of work in this new location as well.
But you are right that bringing the microphone closer could also help.
The lack of treble/sharpness and slight booming is too distracting for me so I'll sit this one out.
@LesterJamesMusic I think the disproportionate amount of reverb is mostly to blame, the room likely absorbs the high end, leaving us with a muffled echoey mess. It’s a shame, this content deserves the crispest sound in the multiverse. It could also be an impedance issue, but it doubt that the mic itself is solely responsible.
Something I always wondered, is with current maps of the observable universe, are the locations of objects like galaxies and such, represented as they are seen, or are they temporally corrected, using observation and modelling, to put the object where we THINK they ought to be NOW relative to our position?
I feel like there would be something to be gained from knowing where stuff actually is, rather than where it used to be.
We tend to only think of it how it appears now, as we observe it. It is meaningless to try and project from where they were because light (and gravity) travels at the speed of light. They (to us) behave as if they really are there right now.
This is all because of relativity. There is no useful definition of where things are 'now' except that all the events on our past light cone are happening 'now'. This is why we see the stars as they were so long ago (for them). (for intuition on this, recall that a photon travelling at the speed of light does not experience any time)
As a side note, even if we wanted to try to do it, it is not meaningfully possible because of galaxy collisions and the N body problem being chaotic (so integrating forward in time by billions of years would be inherantly inaccurate - therefore unhelpful)
They are represented as they are seen though you’re also correct in a way to wonder about that. Everything in the universe is in motion relative to everything else and due to the sheer distance to the observable universe we can see and the time it takes for the light from them to travel to us, very little of what we can see is where we observe it to be. For instance, a universe located 10 billion light years from us naturally would have had 10 billion years to move to somewhere else since the light we are seeing was created.
Another example, if the sun stopped shining at the very moment you read this comment, the speed of light (speed of causality) dictates that it would be 8 minutes before we would know it. In that 8 minutes, we would still perceive the sun to be shining.
Usually astrophysicists just use the redshift of the galaxy, but using models we can calculate how old they are, how far away they were when they emitted that light (and it is possible to do that since the motion of galaxies is only a small fraction of the motion due to expansion, recession velocity), and how far away they should be now after expanding in space for all of that time. We can also estimate their distance from using standard candles, such as Cepheid variables.
@@tonywells6990 Do you feel it’s possible that the parallax data (from Hipparcos, HST Wide Field Camera) could be “off” enough - due to the puny 1AU baseline (and resultant skinny triangles) - to cause _all_ of the standard candle measurements to be off, and that THAT’S a big factor in the current “crisis in cosmology?” As I understand it, if that first rung on the cosmic distance ladder is off, the whole _thing_ is off!
Amazing video indeed 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The most mine boggling thing to me, is time seems to move at a certain pace (unit) when I’m just sitting at my desk, noticing how it feels, time, when I am motionless and in the moment.
I don’t know where I’m going with this, just that time & time space is going to be one of the deepest dives science will delve into.
Mind blown at that part where you said space was square!
I was explaining this to a friend last weekend. You can’t measure the rate that the universe is expanding at. Because wherever you look, you are seeing the older universe. So we can only measure how fast it was expanding in the past, and that’s different depending on how far away we look.
Actually we can measure the rate that the universe is expanding at now, it is called the Hubble constant, H0, where the 0 means 'now'. We can measure the redshift of a galaxy and plot that against distance (using standard candles such as Cepheid variables) and we get the 'Hubble redshift distance relation', which is a straight line graph, and the gradient of the line gives us the Hubble constant.
We can also calculate how fast the universe was expanding at different times by using calculations that model the expansion, for example about 200 million years after the big bang the universe was expanding about 60 times faster than today.
Well things change. I remember taking the first computer programming course offered at my major state University. Little did we suspect where that would lead. That was not that long ago, on the scale of human endeavors. So new instruments bring new measurements.
When the graph in 10:04 show that the rate of expansion may be not constant, does it mean it is slower or faster than the standard model? Is the expansion rate getting faster than predicted or sower than predicted?
I used to have a car with a license plate that started 'MWG' and I don't think everyone else was as excited about that as I was.
I am not sure how to fully articulate how cool the theory of BAO is from this so I am just going to go "Oooooo". Great video.
Great explanation. Nice new studio, but there is a resonant frequency there spoiling the audio. Not sure how you would get rid of it.
QUESTION: 6:50 "...if you know what the size (of a BAO) was then by looking at the cosmic microwave background..." WHAT SIZE WAS IT? It's 490 million light years in today's universe, but I'd like to get a feel for what the expansion has been been since recombination. THANKS!
You just divide by the redshift of the CMB, which is about 1100, so the BAO scales had a length of about 450,000 light years (0.14 Mpc).
@@tonywells6990 I edited the BAO article on Wikipedia: "At this age, the size of BAO bubbles were 450,000 light-years (0.14 Mpc) in radius (490 million light-years today divided by z = 1089)." Your information is much appreciated!
@@Chris_Goulet Why are you editing wikipedia? Haha
@@tonywells6990 Which, since the CMB is a structure formed approximately 300,000 years after the big bang, implies that the far edges of a BAO wavefront were outside each other's "observable universe", having been carried there by the expansion of the universe between the BAO "ping" and the CMB "last scattering".
I am suspicious of my argument. I suspect a trap powered by using intuition near General Relativity.
What model function did they fit their data against? Some plots look slightly outlier-y.
Every astrophysics paper should have a doodle version. Could dark energy changing over time also explain the problem with Hubble tension (cosmology crisis)?
Thanks :)
(I made the doodle version)
Evolving dark energy is not enough to explain the Hubble tension.
@@ClaireLamman It could be enough, if there is actually a Hubble tension.
@@ClaireLammanI hope you start a trend with the doodles. Thanks for answering my question
@@ClaireLamman I’d *_LOVE_* to see a doodle version HR diagram showing the evolutionary treks of a
@@ClaireLamman "Evolving dark energy is not enough to explain the Hubble tension."
Because the tension exists between differing measurement techniques at differing epochs? [Thinks bubbles form, doodle, scrunch doodles up and project bin-wards.) No, that can't be it.
Well, there's a comment for @DrBecky to unpack in more detail if she can.
You explained that so well!
8:12 those error bars are way too big vs the fluctuations relative to the curve.
When you have enough data points, even large standard deviations can be compensated for. And the data is combining a LOT of data points.
Which is why they're not reading too much into them. This is the first data release of an observation programme that will be continuing (and probing deeper into the past, in particular) for another decade. So, maybe those seeming deviations will evaporate with more data. Or strengthen.
You rock Dr B
A thought: if spacetime turns out to be an emergent phenomenon, like say a result of entanglement playing out on information on the Beckenstein bound of the Universe, then it wouldn't be surprising that "dark energy" is actually emergent too and depends on information density of a particular region. So it wouldn't only change with time, but with location. And the regions of some tracers, like large elliptical galaxies, might experience different rates of expansion than others.
Wouldn’t there be more expansion inside the galaxies than between the galaxies?
@@juzoli the same explanation as for conventional "dark energy" applies - since galaxies are small compared to the scales at which the expansion of space is apparent, they hold themselves together gravitationally and the 'extra' spacetime ends up in between them.
Is it possible that the difference between the model and the observation (09:24) in the nearby universe might be caused by the fact that we may be in a supervoid?
Brings to mind the Monty Python's song: "🎼🎵"The Universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding..."🎶🎵
🎶 In all of the directions it can whiz 🎶
Choon. 70/80s child.. 😊
70s song - reflecting, obviously, 1970s cosmology.
What the Pythons would have made, lyrics-wise, of the *accelerating* expansion of the universe ...
@@a.karley4672 - Not sure, the surviving Pythons are very upset at the cancelling/censorship world we live in now. They were a product of the "cultural revolution" of the 60s-80s, today they'd be buried under accusations, disdain and silencing. Sad but probably true.
Man. This is built on so much "if this is right then..." ... Like so circumstancial
Yep, that’s science for you, evidence, theory, test, revise.
It feels like we are at the edge of important fundamental answers.
Excellent content as usual, thank you. Dr. Becky would you consider getting some pro audio input on your new studio? There is room reverb and your narration sounds a bit like it's coming from inside a cave. I would also suggest getting input on lighting and... makeup to reduce skin shine. This may not be super important compared to the amazing content you provide, but you do such a pro job and you have so many subscribers that you deserve the best setup! Sorry if you did talk to pros already, maybe a second opinion would help 🙂
I love your accent, got a giggle off your pronunciation of customize and customers.
8:02 size of the bubbles? Or size of the “wavelength” of these oscillations?
Higgs too have acoustic signature.
Not head stone , but head hair band.
That bumped up my knowledge.
Fascinating. Though, just like understanding why standard candle luminosities are known and can be used to calculate distances, I was hoping to understand how BAOs can be used as a source of standard distances. However this is just quickly mentioned here and not explained. I don't understand why we would expect all BAOs to be the same size during the epoch of recombination.
I get that this epoch lasted only 120,000 years and can be considered instantaneous in the Gand scheme of things. But BAOs being waves, travelling I Imagine at or near the speed of light, wouldn't their sizes depend on when they originated? And why would all BAOs captured in the MWB have originated at the same moment in time?
Since these BAOs would pulse (similarly to a star pulsing between its internal energy and gravity when you think of it), I'd imagine they'd have no reason whatsoever to be in sync, right?
"Because they had the same size in the universe when the last ripple went through that period that the MWB was released" is the only comment addressing this, and it doesn't explain it.
The assumption that they can be trusted as a distance standard has such important outcomes, as in possibly leading us astray for decades about the rate of expansion of the universe, that it seems to me this is a very, very important point.
Interesting stuff.
My mind hurts to think about this fantastic universe, and what exists out there.
Thank you, for sharing your brilliant self!I love the new information I find watching every single one of your shows! If I could ask you a question- it may sound stupid, however I wonder if anyone takes into account baryenters of all of the matter in the universe for the apparent odd movement of the matter in the universe and gravitational lensing, when there's apparently nothing massive causing it to occur-does that make sense? eek! Rich
Always enjoy and learn from your content . I have a movie suggestion for you The Dish not si fi rather the part the Parks radio telescope played in the 1st moon landing with a healthy dose of Australia humour l think you would like it and would love to hear your thoughts on the choice of the cricket pitch
9:40 I love it when "Science Explainers" let their XKCD roots show
So 1) BAO refers strictly to the pre-atomic era, when light couldn't go anywhere? so the "sound" waves were a sort of larger scale form of the mechanical-thermal vibrations? 2) the atomic transition resulted in transparency, which resulted in cooling by light emission, so at this time a significant fraction of the energy in the universe converted from mechanical-thermal to electromagnetic (in the form of the CMB), yes?
Unrelated question that I've never gotten a good answer to: Is the expansion of space isomorphic to the slowing of time? It seems like it very well could be but I don't know enough to have an opinion.
4:11 wouldn't characteristics of the BAO show if dark matter is made of baryonic matter or not ?
How does one distinguish what portion of the apparent velocity of celestial bodies is due to past acceleration of its matter, and what part is due to the expansion of space itself?
Throw a big wrench into that scientific theory. Stand back and watch the fun.
Hello ma'am
I'm from India and highly interested in cosmology and astrophysics. I'm pursuing that.
Love your work
Bought your book "brief history of black hole".
It saddens my heart to see young Physicists dedicate their lives and careers to the study and research of things that don't exist.
Such as Dark Matter and Black Holes. How depressing.
Like the String Theory Physicists that learned that their entire life's work was for nothing, we are on the precipice of the realization, as many have been saying for decades, that the electromagnetic currents generated by Plasma flows that connect every object in space actually resolve the anomalies found in our observations.
Indeed, the rotational assistance created by rotating networks of Plasma actually eliminate the requirements for Dark Matter to resolve the expected rotational velocities of galaxies.
And because, as shown in the lab, Plasma accelerates in a vacuum, which dispenses with the need for Dark Energy.
No "new physics" required at all. Much of the physics that we know about Plasma was discovered at the turn of the last century.
Furthermore, instead of Black Holes whose physics actually breaks down and can't be mathematically justified, and are simultaneously supposed to have such great gravitational force that not even light can escape - while ALSO ejecting matter thousands of light years into space, AWAY from the inescapable gravity...
Instead, what we have predicted and are quickly learning is that these objects are not Black Holes at all. They are massive Plasmoids, which generate the tremendous magnetic fields that we now observe, and also eject streams of Plasma from their cores, EXACTLY as we have now observed, and as they have been shown to do in the lab.
So just based on this preliminary information, we can dispense with the need for Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Black Holes.
Again, this has been predicted for decades, but diverting funding AWAY from the entrenched institutions dedicated to Dark Matter and Dark Energy research is basically impossible - because so many have staked their careers and lives in these fields. Including those peers responsible for reviewing and approving the research grants themselves.
The current system is broken and is self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. It will be difficult to defeat this paradigm.
But as more and more observational evidence reveals the presence of an interconnected network of charged particles (Plasma) between all objects in space, and no object can be observed as an independent entity, and that space itself is NOT empty, but an intricate tangle of layered Birkeland currents with magnetic and electric fields whose forces are thousands (millions) of times stronger than gravity, it will become undeniable to ignore this reality.
Unfortunately, like String Theory, those who dedicated their entire lives to chasing Dark Matter and Black Holes will come to the realization that their work has been in vain, and this saddens me.
But I am excited to see where these long awaited observations and science takes us...
My nickname is Desi, it was specially fun watching this video
i think the sizes of the bubbles wouldn't be necessarily the same compared to eachother... do they have in account that in the papers?
that's so cool, i thought for a while that the expansion rate of the universe could be variable but i didnt think there was any way we could determine that. but it looks like this method makes it feasible?! may be able to resolve the hubble tension with more data and analysis
I actually think we have been observing for too little time to determine if there is any expansion at all. We could be seeing one flex of gravitational fluctuations that have yet to reverse direction. Consider a giant bowl full of jiggling jello specs with grapes and raisins and how an atom sized being might perceive the state of its universe between jiggles, which to it might seem like a vast span of time in an expanding or contracting expanse.
Last week I had a chnace to listen to David Schlegel's talk. He talked about the first year of DESI's results and it was noïce. He also talked about upgrading DESI.
Ignore the first 5 minutes of preamble - too much background noise.
This will probably answer my "nuclear time, or plasma time" question up-thread. [It didn't.]
YT doesn't allow comment on one video, while watching (listening to) another?
"Dark Energy was discovered a quarter of a century ago" !! but yeah, it's true!
"We sawed off the top of the telescope" ... 1.1m diameter lens !!
A 1970s telescope constructed so it could be fitted with a 6m mirror!. That is AMBITION!
Very interesting (and taste-bud whetting) presentation. Now, will YT please accept my comment?
@@a.karley4672 bruv, you ight?
@9:44 on the left there it says bubble adjusted for univers expansion; was the data altered to form these graphs, or are these graphs direct observationd, because those things are differet. also, the zed on all tye charts before this go from 0 to 2.5, not 11; thats a few billion years difference. also, also, the sizes barely vary, and fluctuate alot. suspicious.
Love your videos.. 👏 thanks 🙏 I’ve long wondered this me self…
Dr. Becky, I know you just moved in to that new place and studio, but I feel after these last few videos I need to say it:
The studio has a pretty bad bass-y echo going on. I think you need to figure out on some noise cancelling stuff in that room. Perhaps it's the windows and some curtains are in order, or a piece of art on the ceiling... *shrugs*
I'm not an audio expert. I just know my ears are being rattled with extra bass. :)
Thanks for all you do and keeping us informed about the universe out there!
Edit: Now getting to the 'pressure waves' bit, and that's kinda ironically funny right there.
Great video. Is it cheesy to say Dr Becky is a star.
Such a pity that broadcast tv can’t make programmes of this quality and reach a wider audience.
I despair at the dumbed down level with all the ‘awesome ‘ music and presenters gazing into the distance.
This video again shows it’s perfectly possible to present complex subjects to an audience with a curious mind.
They used to but suddenly dumbed down because stuff like this is not popular with the mass audience. We used to have the Royal Society's Christmas Lectures but they were replaced with umpteen repeats of Mrs Brown's Boys! Feck!
@@mikehipperson the RI lectures are still on. But they used to do 5 and now it’s 2 or 3. And they are more about the props and explosions. No where near as in depth as they used to be