The speaker says: “the photon gains energy when it enters a void” a hundred times, although it is not true that any particle gains energy when it enters nothing; it just doesn’t loose any energy and continues with the same speed.
True void is beyond us, and our abilities to behold/understand...or when conceived has been added to already. Dimensional math = higher understanding...ie, We are insignificant : except for behind the veil. luv, we have now.
Since E=Hbar f does this mean the frequency increases when entering the void and loses frequency on the way out? This could interfere with our current measures of distance ?
I wish you had given more detail explaining how the signal is sifted from the noise. What human decisions are involved in the process, what's the justification for those decisions etc.
I'm guessing multiple samplings compared with each other. Among other things you can use the repetitions to create a probability matrix. Pick the highest probabilities of all samples. There's likely a lot of other algorithms as well but if it were tasked to me, that is where I would start.
When I look at the map I can see the cold spot - it stands out just like you said. But what stands out more to me at least is the warm belt slashing diagonally just above it. I am assuming that since that hasn’t meritted a youtube video that it is less of a problem. Perhaps it is better understood or something. I just found it a bit arbitrary that it was completely ignored here.
If one does a universal regional-residual CMB separation of the longer wavelength lower frequency responses from the shorter wavelength higher frequency responses, by subtracting those higher frequencies that looks like superimposed noise, the CMB regional literally looks like the Yin & Yang symbol of the light chasing around the dark, or visa-versa? Or perhaps a black hole chasing a white hole etc.? Listen to the Beatles Revolver after drinking some Salvadoran espresso then look at a smoothed CMB image and see what you think.
Shouting is a nice metaphor, but a reminder for 14:02 that you couldn't assign shouts to galaxies even if the expansion beyond the visible universe hadn't happened, the reason the metaphor allows it is that there is a faster medium of transmission (light) than the one measured (sound), but with the CMB you are getting signal from the faster medium of transmission already, it's all light
This is the best video I have ever seen that explains why "We don't know Jack Sh!t about the Universe". Aren't we lucky that Penzias and Wilson didn't just decide that the signals they saw were caused by Pigeon poop in the antenna.
If the specific cold spot did not exist we would be obsessing over the next odd coldest one in line that does exist. [EDIT] P.S. you did a great job explaining the magnitude of difference between the one and the next tho
Love, love, love your content! Suggestion: please consider demonstrating visually what 1 in 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000 ,000 so non scientist/mathematicians can ‘see’ how small a value this is. This may also help to understand how accurate our understanding of CMB and our theories regarding origin of the universe! Keep up the great work!
Approx 23:20 onwards he talks about light passing. A former housemate, Mr Patel, explained in basic terms,' In the beginning, there was a light, Lord Vishnu travelled up following the light while Lord Shiva travelled down chasing the light, but the light was infinite without end'. A topic Carl Sagan discussed in his book Cosmos, he also mentions the Koran and other faiths and civilizations. Basically, we humans have created our own science histories.
There is always an observable lull in wave fronts given a large enough area. There are several others within the CMB that may not be to the extent which the cold spot exhibits but it isn't outside of possibility. That being said, it's still rather interesting.
Also, comparing the cold spot to a louder shout seems exactly opposite. It's more of a lull than a peak. One can argue as to why, but it IS a lull in what we observe. Comparing it to ocean waves would seem to suggest an obstructing structure, however fleeting or permanent. OR, it could simply be the smallest observable height and/or periodicity within an expansion of energy. I'll shut up now.😊
Your not allowed to question the gatekeepers.. Also no mention of the dust and gas in the intervening space and the idea of measuring the cmb to a millionth of a degree is unbelievable.
Cmb is a sound we hear, grav lensing is something we see. Google ftw " With a standard optical telescope, the background space between stars and galaxies is almost completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope detects a faint background glow that is almost uniform and is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. "
@Idellphany radio waves are not sounds. They are low frequency high wavelength EM waves. Gravitational lensing affects all EM waves and has a strong lensing effect on radio waves
This is great! Very informative, and your voice is great. I think a lot of astronomers think we want to sleep to their videos - they even title their videos that way. But some of us want to actually learn this stuff :) Glad I found your channel.
After watching the first 11 minutes, I’m still thinking what the shouting has to do with anything and when the explanation for the slight temperature differences. After another 5 minutes, still waiting. I hope someone will summarise this video to prevent me suffering through it anymore.
@@wolvenar Well that’s something to look forward to. Hopefully some or all my photons carry a tiny piece of my consciousness, and given an eternity will in the infinity distant future come together again. On second thoughts hopefully not.
The quadrupole aligning perfectly with the solar system ecliptic should raise some flags. There are so many problems with the big bang theory, a cold spot in the noise background is minimal. The big bang students have been bandaging and resurrecting this theory for decades. It died in the late 90s and should not have been brought back.
The theory with most evidence usually prevails in science until there is new evidence giving rise to a better theory. This hasn't happened to replace the misnomer "Big Bang" theory, so i don't understand what you're complaining about.
When looking at how the pre Copernican European astronomers vehemently tried to retain the geocentric paradigm, one can not help to notice the similarity with the efforts of astronomers nowadays to retain the big bang paradigm.
We now know that the Big Bang event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding.
Long time viewer, and i love your stuff. With that in mind, please note: i would much rather stare at you speaking to a camera, communicating visually, than watching a stream of stock footage. Please take the feedback from a positive direction. Thanks!
Of the 15 predictions it makes, it fails on 14 of the them. I think you would agree a good theory makes mostly accurate predictions. There's a clue in there.
Try plasma cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. It correctly predicted that the JWST would find galaxies that look like the ones we already knew, not the baby galaxies predicted by BBT.
@@rienkhoek4169it not proof of a theory. It was found accidentally. Just because we find something doesn’t mean we can attribute that, it is a reflection from billions of years ago… that is quite a leap. The biggest problem astrophysics faces today is not the data, it is the ridiculous meaning our science comes up with for the data existing. Like a house of cards each piece of evidence is precariously balanced against its neighbors. And where it is weakest, that is where you will find the bandaids holding it together.
@@rienkhoek4169 CMB was discovered by accident before any theory predicted it, and then hypotheses started being discussed to explain the CMB. The Big Bang hypothesis was the best they could find, and now it's the leading theory.
@@illarionbykov7401 This is not the case. The discovery was by accident by people that did not know the prediction. However a team somewhere else knew immediately they were too late when the results were told to them because they were just starting to think about how they were going to search for it.
@@illarionbykov7401 From wiki When Penzias and Wilson reduced their data, they found a low, steady, mysterious noise that persisted in their receiver. This residual noise was 100 times more intense than they had expected, was evenly spread over the sky, and was present day and night. They were certain that the radiation they detected on a wavelength of 7.35 centimeters did not come from the Earth, the Sun, or our galaxy. After thoroughly checking their equipment, removing some pigeons nesting in the antenna and cleaning out the accumulated droppings, the noise remained. Both concluded that this noise was coming from outside our own galaxy-although they were not aware of any radio source that would account for it. At that same time, Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, astrophysicists at Princeton University just 60 km (37 mi) away, were preparing to search for microwave radiation in this region of the spectrum. Dicke and his colleagues reasoned that the Big Bang must have scattered not only the matter that condensed into galaxies, but also must have released a tremendous blast of radiation. With the proper instrumentation, this radiation should be detectable, albeit as microwaves, due to a massive redshift. When his friend Bernard F. Burke, a professor of physics at MIT, told Penzias about a preprint paper he had seen by Jim Peebles on the possibility of finding radiation left over from an explosion that filled the universe at the beginning of its existence, Penzias and Wilson began to realize the significance of what they believed was a new discovery. The characteristics of the radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson fit exactly the radiation predicted by Robert H. Dicke and his colleagues at Princeton University. Penzias called Dicke at Princeton, who immediately sent him a copy of the still-unpublished Peebles paper. Penzias read the paper and called Dicke again and invited him to Bell Labs to look at the horn antenna and listen to the background noise. Dicke, Peebles, Wilkinson and P. G. Roll interpreted this radiation as a signature of the Big Bang.
The problem with the whole "shouting" scenario is that people aren't shouting when they were still all in the same place, they were already spread out. But you should tell it to include the part where the people are all crammed into a single elevator when they shout, then they start to move apart. Because if the big bang is correct, you must perform it while everything is near everything else. And since matter does not spread at the speed of light, the bang passes everyone, as they are spreading apart. In other words, the light from a galaxy 13b. LY away was not 13b LY away when it happened it was right in our lap.
wouldnt a problem with it being a void be voids growing over time? it wouldnt just need to be way bigger than the biggest known void (the bootes void) but would also have needed to be that size long long ago meaning it would be way bigger by now. is their a warmer (and probably wider) cold spot/area visable and associated with the bootes void? would gravitational lensing from galaxies surrounding a void also reduce the ammount of light from its direction adding to its reduced temprature? curious - like with a world map even a oval map is distorted to create a flat image. isnt there a method to orient the CMB map to place a location being studied at the center reducing any distortion of its shape.
If the beginning of the universe was an infinitly small point with no space how can the expansion be everywhere at once? I mean there's no space to even say everywhere?
The average monkey in a group of other apes with lab coats will simple say "Homogenous". Right, History repeats itself so therefore the infinite point started before. All I can say is this.. God! Apart from that the two astronomically geniuse men in this universe were, and still are..Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Lamaitre and on Earth, Charles Darwin.
The BB theory is incorrect because its fundamental premises are circular reference fallacies. Space cannot change space. Time cannot change time. The people that support BB theory are irrational.
I desperately want to believe.....but.....consider giving the skeptical some cover: please explain how that signal is found beneath the foreground, please.
If CMB radiation was only generated in the early plasma stage of the universe wouldn't it have dissipated by now? i.e. every radiation wave would have passed out current location by now so we should no longer see any?
Strange that physicists look for confirmation of the expansion, then completely ignore the most compelling evidence for it: 1. It requires that the universe was much smaller...as you go back in time, that could be within or without the observable universe, depending on our proximity to that origin. 2. It requires that the universe has an origin point....as a consequence of which, it must have coordinate/location and a vector, relative to our current position. 3. It requires that as that universe shrinks, it must at some point cease to be visible, as it enters the cosmic dark age relative to time. Thus, to find the center of the universe at its earliest stages, if we are lucky and it is not too far away from us to be completely out of observational relevancy, we must look for an exceptionally dark volume that we may only catch the very edge of. This volume will, by its nature, give off no light. So its not a question of finding the center of the big bang as a white body too large to be without, but finding an unusual and unaccountable, absence of existance, too small to be within.
Imagine thinking an imbalance is evidence against something that by definition arose from an imbalance in the first place... If the "singularity" was balanced it would not have exploded... Right?
The shout analogy is not quite analogous. In the shout analogy nobody is moving away from anything. The analogy falls apart rapidly when you add expansion.
The CMB is not the CMB. Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, the fundamental phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) will occur. Mass/energy that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A 2 axis graph illustrates the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A "time dilation" graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass/energy is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves/dark matter, the "missing mass" is dilated mass. It also explains the CMB. We are receiving radiation from the galactic center, but it comes from all directions. If the WMAP satellite was positioned outside the bounds of our galaxy it would record a background radiation of near zero. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates.
Looks to me like the phenomenon behind the phrase, If you can’t Dazzle them with brilliance, Baffle them with 🐂 💩. Today’s Astrophysics and quantum mechanical theories are non sequiturs. The explanations have nothing to do with the data. I agree with you on a few points. The basis of modern astrophysics has no XYZ, or what I call 0,0,0. This is the mistake that makes the existence of black holes mathematically possible. I disagree with the concept of spacetime, spacial dimensions are physical, time is conceptual. Three apples and a unicorn will not grow into a applcorn tree, even if there were unicorns. I can see you are knee deep in the standard model where most people are breathing through straws. The reason Einstein’s E=mC2 works… “everywhere”, is because energy is on both sides of the equation. Mass is not defined, and what is light other than energy? Quantum physics has led us down the primrose path and we’ve been lost for nearly a century. Holding us back, but also preventing us from an unknown number of discoveries. And look at the world around us to see how that turned out. There is another way to look at astrophysics but we have to go back to where the split happened. And start again. Luckily there are a few dissidents that saw this taking place and fought against it until their dying breath. So, in a way, we few have a head start. A bridge that takes us over the murky waters and beyond the limitations of what they say is possible. Repulsive flight and elemental transmutation are currently the two biggest challengers to our current system. Imagine a world where the resources are no longer important. A world where instead of rockets, we leave the influence of the earth because the earth is pushing us away… And once in space we ride the Birkeland Currents like a pneumatic tube… The possibility, the potential, is here. In an Electric Universe. Much ❤ Love 🌎🌏🌍☯️⚡️ World🌞Peace
...and ......... the mass of the entire universe when it was small. Not aged 13.8 billion years because time is relative and not Newtonian. Still don't understand why cosmologists can't understand this. How old is the universe again? How long is a year in the early universe? Is it the same amount of time then as now? How long does it take a second to tick if you are standing right next to a singularity which contains all the mass of the universe? Measure that gravity well!
@@TurboElectricLtd - If I correctly understand your comment, you're saying something similar to my own hypothesis (by which I mean "rank speculation") that what we're calling "observations" of the distant past are distorted by that very temporal remoteness, and the distortion is built into the model itself. So we see everything compressed into (nearly) infinite density in infinitesimally small volume. Same with time. I'll buy the assertion that the non-uniformity of the CMB is a concomitant effect of the non-uniform distribution of matter, and both effects are engendered by "random quantum perturbations", or whatever the currently-favored term is for "bizarre shit we don't understand and can't predict". For my part, it's just the way physics continually shoves complexity away into the realm of stuff that is "currently unknowable". That's not a criticism. Physics is the science of simple systems-systems whose behavior can be modeled by finite algorithms. It's the finiteness of the algorithms that gives us the certainty abouit all the stuff we're certain about. "See? The equations work...I can show you right here, in this particular area..." Yep. And they keep on working...er, as long as we apply them in that particular area. Then...ooops, what's up with the precession in the perihelion of Mercury's orbit? ...or, uh-oh...what's the deal with that cold spot in the CMB? That's not a bad thing. It's prolly God's version of the Physicists Permanent Full Employment Act. And I fully agree with Dr. Paul's assessment about the messiness of the process. It ain't gonna get unmessier, for the same reason that there ain't ever gonna be a Theory of Everything. The entirety of the universe, life, and everything is a complex system, whose behavior cannot be modeled by a finite algorithm. That's the definition of complexity, per Robert Rosen, and IMO, he nailed it. The bottom line is that, where the understanding of complex systems is involved, physics - at least _contemporary physics_ ...the stuff in the textbooks - is the wrong tool for the job. Planck, Einstein, and Schrödinger (and probably others) all made noises about the need for "a new physics", by which they meant a kind of physics that can deal with complexity. No such physics exists, and I dunno...maybe won't ever exist. OK by me. I don't think we're going to run out of questions that need the kinds of answers physics can provide. Meanwhile, "complexity theory" (such as it is), is barely a science at all. There are some genuine pioneers, but what a forest of gobbledy-gook and pseudoscience you have to wade through to find anything of substance. But we have to start somewhere, and it's my belief that advances in our understanding of complex systems will eventually take the handoff from problems that physics - at least physics as we know it today - can't solve.
@@Vito_Tuxedo Well... full disclosure: I stopped watching the video at about 35mins and just added the comment. I don't have any problem with people attempting to understand stuff and creating models using hypotheses and stuff. What got my fingers on the keyboard was the attitude which is shared among some scientists that they have solved most of the problems in nature. This is the biggest lie. To put it in context: I was watching an episode of Star Trek (as one does) and there is a line in it: "What we don't know about death, is certainly far greater that what we do know.". It was in context of being tolerant of some aliens species' religious beliefs about the afterlife. Taken away from that context basically we do know so very, very little. The amount that we do know and can observe is essentially finite, the unknown is actually infinite. For anyone to make statements like "This thing happened like this" when referring to some event billions of years ago (or in the future), or billions of light years away, is just arrogance. You don't bloody know! You have a model which has been verified as much as possible with observation and seems to predict a few things, which is really useful, but you DO NOT know for absolute certainty. So Dr Sutter and others: please stop talking like you've had your findings verified with the creator of this universe. .. and yes inflation theory is STUPID.
Without " mass" there is no "energy" and no light. Without energy there is no mass. Energy is quantified in Joules representing work potential. Mass is quantified in energy density per unit volume. Both are mathematical constructs that are complementary but exist in different forms.
When explaining the ISW effect, it is said that the photon "increases" energy when it reaches the void, an area of less density. Is it not logical to say that as the void empties out (the reason for the greater energy potential to overcome) the photon "gains" more energy while crossing the void, resulting in a net 0 change of energy upon its exit?
Andromeda: M31 not M3. But an excellent use of analogy to explain why the CMB looks to us now as it does and how the statistical nature of data and uncertainty are addressed in science.
Our brains could not contain the knowledge of everything. If we tried to cram that much knowledge into our brains, our heads would collapse into black hole singularities.
It's hard to get a scientist to admit his theory is wrong and he doesn't have one to replace it. Plasma cosmology is the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Check it out. It's up to us amateurs to find a way forward, because mainstream astrophysicists live in a mental straightjacket.
why wouldnt red shift be a result of distance and time , and the movement of us and the subject we are looking at? doesnt light bend around gravity? what about old light because of immence time?
What are your thoughts about the Boyl/Turok theory, SM/LCDM which gets rid of inflation, which is indeed messy. It also addresses dark matter and dark energy. There was a paper they released this past Feb…I believe it addresses some of the uncertainties you note here. Would be nice to see it reviewed by an expert!
Just because you defined the acronym cmb. Everyone these days especially in presentations and documentaries use acronyms without defining in the beginning what it stands for. People do anything to feel smarter then others that they manipulate the conversation in such a manner. Yet you defined it in detail. A rather commonly know acronym. Ty for that
Matt is no doubt a very smart guy but I liked the previous guy better, PhysicsGabe I think it was. He was both smart AND very good at communicating complex ideas in a simple way.
Take a look at Cool Worlds. It's amazing. Hosted by a Cornell professor of Astronomy who is an active researcher and one of his projects has been green lighted by NASA. His channel is both informative and inspirational.
(Not sure what happened to my original reply...) Please check out Cool Worlds. It's hosted by a Cornell professor of Astronomy who is actively engaged in research and has recently gotten his project green lit by NASA. His channel is both educational and inspiring. Whereas Spacetime shows you the perplexity of science, Cool Worlds shows you the wondrous awe of Nature.
You know what the actual biggest flaw is to me ? Objects allegedly change position relative to each other as local movement with proper motion. That means all objects change their position over time, especially with localised variations in dark matter and energy. There should not be a perfect one to one correlation with past, present, future object vector and expansion. So why dont you see multiple snapshots of the same object with different red shifts..or more correctly..a blurry night sky that traces the cosmic evolution of such bodies over time ? The fact we see a crystal clear solitary redshifted snapshot, is what troubles me more than anything. Its more like we are looking at radially sliced time coordinates, rather than radial space coordinates. Speaking of relativity.... 'How superposition causes length contraction' on the 'dialect' channel ...has a hot take.
Could it be that the billions-of-light-years-wide supervoid sits beyond the edge of the observable universe? Looking for one there would be futile but it might be that we can use the CMB to "see" what is actually beyond the horizon. Or am I misunderstanding how this works?
Is there just one phenomena left to solve? A list follows- an incomplete understanding of the largest and smallest scale electromagnetic effects, partcularly at cosmic filament and universal scales; what about particle charge parity and size asymmetry & relativity, scalability vis-a-vis timekeeping, thermal properties and entropy? One example, us hominids are made up of fermions that preceded, are older than the CMB, and these particles have preserved and projected into the present day future older particles, i.e. thee olde, hot quark-gluon plasma inside their spheroidal volumes, where a near light speed quark riot is reportedly held in place by bosonic magnetic tethers somewhat akin to magnetic bottles? Researchers today also apparentlty see red and blue shifted fermion accumulations in cosmic filaments that are helically rotating, magnetized, and shunting galaxies and their supermassive black holes to/from galactic clusters? Lastly, what about the universal free fall of all fermionic objects along with us also free falling observers and notetakers, or about spacetime curvature relativity and timescales from the quark & gluon & neutrino to the universal edge or bounding horizon, and the apparent flatness of space where everything not bosonic, massless and timeless is in free fall? If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate? Is gravity just local spacetime curvature and dark matter transparent, unaccounted for curvature, with dark energy just light speed universal acceleration radiation that pushes and pulls on spacetime, leaving memories imprinted therein, having a spectrum of amplitudes that varies at least from a snail's to the Planck acceleration, with the rest of universal acceleration falling somewhere in between these two extremes? Not that local snails are not pretty much at rest most of the time while corkscrewing through spacetime at larger regional scales?! Caffiene molecules in the morning assures there's no rest for the ADHD youtube viewer reading while intoxicated on thee wicked espresso, adios for now amigos!
Also - I have a question. What if the void shouldn't be explained with statistics, but rather with fractals? Lots of statistically unlikely things occur in finance, and they often clump together to create one giant highly unlikely thing. What if the same thing is going on with the supervoid? Sorry... you've triggered my math brain. Fascinating video!
Anything as popular as TBBT is naturally going to have its haters. And a lot of so-called "authentic" geeks/nerds don't like the way they're portrayed so they reject the show outright. Unsurprisingly those that are offended validate the stereotype of socially awkward people that can't take a joke.
Why cant the CMB be uneven because the universe’s expansion wasn’t distributed evenly. And why can’t that be because of uncertainty in the movement of the plasma. Otherwise, wouldn’t the universe as it is be a perfectly evenly distributed sphere of matter?
would not a cold spot in the CMB be representative of a void, as a lower density of particles converting results in a lower amount of energy released? If that works, then the CMB could, possibly, be representative of matter concentration at the time of conversion?
Please explain more. It’s claimed as “proven fact” that everything is moving away from us in all directions. Is that itself incorrect? Or do you have some other explanation for that?
Too much believing in things which have not been demonstrated to even exist involved in this story for my comfort. Specifically, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy.
In the thought experiment where you imagine light traveling through a void, I don't understand why you say that expansion leads to there being _more_ matter on the far side by the time the light gets there. The void expands. I get that. But doesn't that mean that the matter density of the void's boundary is decreasing?
I wish they would orientate the map so that the cold spot was in the middle. It would make it so much easier to see how it relates to the rest of the cmb
I thought that photons leaving a gravity well lost energy then gained energy when falling into a gravity well. There may be an assymetry but surely a void is surrounded by gravity wells.
It's our universe merging with an ancient neighbour universe that already died the heatdeath. There problem solved. The fact that academia like dr.Sutter don't even want to entertain it is mindboggling while the middle is colder than the outside which kind of looks like some round object merging with another. I don't know why it would be rhat wild of an idea even
Your shout example wasn't carried out far enough. Every other person has the same result no matter where on earth they are. Same with the micro wave background; even half way across the universe, the cmb will look almost the same despite variables of cosmic interferences.
If the CMB image is from radio telescopes then it stands to reason that there will be interference from radio reflection, like the earth’s oceans and interference from current radio emissions like that of every visible thing in the universe. So to get a clear picture you would need to go further away. Does that make sense to you’s?
Before the big Bang, cold energy, could it not have existed? Radiation from the old universe is called heat. This heat radiation works like a repelling magnet and repels other heat just like two repelling magnets.
Appreciate the video, but I have objections. One: too slow, much too slow. The same message could be given in a fraction of the time. Time is so precious that for me this slowness is a dealbreaker. Two: why is your CMB map modified? It's different to the one published by the ESA.
If the CMBR is actually the local average resultant construtive interference frequency of all radiation in space, then if photon entropy (decay) is the actual cause of the background redshift, we will still have an explanation of CMBR.
Could the cold spot have been formed by a collision of another universe? If the inflation model is correct, there "should" be an infinite number of universes.
How would you separate a snapshot of our much smaller universe in the cosmic dark age that we are now outside of.....and a black hole ? Especially if the time vector goes negative within that black hole, where a spherical surface may well expand on the outside as well as the inside, as expanding/evolving time, with both postive and negative vectors. aka The holographic principle.
There is (was) 2 extremely deep ultra-voids, due to our orientation in the universe, we can only see the masking effect of one of them. In my opinion, what we should be looking for is spectral aliasing within the CMB
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
The speaker says: “the photon gains energy when it enters a void” a hundred times, although it is not true that any particle gains energy when it enters nothing; it just doesn’t loose any energy and continues with the same speed.
General Relativity says energy is not conserved in an expanding universe.
True void is beyond us, and our abilities to behold/understand...or when conceived has been added to already. Dimensional math = higher understanding...ie, We are insignificant : except for behind the veil. luv, we have now.
Since E=Hbar f does this mean the frequency increases when entering the void and loses frequency on the way out? This could interfere with our current measures of distance ?
photons are the things that eat poop that are ruining my life
'Lose'
I wish you had given more detail explaining how the signal is sifted from the noise. What human decisions are involved in the process, what's the justification for those decisions etc.
Decisions were based on making it match the preconceived theory.
I'm guessing multiple samplings compared with each other. Among other things you can use the repetitions to create a probability matrix. Pick the highest probabilities of all samples. There's likely a lot of other algorithms as well but if it were tasked to me, that is where I would start.
I still observe with amazement how science still keeps alive a theory that starts from nothing without knowing what nothing is.
What theory starts with nothing???
When I look at the map I can see the cold spot - it stands out just like you said.
But what stands out more to me at least is the warm belt slashing diagonally just above it. I am assuming that since that hasn’t meritted a youtube video that it is less of a problem. Perhaps it is better understood or something. I just found it a bit arbitrary that it was completely ignored here.
If one does a universal regional-residual CMB separation of the longer wavelength lower frequency responses from the shorter wavelength higher frequency responses, by subtracting those higher frequencies that looks like superimposed noise, the CMB regional literally looks like the Yin & Yang symbol of the light chasing around the dark, or visa-versa? Or perhaps a black hole chasing a white hole etc.? Listen to the Beatles Revolver after drinking some Salvadoran espresso then look at a smoothed CMB image and see what you think.
Shouting is a nice metaphor, but a reminder for 14:02 that you couldn't assign shouts to galaxies even if the expansion beyond the visible universe hadn't happened, the reason the metaphor allows it is that there is a faster medium of transmission (light) than the one measured (sound), but with the CMB you are getting signal from the faster medium of transmission already, it's all light
This is the best video I have ever seen that explains why "We don't know Jack Sh!t about the Universe". Aren't we lucky that Penzias and Wilson didn't just decide that the signals they saw were caused by Pigeon poop in the antenna.
The person shouting ten times louder than every one else is my ex wife. Thats my explanation of dark energy.
😂😂😂
If the specific cold spot did not exist we would be obsessing over the next odd coldest one in line that does exist. [EDIT] P.S. you did a great job explaining the magnitude of difference between the one and the next tho
Love, love, love your content!
Suggestion: please consider demonstrating visually what 1 in 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000 ,000 so non scientist/mathematicians can ‘see’ how small a value this is. This may also help to understand how accurate our understanding of CMB and our theories regarding origin of the universe!
Keep up the great work!
I think about science and its messiness and then I look at my mobile smart phone and I think……. Nah, science is ok.
Look harder. Broaden your horizons!
everything is going to be fine
And then it crashes.
Approx 23:20 onwards he talks about light passing. A former housemate, Mr Patel, explained in basic terms,' In the beginning, there was a light, Lord Vishnu travelled up following the light while Lord Shiva travelled down chasing the light, but the light was infinite without end'. A topic Carl Sagan discussed in his book Cosmos, he also mentions the Koran and other faiths and civilizations. Basically, we humans have created our own science histories.
There is always an observable lull in wave fronts given a large enough area. There are several others within the CMB that may not be to the extent which the cold spot exhibits but it isn't outside of possibility. That being said, it's still rather interesting.
Also, comparing the cold spot to a louder shout seems exactly opposite. It's more of a lull than a peak. One can argue as to why, but it IS a lull in what we observe.
Comparing it to ocean waves would seem to suggest an obstructing structure, however fleeting or permanent. OR, it could simply be the smallest observable height and/or periodicity within an expansion of energy.
I'll shut up now.😊
I'm not saying it's aliens. But it's aliens.
not aliens, creators!
obviously
nope, that never gets old, oh, no
It's NOT Ailiens bro
I'm not saying it's Paul Sutter, but...
Shouldn't gravitational lensing affect our observations of the CMB?
Your not allowed to question the gatekeepers.. Also no mention of the dust and gas in the intervening space and the idea of measuring the cmb to a millionth of a degree is unbelievable.
Cmb is a sound we hear, grav lensing is something we see. Google ftw
" With a standard optical telescope, the background space between stars and galaxies is almost completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope detects a faint background glow that is almost uniform and is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. "
@Idellphany radio waves are not sounds. They are low frequency high wavelength EM waves.
Gravitational lensing affects all EM waves and has a strong lensing effect on radio waves
@@amlord3826 including cmb
No.
This is great! Very informative, and your voice is great. I think a lot of astronomers think we want to sleep to their videos - they even title their videos that way. But some of us want to actually learn this stuff :) Glad I found your channel.
The biggest flaw is the big bang. Absolutely no explanation for that. It's that one "miracle."
After watching the first 11 minutes, I’m still thinking what the shouting has to do with anything and when the explanation for the slight temperature differences. After another 5 minutes, still waiting. I hope someone will summarise this video to prevent me suffering through it anymore.
I agree 😂
Photons don't experience time ..
Neither do dead people, does this mean that after death we become photons😂.
@@mitseraffej5812 Given enough time, yes 😅
Based on current understanding, eventually we all become Hawking radiation.
@@wolvenar Well that’s something to look forward to. Hopefully some or all my photons carry a tiny piece of my consciousness, and given an eternity will in the infinity distant future come together again. On second thoughts hopefully not.
Because they're inanimate objects that perceive nothing.
@@mitseraffej5812 if the universe is Infinity then we have existed and our consciousness for Infinity amount of times.
The quadrupole aligning perfectly with the solar system ecliptic should raise some flags. There are so many problems with the big bang theory, a cold spot in the noise background is minimal. The big bang students have been bandaging and resurrecting this theory for decades. It died in the late 90s and should not have been brought back.
The theory with most evidence usually prevails in science until there is new evidence giving rise to a better theory. This hasn't happened to replace the misnomer "Big Bang" theory, so i don't understand what you're complaining about.
When looking at how the pre Copernican European astronomers vehemently tried to retain the geocentric paradigm, one can not help to notice the similarity with the efforts of astronomers nowadays to retain the big bang paradigm.
@@1a2b3c4d5Can we all agree that long long ago something happened that gave rise to what we see today.
You are right
We now know that the Big Bang event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding.
Always provides an entertaining commentary on all things to do with astronomy and science. Thank you Dr Paul for sharing your vast knowledge.
Fingers crossed that you will do the video at 11:00 on timer. But thank you for the wonderful podcasts in the meantime.
Long time viewer, and i love your stuff. With that in mind, please note: i would much rather stare at you speaking to a camera, communicating visually, than watching a stream of stock footage. Please take the feedback from a positive direction. Thanks!
I can't watch these videos with library footage image salad; I listen instead. The only pertinent image is the CMB map; the rest is redundant.
No, please don’t
Of the 15 predictions it makes, it fails on 14 of the them. I think you would agree a good theory makes mostly accurate predictions. There's a clue in there.
It could fail on all 15 possibilities, as well as more as they arise and are tested.
@@73honda350 No doubt, & predictably, it will still be endorsed by the intellectually bankrupt.
Try plasma cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. It correctly predicted that the JWST would find galaxies that look like the ones we already knew, not the baby galaxies predicted by BBT.
The biggest flaw is that it's not a proper theory. It's a sample of one and can't be recreated.
CMB is not the theory, it is the proof of a theory. Perfectly legal science. 1 you have a theory, 2 this theory predicts CMB, 3 you find CMB.
@@rienkhoek4169it not proof of a theory.
It was found accidentally.
Just because we find something doesn’t mean we can attribute that, it is a reflection from billions of years ago… that is quite a leap.
The biggest problem astrophysics faces today is not the data, it is the ridiculous meaning our science comes up with for the data existing.
Like a house of cards each piece of evidence is precariously balanced against its neighbors.
And where it is weakest, that is where you will find the bandaids holding it together.
@@rienkhoek4169 CMB was discovered by accident before any theory predicted it, and then hypotheses started being discussed to explain the CMB. The Big Bang hypothesis was the best they could find, and now it's the leading theory.
@@illarionbykov7401 This is not the case. The discovery was by accident by people that did not know the prediction. However a team somewhere else knew immediately they were too late when the results were told to them because they were just starting to think about how they were going to search for it.
@@illarionbykov7401 From wiki
When Penzias and Wilson reduced their data, they found a low, steady, mysterious noise that persisted in their receiver. This residual noise was 100 times more intense than they had expected, was evenly spread over the sky, and was present day and night. They were certain that the radiation they detected on a wavelength of 7.35 centimeters did not come from the Earth, the Sun, or our galaxy. After thoroughly checking their equipment, removing some pigeons nesting in the antenna and cleaning out the accumulated droppings, the noise remained. Both concluded that this noise was coming from outside our own galaxy-although they were not aware of any radio source that would account for it.
At that same time, Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, astrophysicists at Princeton University just 60 km (37 mi) away, were preparing to search for microwave radiation in this region of the spectrum. Dicke and his colleagues reasoned that the Big Bang must have scattered not only the matter that condensed into galaxies, but also must have released a tremendous blast of radiation. With the proper instrumentation, this radiation should be detectable, albeit as microwaves, due to a massive redshift.
When his friend Bernard F. Burke, a professor of physics at MIT, told Penzias about a preprint paper he had seen by Jim Peebles on the possibility of finding radiation left over from an explosion that filled the universe at the beginning of its existence, Penzias and Wilson began to realize the significance of what they believed was a new discovery. The characteristics of the radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson fit exactly the radiation predicted by Robert H. Dicke and his colleagues at Princeton University. Penzias called Dicke at Princeton, who immediately sent him a copy of the still-unpublished Peebles paper. Penzias read the paper and called Dicke again and invited him to Bell Labs to look at the horn antenna and listen to the background noise. Dicke, Peebles, Wilkinson and P. G. Roll interpreted this radiation as a signature of the Big Bang.
Funny all those fully formed spiral galaxies at z=14 though
The problem with the whole "shouting" scenario is that people aren't shouting when they were still all in the same place, they were already spread out. But you should tell it to include the part where the people are all crammed into a single elevator when they shout, then they start to move apart. Because if the big bang is correct, you must perform it while everything is near everything else. And since matter does not spread at the speed of light, the bang passes everyone, as they are spreading apart. In other words, the light from a galaxy 13b. LY away was not 13b LY away when it happened it was right in our lap.
wouldnt a problem with it being a void be voids growing over time?
it wouldnt just need to be way bigger than the biggest known void (the bootes void) but would also have needed to be that size long long ago meaning it would be way bigger by now. is their a warmer (and probably wider) cold spot/area visable and associated with the bootes void? would gravitational lensing from galaxies surrounding a void also reduce the ammount of light from its direction adding to its reduced temprature?
curious - like with a world map even a oval map is distorted to create a flat image. isnt there a method to orient the CMB map to place a location being studied at the center reducing any distortion of its shape.
If the beginning of the universe was an infinitly small point with no space how can the expansion be everywhere at once? I mean there's no space to even say everywhere?
Yeah...God's like that, bruh.
"the godless universe moves in mysterious ways"
@@illarionbykov7401 That's because the only Godless universe is in between your ears!
"God moves in mysterious ways"
The average monkey in a group of other apes with lab coats will simple say "Homogenous".
Right, History repeats itself so therefore the infinite point started before. All I can say is this..
God!
Apart from that the two astronomically geniuse men in this universe were, and still are..Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Lamaitre and on Earth, Charles Darwin.
Now the computer say The Big Bang Theory is incorrect whole world of physics is chaotic😂
Did you say catholic?
@@kricketflyd111 🤔🤣
did you watch this?
The BB theory is incorrect because its fundamental premises are circular reference fallacies. Space cannot change space. Time cannot change time. The people that support BB theory are irrational.
I desperately want to believe.....but.....consider giving the skeptical some cover: please explain how that signal is found beneath the foreground, please.
If CMB radiation was only generated in the early plasma stage of the universe wouldn't it have dissipated by now? i.e. every radiation wave would have passed out current location by now so we should no longer see any?
no
Strange that physicists look for confirmation of the expansion, then completely ignore the most compelling evidence for it:
1. It requires that the universe was much smaller...as you go back in time, that could be within or without the observable universe, depending on our proximity to that origin.
2. It requires that the universe has an origin point....as a consequence of which, it must have coordinate/location and a vector, relative to our current position.
3. It requires that as that universe shrinks, it must at some point cease to be visible, as it enters the cosmic dark age relative to time.
Thus, to find the center of the universe at its earliest stages, if we are lucky and it is not too far away from us to be completely out of observational relevancy, we must look for an exceptionally dark volume that we may only catch the very edge of.
This volume will, by its nature, give off no light.
So its not a question of finding the center of the big bang as a white body too large to be without,
but finding an unusual and unaccountable, absence of existance, too small to be within.
Paul, are their other cold spots in the CMB? It certainly seems like there is one “Northeast” of the one you discuss in this video.
Imagine thinking an imbalance is evidence against something that by definition arose from an imbalance in the first place... If the "singularity" was balanced it would not have exploded... Right?
I am, therefore I think.
The shout analogy is not quite analogous. In the shout analogy nobody is moving away from anything. The analogy falls apart rapidly when you add expansion.
The CMB is not the CMB. Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, the fundamental phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) will occur. Mass/energy that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A 2 axis graph illustrates the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A "time dilation" graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass/energy is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves/dark matter, the "missing mass" is dilated mass. It also explains the CMB. We are receiving radiation from the galactic center, but it comes from all directions. If the WMAP satellite was positioned outside the bounds of our galaxy it would record a background radiation of near zero.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates.
Looks to me like the phenomenon behind the phrase, If you can’t Dazzle them with brilliance, Baffle them with 🐂 💩.
Today’s Astrophysics and quantum mechanical theories are non sequiturs.
The explanations have nothing to do with the data.
I agree with you on a few points.
The basis of modern astrophysics has no XYZ, or what I call 0,0,0. This is the mistake that makes the existence of black holes mathematically possible.
I disagree with the concept of spacetime, spacial dimensions are physical, time is conceptual.
Three apples and a unicorn will not grow into a applcorn tree, even if there were unicorns.
I can see you are knee deep in the standard model where most people are breathing through straws.
The reason Einstein’s E=mC2 works… “everywhere”, is because energy is on both sides of the equation. Mass is not defined, and what is light other than energy?
Quantum physics has led us down the primrose path and we’ve been lost for nearly a century.
Holding us back, but also preventing us from an unknown number of discoveries.
And look at the world around us to see how that turned out.
There is another way to look at astrophysics but we have to go back to where the split happened.
And start again.
Luckily there are a few dissidents that saw this taking place and fought against it until their dying breath.
So, in a way, we few have a head start. A bridge that takes us over the murky waters and beyond the limitations of what they say is possible.
Repulsive flight and elemental transmutation are currently the two biggest challengers to our current system.
Imagine a world where the resources are no longer important.
A world where instead of rockets, we leave the influence of the earth because the earth is pushing us away…
And once in space we ride the Birkeland Currents like a pneumatic tube…
The possibility, the potential, is here.
In an Electric Universe.
Much ❤ Love
🌎🌏🌍☯️⚡️
World🌞Peace
...and ......... the mass of the entire universe when it was small. Not aged 13.8 billion years because time is relative and not Newtonian. Still don't understand why cosmologists can't understand this. How old is the universe again? How long is a year in the early universe? Is it the same amount of time then as now? How long does it take a second to tick if you are standing right next to a singularity which contains all the mass of the universe? Measure that gravity well!
@@TurboElectricLtd - If I correctly understand your comment, you're saying something similar to my own hypothesis (by which I mean "rank speculation") that what we're calling "observations" of the distant past are distorted by that very temporal remoteness, and the distortion is built into the model itself. So we see everything compressed into (nearly) infinite density in infinitesimally small volume. Same with time.
I'll buy the assertion that the non-uniformity of the CMB is a concomitant effect of the non-uniform distribution of matter, and both effects are engendered by "random quantum perturbations", or whatever the currently-favored term is for "bizarre shit we don't understand and can't predict". For my part, it's just the way physics continually shoves complexity away into the realm of stuff that is "currently unknowable".
That's not a criticism. Physics is the science of simple systems-systems whose behavior can be modeled by finite algorithms. It's the finiteness of the algorithms that gives us the certainty abouit all the stuff we're certain about. "See? The equations work...I can show you right here, in this particular area..." Yep. And they keep on working...er, as long as we apply them in that particular area. Then...ooops, what's up with the precession in the perihelion of Mercury's orbit? ...or, uh-oh...what's the deal with that cold spot in the CMB?
That's not a bad thing. It's prolly God's version of the Physicists Permanent Full Employment Act. And I fully agree with Dr. Paul's assessment about the messiness of the process. It ain't gonna get unmessier, for the same reason that there ain't ever gonna be a Theory of Everything. The entirety of the universe, life, and everything is a complex system, whose behavior cannot be modeled by a finite algorithm. That's the definition of complexity, per Robert Rosen, and IMO, he nailed it.
The bottom line is that, where the understanding of complex systems is involved, physics - at least _contemporary physics_ ...the stuff in the textbooks - is the wrong tool for the job. Planck, Einstein, and Schrödinger (and probably others) all made noises about the need for "a new physics", by which they meant a kind of physics that can deal with complexity. No such physics exists, and I dunno...maybe won't ever exist.
OK by me. I don't think we're going to run out of questions that need the kinds of answers physics can provide. Meanwhile, "complexity theory" (such as it is), is barely a science at all. There are some genuine pioneers, but what a forest of gobbledy-gook and pseudoscience you have to wade through to find anything of substance. But we have to start somewhere, and it's my belief that advances in our understanding of complex systems will eventually take the handoff from problems that physics - at least physics as we know it today - can't solve.
@@Vito_Tuxedo Well... full disclosure: I stopped watching the video at about 35mins and just added the comment. I don't have any problem with people attempting to understand stuff and creating models using hypotheses and stuff. What got my fingers on the keyboard was the attitude which is shared among some scientists that they have solved most of the problems in nature. This is the biggest lie. To put it in context: I was watching an episode of Star Trek (as one does) and there is a line in it: "What we don't know about death, is certainly far greater that what we do know.". It was in context of being tolerant of some aliens species' religious beliefs about the afterlife. Taken away from that context basically we do know so very, very little. The amount that we do know and can observe is essentially finite, the unknown is actually infinite. For anyone to make statements like "This thing happened like this" when referring to some event billions of years ago (or in the future), or billions of light years away, is just arrogance. You don't bloody know! You have a model which has been verified as much as possible with observation and seems to predict a few things, which is really useful, but you DO NOT know for absolute certainty. So Dr Sutter and others: please stop talking like you've had your findings verified with the creator of this universe. .. and yes inflation theory is STUPID.
Without " mass" there is no "energy" and no light. Without energy there is no mass. Energy is quantified in Joules representing work potential. Mass is quantified in energy density per unit volume. Both are mathematical constructs that are complementary but exist in different forms.
That’s your problem. The universe is still 99.9% plasma. It never was a neutral gas.
When explaining the ISW effect, it is said that the photon "increases" energy when it reaches the void, an area of less density. Is it not logical to say that as the void empties out (the reason for the greater energy potential to overcome) the photon "gains" more energy while crossing the void, resulting in a net 0 change of energy upon its exit?
Who’s the GOAT? 0:11
"What a waste of time" is my review of this video.
39+ minutes we'll never get back.
Oh crap, im under 2 mins. Should I run??
Not a waste of time, but rather Much ado about nothing!
Most interesting video I have ever seen. It's an IQ thing.
@@Sr.DeathKnight or lack of iq thing in your case
sorry if i missed the explanation, but what's with the red wave in the CMB?
It's Ailiens bro
Its’ the CMB map without the Milky Way’s microwave band subtracted.
The temp is slightly hotter in the red. very slight temp difference?
@@Idellphany That’s right - it’s the microwaves coming off dust in the Milky Way, which we view side-on as a line of red on this map.
I have been working on this for more than 25 years.
The problem is the big bank.
Let's talk
Our CMB is probably a tiny fraction, cold spots may appear frequently in a bigger scale.
Andromeda: M31 not M3. But an excellent use of analogy to explain why the CMB looks to us now as it does and how the statistical nature of data and uncertainty are addressed in science.
Can you imagine how boring it would be if we knew everything with absolute certainty? Rock on scientists questioning "The" science 🙂
Absolutely!
Boring?
I beg to differ. We would just wring our minds to produce incredible applications to make life easier
If we knew everything, i think we would know enough to keep us occupied satisfactorily.
Our brains could not contain the knowledge of everything. If we tried to cram that much knowledge into our brains, our heads would collapse into black hole singularities.
@@illarionbykov7401 Not if it was properly reinforced. ie...triangles!
So many flaws in LCDM - when do we reject it?
It's hard to get a scientist to admit his theory is wrong and he doesn't have one to replace it. Plasma cosmology is the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Check it out. It's up to us amateurs to find a way forward, because mainstream astrophysicists live in a mental straightjacket.
goofy does not begin to describe this caricature.
why wouldnt red shift be a result of distance and time , and the movement of us and the subject we are looking at? doesnt light bend around gravity? what about old light because of immence time?
Thanks for this present so close to my birthday!
I would like to know, could there be multiple voids in that direction instead of just a supervoid?
What are your thoughts about the Boyl/Turok theory, SM/LCDM which gets rid of inflation, which is indeed messy. It also addresses dark matter and dark energy.
There was a paper they released this past Feb…I believe it addresses some of the uncertainties you note here. Would be nice to see it reviewed by an expert!
@@notredan7831 Makes better sense than the Big Poof Theory.
Just because you defined the acronym cmb. Everyone these days especially in presentations and documentaries use acronyms without defining in the beginning what it stands for. People do anything to feel smarter then others that they manipulate the conversation in such a manner. Yet you defined it in detail. A rather commonly know acronym. Ty for that
My favorite science content provider along with Matt o'Doud. Except on Matt's channel I feel like I need a physics degree
Matt isn't trying g to educate you, he's 's trying to impress you.
Matt is no doubt a very smart guy but I liked the previous guy better, PhysicsGabe I think it was. He was both smart AND very good at communicating complex ideas in a simple way.
He doesn't have Sutter-class metaphors.
Take a look at Cool Worlds. It's amazing. Hosted by a Cornell professor of Astronomy who is an active researcher and one of his projects has been green lighted by NASA. His channel is both informative and inspirational.
(Not sure what happened to my original reply...) Please check out Cool Worlds. It's hosted by a Cornell professor of Astronomy who is actively engaged in research and has recently gotten his project green lit by NASA. His channel is both educational and inspiring. Whereas Spacetime shows you the perplexity of science, Cool Worlds shows you the wondrous awe of Nature.
So it doesn’t line up with the Bootes void?
You know what the actual biggest flaw is to me ?
Objects allegedly change position relative to each other as local movement with proper motion.
That means all objects change their position over time, especially with localised variations in dark matter and energy.
There should not be a perfect one to one correlation with past, present, future object vector and expansion.
So why dont you see multiple snapshots of the same object with different red shifts..or more correctly..a blurry night sky that traces the cosmic evolution of such bodies over time ?
The fact we see a crystal clear solitary redshifted snapshot, is what troubles me more than anything.
Its more like we are looking at radially sliced time coordinates, rather than radial space coordinates.
Speaking of relativity....
'How superposition causes length contraction' on the 'dialect' channel
...has a hot take.
Could it be that the billions-of-light-years-wide supervoid sits beyond the edge of the observable universe? Looking for one there would be futile but it might be that we can use the CMB to "see" what is actually beyond the horizon. Or am I misunderstanding how this works?
@21:45
it's not 10 times louder than anything we've ever heard, it's 10 times farther away from the average than the normal variance from the average.
I love Paul Sutter. I forgot to look for him and here he is! I'm subscribed.
Now I wonder what else I've forgotten that I love? 😮
Is there just one phenomena left to solve?
A list follows- an incomplete understanding of the largest and smallest scale electromagnetic effects, partcularly at cosmic filament and universal scales; what about particle charge parity and size asymmetry & relativity, scalability vis-a-vis timekeeping, thermal properties and entropy? One example, us hominids are made up of fermions that preceded, are older than the CMB, and these particles have preserved and projected into the present day future older particles, i.e. thee olde, hot quark-gluon plasma inside their spheroidal volumes, where a near light speed quark riot is reportedly held in place by bosonic magnetic tethers somewhat akin to magnetic bottles?
Researchers today also apparentlty see red and blue shifted fermion accumulations in cosmic filaments that are helically rotating, magnetized, and shunting galaxies and their supermassive black holes to/from galactic clusters?
Lastly, what about the universal free fall of all fermionic objects along with us also free falling observers and notetakers, or about spacetime curvature relativity and timescales from the quark & gluon & neutrino to the universal edge or bounding horizon, and the apparent flatness of space where everything not bosonic, massless and timeless is in free fall? If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate? Is gravity just local spacetime curvature and dark matter transparent, unaccounted for curvature, with dark energy just light speed universal acceleration radiation that pushes and pulls on spacetime, leaving memories imprinted therein, having a spectrum of amplitudes that varies at least from a snail's to the Planck acceleration, with the rest of universal acceleration falling somewhere in between these two extremes? Not that local snails are not pretty much at rest most of the time while corkscrewing through spacetime at larger regional scales?!
Caffiene molecules in the morning assures there's no rest for the ADHD youtube viewer reading while intoxicated on thee wicked espresso, adios for now amigos!
Also - I have a question. What if the void shouldn't be explained with statistics, but rather with fractals? Lots of statistically unlikely things occur in finance, and they often clump together to create one giant highly unlikely thing. What if the same thing is going on with the supervoid? Sorry... you've triggered my math brain. Fascinating video!
Anything as popular as TBBT is naturally going to have its haters.
And a lot of so-called "authentic" geeks/nerds don't like the way they're portrayed so they reject the show outright. Unsurprisingly those that are offended validate the stereotype of socially awkward people that can't take a joke.
Not hearing that anybody aimed Hubble or JWST at the universe's wet spot. Cold spot. Whatever.
So how is this a flaw with the expansion theory?
Why cant the CMB be uneven because the universe’s expansion wasn’t distributed evenly. And why can’t that be because of uncertainty in the movement of the plasma. Otherwise, wouldn’t the universe as it is be a perfectly evenly distributed sphere of matter?
The biggest flaw in the big bang theory is Penny, ain't no way those nerds are going to end up with her.
would not a cold spot in the CMB be representative of a void, as a lower density of particles converting results in a lower amount of energy released? If that works, then the CMB could, possibly, be representative of matter concentration at the time of conversion?
Could it be the spot from which the Big Bang itself originated, empty because everything expanded outward from that area, leaving a supervoid?
Cosmic space expansion is a myth concocted to salvage a wrong hypothesis.
Please explain more.
It’s claimed as “proven fact” that everything is moving away from us in all directions.
Is that itself incorrect?
Or do you have some other explanation for that?
Ignoring evidence is the perfect way to label any conclusion as a myth.
Too much believing in things which have not been demonstrated to even exist involved in this story for my comfort. Specifically, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy.
In the thought experiment where you imagine light traveling through a void, I don't understand why you say that expansion leads to there being _more_ matter on the far side by the time the light gets there.
The void expands. I get that. But doesn't that mean that the matter density of the void's boundary is decreasing?
I wish they would orientate the map so that the cold spot was in the middle. It would make it so much easier to see how it relates to the rest of the cmb
Do an online search for CMB maps, and you'll find versions with the cold spot in the center.
The cold spot looks like the quantum version of a freak wave in the ocean.
Mr.Sutter
I like your TH-cam clips much better with video of you in person.
Bring them back please.
Love your work spaceman thanks for the great content
Learned nothing from this vid. Thanks!
I thought that photons leaving a gravity well lost energy then gained energy when falling into a gravity well. There may be an assymetry but surely a void is surrounded by gravity wells.
It's our universe merging with an ancient neighbour universe that already died the heatdeath. There problem solved. The fact that academia like dr.Sutter don't even want to entertain it is mindboggling while the middle is colder than the outside which kind of looks like some round object merging with another. I don't know why it would be rhat wild of an idea even
Terence Howard has some equations he wants to run by you...
@@DanHarkins-jk9mi do not compare me with that quack
@@DanHarkins-jk9mi😂 great answer
It would be really funny if the cosmic background radiation was nothing more than thermal radiation from the Oort cloud.
Cold spot is the belly button of the universe 😂
Whoa, thank you for the birthday gift.
Your shout example wasn't carried out far enough. Every other person has the same result no matter where on earth they are. Same with the micro wave background; even half way across the universe, the cmb will look almost the same despite variables of cosmic interferences.
Actual viewing from several light years away will give us the proper perspective to evaluate the universe.
If the CMB image is from radio telescopes then it stands to reason that there will be interference from radio reflection, like the earth’s oceans and interference from current radio emissions like that of every visible thing in the universe.
So to get a clear picture you would need to go further away.
Does that make sense to you’s?
I love how you explain things.
Before the big Bang, cold energy, could it not have existed? Radiation from the old universe is called heat. This heat radiation works like a repelling magnet and repels other heat just like two repelling magnets.
Appreciate the video, but I have objections. One: too slow, much too slow. The same message could be given in a fraction of the time. Time is so precious that for me this slowness is a dealbreaker. Two: why is your CMB map modified? It's different to the one published by the ESA.
If the CMBR is actually the local average resultant construtive interference frequency of all radiation in space, then if photon entropy (decay) is the actual cause of the background redshift, we will still have an explanation of CMBR.
Could the cold spot have been formed by a collision of another universe? If the inflation model is correct, there "should" be an infinite number of universes.
Nothing is the absence of something. Before this universe ends, that has to happen. Nothing is vice versa to something.
The big bang theory has provided big bling for standard model proponents for far too long.
The cold spot is God’s optic nerve.
I'm only 2 minutes into the video... but can't this just be explained as entropy??
Sure. Why not? Now what?
@@ernie5229 nothing. That's it.
5:31 I guess the whole world just let it all out, 'cause these are the things we can't do without.
can do without
How would you separate a snapshot of our much smaller universe in the cosmic dark age that we are now outside of.....and a black hole ?
Especially if the time vector goes negative within that black hole, where a spherical surface may well expand on the outside as well as the inside, as expanding/evolving time, with both postive and negative vectors.
aka The holographic principle.
So, can it be said that there was sound in the Universe before there was even matter..?? That would be a big thing for a music lover to digest.
In the map, I can see a lot of much _bigger_ spots that are _much hotter_ than the rest. Why should these not be anomalies, too?
Is it possible then that the fabric of space time has holes in it?
There is (was) 2 extremely deep ultra-voids, due to our orientation in the universe, we can only see the masking effect of one of them. In my opinion, what we should be looking for is spectral aliasing within the CMB
Why is the CMB in the shape of an egg?
The question mainstream scientists hate: What caused it?
i farted
What’s up with this Patreon thing? Everybody is pushing that service. I know what it is but I just don’t get why I should have it.