Me too!!! 😂 I already subscribe to various science channels including those hosted by astrophysicists and astronomers. I know if there were any amazing revelations to tell, they'd be on it and providing reliable information with explanations of likely possible explanations. I'd rather wait to hear from them than some random youtuber making wild, highly improbable claims.
Dear Arvin, I can’t thank you enough for what you do for us here on RUclips, you literally are my go to source for accurate, informative and unbiased information. I’m blocking click bait every day and d I often think of quitting RUclips, however, content such as yours keeps me going. Along with Marcus, Tim, Sabine and The RI, your channel is perfect.
This is the first time an ad actually convinces me to get something. Like in general I avoid whatever product the ad is about out of spite but as a Uni student in an engineering field this is hella useful
It's relatively easy to distinguish Hubble-images form JWST's: Hubble creates 4-spike-"crosses" around the stars, JWST has 6 spikes. (This has to do with the geometry of the bearings of the secondary mirrors.)
That's only when the star is too close (or bright) to cause the "diffraction spikes" for the high sensitivity of JWST (and HST). It's not a true characteristics of the source and is of no astrophysical significance. The spikes artifacts should be removed during image processing, before any physics begins with the data.
Untrue. 4 or 6 spikes actually IS a true characteristic of Hubble or JWST, respectively. There my be images, where none are visible, correct, but these are typically not the ›pretty pictures‹ making it into the general public.
@@matthiaswolf4472 Hey dude, do you know to read English? I'm saying "not a true characteristic of the SOURCE" and you're coming back with "characteristic of the TELESCOPE". So, no contradiction. Yes, they're due to telescope(s), hence the artifacts have to be removed before studying the source (object) mapped. So, why the hell you start with, "Untrue" in your comment? Learn what a diffraction spike is before replying to me again. Have you done any diffraction experiment with a diffraction grating in your physics lab? Thank you.
@@ytrrs Hey dude, you're right, I misread that. Anyhow do you yourself?! I wrote ›it's easy to distinguish the images of the telescopes‹ - who would assume, anyone's talking of the source?!
Whenever we see things we hadn't seen previously, we learn that previous expectations need to be updated and corrected. That's how learning works and it's entirely positive. Reading sensationalist headlines about new findings makes it seem like new data is a problem and many in the public believe this discredits science. Let's stop looking for new things and learning!?
Is it not the “magnitude of the deviation from the status quo” that establishes how a critical thinker will reflect upon whether the “orthodoxy” reflects poorly on “science” or if it is just a minor adjustment that is part of “THE PROCESS”‽
@@iridium8341 Explain, as I have not seen a reason that the “quality” of engineers has improved. Some of the best engineers that I have known are not around anymore. I have no opinion about physicists, but there definitely is a substantial increase in papers associated with China.
Exactly! Sensationalist headlines unfortunately lead to people invoking conspiracy theories, or mythology to explain things. Worst yet, it leads some to deny all science, which I find mind boggling. Finding unexpected results leads to deeper understanding - THAT's how science works!
Can the we survive only on Beer without water ? We will then have breweries making water from beer. And there will be water pubs 😀Species will have 80% beer their body. Imagine species getting high drinking water 😀
As for the quote early galaxies, I don’t recall you really describing the theory that the bigger larger earliest stars would’ve just simply been brighter than the stars we have today. There for what you’re looking at is not even really a galaxy, you’re just basing it off of luminosity registration that would require a galaxy today with its billions of smaller stars as opposed to just a few giant early stars. This theory fits both what the JW is seeing and with the model of the universe as we currently know it.
@@ArvinAsh it’s a lot fewer than a current galaxy, but they’re large enough to have more light emanating from them, which throws off luminosity readings, making them appear to be galaxies when they’re just a cluster of stars and not a well formed galaxy.
"We are still very much in the dark about what dark matter really is." I see what you did there. LOL! Dark matter was far more dense in the early universe. Perhaps there is an effect of dense dark matter, due to a far higher density, that we don't see today (due to phase transition down from the very early state of the universe, that's not currently accounted for? And there is the consideration of primordial black holes.
THANK YOU! I trust you to bring us timely and meaningful discoveries and understanding of topics like this. You are a treasure on RUclips. No hyperbole, no BS. Again, thank you.
The most amazing thing to me about the James Webber telescope is that it was named after someone I had never heard before, despite of me being something of an amateur.
Tô say we don't understand dark matter correctly is the biggest slap in the face of people with the minimum of an intellect . The scientists don't even know what is the dark matter, how could they say they maybe don't understand it correctly? And just saying that the people and sites claiming that based on the new discoveries maybe the BB never existed or that are other hypotheses is "simply wrong" is not and argument. Why only the scientists and people you like can have valid opinions on this matter?
I would love to see an animation of how the JWST manoeuvres itself and focuses on an object including a description of energy consumption and time it takes to change from one to another. Basic stuff to others but I have no clue!
How are they able to know the time difference between the different images in the gravitational lensing? I'm sure the one with the visible supernova is mostly straightforward, but I have no idea of the technique used for gauging cosmic time.
I think we're really fundamentally wrong somewhere down the line. It's all looks too precise, stable and chaotic at the same time, and seams very same to the , so call, early universe. Something is really missing.
Hi Arvin, at 5:35 you show Eric Lerners book from 1986. I've been following the LPPs fusion saga for many years now so they have my respect. I'm not qualified nor have the time to go into the physics as a simple mechanical engineer, but Eric makes some points that seem solid for an outsider. If you have a drought in ideas for new videos, maybe it would be interesting for you, and informative for the audience to put Erics claims up to the test? Eric dont seem like the click-baity type so I have a hard time dismissing his (and many others) claims. Thank you for top quality content sir! Cheers from Sweden
Wish there was a global filter in RUclips that could allow us to remove vids with title words "terrifying" "crazy" "oh no!" "unbelievable" "shocking" etc
Brilliant video. Thank you so much ☺️. I’ve been bombarded with useless videos about JWT ‘discoveries’ that were endless swirly pictures and mindless ‘speech’.
I'm always hype when Arvin Ash releases a video. I have gained so much from this channels dissections of cosomology, quantum mechanics, and physics in general.
Michio Kaku also spreaded such things like, JW proves us wrong! Or at least many YT channels used his quotes/ him in such way. Sad but don’t know why Kaku always leads such things...
PLEASE do a video on Quantized Inertia. It shows that Dark Matter is no needed to model galaxy rotation by elegantly merging Unruh Radiation and Rindler Horizons (like the CasimirForce).
My understanding of the dimethyl sulfide "detection" from the exoplanet (K2-18b) is that it is currently only one possible interpretation of the data. Moreover, even if the DMS interpretation is correct, that still leaves the possibility that there are abiogenic processes we just don't know about yet that could produce DMS.
I'm a bit confused: the JWST is an infrared telescope, rather than a visible light telescope, but near the end of the video you are discussing the spectroscopic analysis of light and how it helps determine the atmosphere of planets. How can you do that if the JWST is only used for the infrared spectrum? Does it have some degree of visible light detection?
I should have made this more clear in the video. It's because the JWST has four different instruments that are utilized for different purposes. Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI), Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam), Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec), and Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph/Fine Guidance Sensor (NIRISS/FGS)
@@ximalas That's a good point. I just find it mind-boggling that they can separate out the spectrographic information from atmospheres of exoplanets from all the other infrared information coming in from stars and galaxies from so far away. The atmosphere must be such a tiny sliver of all the radiation that is taken in from objects that are almost point sources at that distance. The resolution and the data processing must be immense to do all this. But maybe I'm so mind-boggled because I'm such a dope about all this, so everything seems immense.
Can you do a video (or someone explain in the comments) on the accelerated expansion of the universe. Why do we need to add dark energy and an accelerating expansion to rationalize that further away galaxies are redshifted? I understand the explanation that light gets redshifted because of the expansion over time, but why can’t that same light just be redshifted because those galaxies were moving away very fast closer to the Big Bang? And closer galaxies are less redshifted because they have slowed down over time.
Dark Energy is not needed to explain the expansion of the universe, but is needed to explain the observed ACCELERATING expansion of the universe. The acceleration, predumably requires some kind of energy to power it.
@@ArvinAsh yeah I get that but what exactly is the evidence that it is accelerating. I always just hear people talk about the redshift of far away galaxies. But to me it would make sense that further away galaxies are going to be more redshifted because we are looking at them further back in time before they had time to slow down. this almost seems like evidence the expansion is slowing down if closer galaxies are less redshifted. Is the evidence just that the redshift is to much to just be caused by galaxies moving away very fast at the beginning of the universe?
@@ABetterName22 Distant objects are further away than expected, and we now think the expansion rate started to increase again about 5 billion years ago. The first observations of dimmer than expected (and so further than expected) supernovae at redshift between 0.4 and 1.0 (about 4 to 8 billion ly away) earned a Nobel prize and the 'discovery' of dark energy.
7:34 “Nothing is physics-shattering”! So you wouldn’t consider invoking something like “Super-dimensional Branes or Membranes” as you once mentioned in a video‽ That would be physics-shattering and possibly explain a number of things. But “Occam's razor” and all would put it low on the list of explanations. Fun to contemplate about how such large black holes exist at near the “beginning”.
Fair enough. Concepts like multiverses and branes are speculative, and at no point have I used that as a legit explanation for anything, but only as an intriguing idea. But there are those using data from the JWST to invoke "physics-shattering" concepts, which is quite laughable to me.
Thank Professor Ash, for your commitment about science and to clarifiy about the infamous “..we need to rethink all we know about the universe…” ..( and get more funds for the Job…
Gravitational lensing makes me think that if we can get a mirror sufficiently far away to reflect our own galaxy back at us, we should be able to view our past. Is there a way to view the future?
JWST isn't just "infra red", it's also spectroscopic. It uses spectroscopy to capture the information, which is exponentially more data per pixel than any other scope we have. It makes Hubble archaic. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
I believe it carries such a camera, but it is pointed to itself for diagnostic purposes. I'm not sure NASA has turned it around to look away. I could be wrong though.
WOW, Yes, I would deffinastely need to have the informatioin visibly in front of me or forget it. But to have ear phones would really help as well, because of my poor / bad hearing.
Thanks Arvin. I know I can click on your channel and get JWST truth and not clickbait. Question: Earth more or less was born at the same time as the Milky Way. To observe the universe, Would it be better to have evolved now when the galaxy is mature or when we were still a baby galaxy? Thanks!🙏
Interesting question! It depends on what you mean by "better." We are here, so for us, life like ours likely had a better chance to evolve during the time that it did. Our galaxy is almost as old as the universe. Much earlier in its life, Stars were much bigger and hotter in the past with much lower metal content. They would have burned up pretty quickly and now allowed enough time for life to evolve. And the availability of all the various elements needed for life were not present.
I often wonder, if space-time is the substrate that all matter is contrived upon, what stops the expansion of space-time from causing expansion locally? Could this even be falsifiable since we exist within the system?
Gravitational attraction within our solar system, galaxy, and even nearby galaxies is orders of magnitude stronger than expansion due to dark energy. Dark energy's effects are only observable on hundreds of millions and billions-light year scales.
How good it is to see and hear these scientific programs / videos, even some where the best people in science speak. Some of them also do this in other programs in the media, and most of all they talk about the new instruments they want. In CERN, they are talking about a new and even bigger accelerator than the LHC, which will surpass and replace the LHC, so that the curiosity of science can be satisfied even more, and the same applies to the astronomers who would like to have the next big project after JWT, which can look even further back into space and creation. There are many other areas than these 2 mentioned here, where the same wishes and demands for new things are present, and each time for many many many billions. in expenses. - Good thing all these scientists in all possible fields don't waste their time thinking about the state of our planet, and which they don't need to think about in everyday life or use to politically hold our politicians to account for, but are content to hunt and satisfy their own little branch of life, - a life on the planet is obviously not important to keep when you can get new and exciting toys far out in space, or 2 kilometers underground. - To bad with the survival of our own planet and man, it is obviously so insignificant!
Thank you Arvin, well made explanation. About the early galaxy developement, couldn´t invlation be the problem? It´s in the graphics, you´ve shown, and in all other graphics of the universe too, a paradigm in cosmology, though it never was proven. What if it never happened? could it explain, tha the early galaxies were bigger/brighter than predicted?
Population III Stars almost *need* to exist. We know big bang nucleosynthesis didn't make enough heavy elements for the kinds of stars we see today to form, and the lack of heavy elements in the early universe would have made the clouds of gas cool slower and promoted the formation of larger stars.
Nice break down Ash. I’m still unconvinced about dark energy and dark matter. It would be nice if you could make simple video explaining this theory. It always feels like it’s just something astrophysics need to explain things with a bow on top to me. I see so many people trying there best to say it’s a thing.👍
Dark matter is the observation that there is more gravity in and around galaxies that we can account for from known sources such as stars and gas. Dark energy is the observation that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating as it increases in volume.
@@tonywells6990 In the Dark matter observation I wonder if something is missed in the weight of neutron stars that are falling into quasars. They are everywhere. In the Dark energy no so much observation there as I understand it, things that pop into and out of existence we will never see that may transfer energy into a galaxy and the universe. I mean no harm in my proposal it is as frustrating for me as it is for scientists who want this to be a solution.
@@brown2889 They have pretty much found all, or nearly all, of the missing normal matter, which was in the form of hydrogen (as well as helium) gas between galaxies, which makes up about 50% of the total.
@@tonywells6990 I’m sorry Tony. I just can’t believe that. I also have a feeling that when a bigger telescope is built like JWST we are going to find more galaxies fully formed further out. Not necessarily saying BB didn’t happen but that everything out there, the horizon is bigger than we currently know.
we've just had some insights as to why this is so. its a problem with chemistry then right? the early universe was far more reactive bc of the low number of different elements. i think.
For every great science RUclips channel (like this one) there are hundreds of those click bait AI generated garbage piles you need to sift through. Thanks for the great content!
@@ArvinAsh Well, assuming that it is known that a MAGA liar lies in politics, I borrowed the term to mean who does the same in science YT channels. Never mind. "MAGAs-in-Science" may be a better term.
If there’s 3 different time pictures of the same galaxy would and space and time are continuous could you see more than 3 time stamps by changing which wavelengths of light you’re looking at?
Why is there never gravitational lensing through just dark matter itself ? There's always a galaxy to create the effect. If there is so much more of this dark matter im assuming there would be enough of it to do this by itself.
Why do physicists not talk about the effects of time dilation experienced inside the initial 10^43 seconds of the big bang until the emergence of gravity? we're comparing those to Earth years and seconds. I just know that whatever amount of gravity you are under, the faster time ticks relative to space experiencing less curvature. Since the singularity of the big bang has to be the densest point in the history of the universe, isn't time going to be vastly longer and dilated; if there are ever any points with less curvature? (for relativistic effects) Take Interstellar for example. Planets orbiting Gargantua dilated time heavily compared to Earth. If the initial universe was the greatest singularity ever, doesn't that mean the singularity experienced significantly more time than the more diffuse and 'empty' regions towards its outer radius? E.g. If we could send Cooper to the Big Bang (impossibilities aside for a moment) How long will he have aged until today? 13.8 billion years? Or longer?
Great question! And there is a good answer. Sure, there was gravitational time dilation, but remember that this is due to relativity. So any dilation only has meaning when comparing clocks. The Big Bang happened everywhere so there were no other clocks to compare it to. The "proper" time then was the same in the portion of the universe where earth and the sun eventually formed. Within the frame of reference of the universe at 10^-43s, a picosecond was a picosecond everywhere.
The tiny red dots, peka boo blue ,green young metaless galaxies mixed in that didn't collapse nebula while neighbors did is even harder. As if multi verse galaxies no universe. This type horizon paradoxes to scale is mirrored in all feilds of study grand unified evolutionary theory is part of
i dont understand this theory of universe consisting of small gas clouds which come together to form bigger and bigger galaxies.. if the universe was small and dense , isnt it the other way around?
The issue is not about tweaking models. There is no way to reconcile huge galaxy cluster evolution at 300 million years in those models. The universe is either much older or the models need to be trashed. Of course, the possibility that red shifting is caused by something else remains ignored, like those photons interact with trillion of other photons before getting to us, so what does that do to the result? Yeah, who cares.
It may have already happened with the example I pointed out in the video. But, I think given the JWST's reach in terms of the number of planets it can analyze, it seems inevitable to me that it will analyze a planet that will have more than just one marker for life. If there are multiple markers, then chances would be very high that it does have life. We probably will not be able to say with 100% certainty, but I believe it will find compelling evidence.
Technically JWST is not Hubble's successor. It's a different type of telescope so they compliment each other. They do have Hubble's successor "planned". It's going to have a significantly wider field of view and I think the same resolution. I believe it's called the Habital Worlds Observatory and projected to launch on 2041.
@12:09 I get why they are used but these stock chemist clips are so contrived it’s both funny and sad. Funny that this is the stereotypical bubbling brew that a chemist works on and sad that it has nothing in common with the tools that chemists use today.
I've blocked over 20 channels that keep appearing with bs "JAMES WEBB SEES SOMETHING TERRIFYING!" video titles and yet they keep appearing.
"Scientists TERRIFIED!" Can't forget those.
Misinformation always seems to drown out legit stuff.
That is sadly becoming the trend online. @@uriituw
RUclips could easily create an API allowing distribution of mass block lists but won’t because $.
Me too!!! 😂
I already subscribe to various science channels including those hosted by astrophysicists and astronomers. I know if there were any amazing revelations to tell, they'd be on it and providing reliable information with explanations of likely possible explanations. I'd rather wait to hear from them than some random youtuber making wild, highly improbable claims.
Dear Arvin, I can’t thank you enough for what you do for us here on RUclips, you literally are my go to source for accurate, informative and unbiased information. I’m blocking click bait every day and d I often think of quitting RUclips, however, content such as yours keeps me going. Along with Marcus, Tim, Sabine and The RI, your channel is perfect.
Can't thank you enough. Thanks for watching. It's comments like yours that also keeps me from quitting!
Marcus and Tim channel link
Thanks for producing this regardless of your cold, get well soon, Arvin!
Thank you for noticing. I had Covid! It was not pleasant!
"TERRIFYING" and "SHOCKING" or "SHOCKS" are the most used and abused clickbait words on RUclips and more and more people are FED UP with that!
I delete the channel that use those words.
But many more are attracted to these headlines. It's human nature.
This is the first time an ad actually convinces me to get something. Like in general I avoid whatever product the ad is about out of spite but as a Uni student in an engineering field this is hella useful
It's relatively easy to distinguish Hubble-images form JWST's: Hubble creates 4-spike-"crosses" around the stars, JWST has 6 spikes. (This has to do with the geometry of the bearings of the secondary mirrors.)
Interesting info. I did not know that! thank you.
That's only when the star is too close (or bright) to cause the "diffraction spikes" for the high sensitivity of JWST (and HST). It's not a true characteristics of the source and is of no astrophysical significance. The spikes artifacts should be removed during image processing, before any physics begins with the data.
Untrue. 4 or 6 spikes actually IS a true characteristic of Hubble or JWST, respectively. There my be images, where none are visible, correct, but these are typically not the ›pretty pictures‹ making it into the general public.
@@matthiaswolf4472 Hey dude, do you know to read English? I'm saying "not a true characteristic of the SOURCE" and you're coming back with "characteristic of the TELESCOPE". So, no contradiction. Yes, they're due to telescope(s), hence the artifacts have to be removed before studying the source (object) mapped. So, why the hell you start with, "Untrue" in your comment?
Learn what a diffraction spike is before replying to me again. Have you done any diffraction experiment with a diffraction grating in your physics lab? Thank you.
@@ytrrs Hey dude, you're right, I misread that. Anyhow do you yourself?! I wrote ›it's easy to distinguish the images of the telescopes‹ - who would assume, anyone's talking of the source?!
Amidst a cluster of screaming videos about JWST images, yours is a sane and trustworthy voice. Many thanks.
Whenever we see things we hadn't seen previously, we learn that previous expectations need to be updated and corrected. That's how learning works and it's entirely positive. Reading sensationalist headlines about new findings makes it seem like new data is a problem and many in the public believe this discredits science. Let's stop looking for new things and learning!?
Is it not the “magnitude of the deviation from the status quo” that establishes how a critical thinker will reflect upon whether the “orthodoxy” reflects poorly on “science” or if it is just a minor adjustment that is part of “THE PROCESS”‽
@@iridium8341
Explain, as I have not seen a reason that the “quality” of engineers has improved. Some of the best engineers that I have known are not around anymore. I have no opinion about physicists, but there definitely is a substantial increase in papers associated with China.
Exactly! Sensationalist headlines unfortunately lead to people invoking conspiracy theories, or mythology to explain things. Worst yet, it leads some to deny all science, which I find mind boggling. Finding unexpected results leads to deeper understanding - THAT's how science works!
@@ArvinAsh
The problem is, people don't know how science works. They believe it's people reading old books and repeating what's in them 🤦♂
DMS is also a by-product of the beer brewing process…, so perhaps we’ve discovered a habitable planet with an ocean of beer!🍺
Haha, if so, we need to send probes with empty kegs attached immediately!
Amen!
Can the we survive only on Beer without water ?
We will then have breweries making water from beer. And there will be water pubs 😀Species will have 80% beer their body. Imagine species getting high drinking water 😀
"Stellar" Artois anyone?
Send the dads!
I’m glad there are actually people researching this.
@@iridium8341 How would you know that?
And what difference is it making?
@@uriituw this is just surface level knowledge of the JWST
There are aliens researching you, right now!!!👾👽🤖
As for the quote early galaxies, I don’t recall you really describing the theory that the bigger larger earliest stars would’ve just simply been brighter than the stars we have today. There for what you’re looking at is not even really a galaxy, you’re just basing it off of luminosity registration that would require a galaxy today with its billions of smaller stars as opposed to just a few giant early stars. This theory fits both what the JW is seeing and with the model of the universe as we currently know it.
The size of the structures observed are too large to be just a few stars.
@@ArvinAsh it’s a lot fewer than a current galaxy, but they’re large enough to have more light emanating from them, which throws off luminosity readings, making them appear to be galaxies when they’re just a cluster of stars and not a well formed galaxy.
"We are still very much in the dark about what dark matter really is."
I see what you did there. LOL!
Dark matter was far more dense in the early universe. Perhaps there is an effect of dense dark matter, due to a far higher density, that we don't see today (due to phase transition down from the very early state of the universe, that's not currently accounted for?
And there is the consideration of primordial black holes.
Thank you for covering this topic -- much appreciate your knowledge & insights.
Nobody would ever lie for clicks on the Internet.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This comment will explode
Bro tell me this is a joke..
No this is absolutly true, never has anyone lied to get clicks.
@@markerguy "This is a joke." :D
THANK YOU! I trust you to bring us timely and meaningful discoveries and understanding of topics like this.
You are a treasure on RUclips.
No hyperbole, no BS.
Again, thank you.
Thanks again Arvin, for another great video. Easy to follow & understand, plus first-rate Graphics. Please keep making more of them!
i didnt know you were sick get well soon mr ash
Thanks for noticing, and your well wishes. I had Covid when I recorded this!
Great material great presentation, Arvin, thank you. Absolutely engaging.
You know today's gonna be a good day when Arvin releases a video
The most amazing thing to me about the James Webber telescope is that it was named after someone I had never heard before, despite of me being something of an amateur.
Tô say we don't understand dark matter correctly is the biggest slap in the face of people with the minimum of an intellect .
The scientists don't even know what is the dark matter, how could they say they maybe don't understand it correctly?
And just saying that the people and sites claiming that based on the new discoveries maybe the BB never existed or that are other hypotheses is "simply wrong" is not and argument.
Why only the scientists and people you like can have valid opinions on this matter?
I would love to see an animation of how the JWST manoeuvres itself and focuses on an object including a description of energy consumption and time it takes to change from one to another. Basic stuff to others but I have no clue!
Good idea!
How are they able to know the time difference between the different images in the gravitational lensing? I'm sure the one with the visible supernova is mostly straightforward, but I have no idea of the technique used for gauging cosmic time.
Check out the cosmic distance ladder (and remember distance == time at lightyear scale)
Thanks for the refresher! Clear and concise❤
Love your videos, thank you Arvin!
My pleasure. Thank you.
I think we're really fundamentally wrong somewhere down the line. It's all looks too precise, stable and chaotic at the same time, and seams very same to the , so call, early universe. Something is really missing.
Sure something is missing. But I don't think it is fundamental or dramatic.
Hi Arvin, at 5:35 you show Eric Lerners book from 1986. I've been following the LPPs fusion saga for many years now so they have my respect.
I'm not qualified nor have the time to go into the physics as a simple mechanical engineer, but Eric makes some points that seem solid for an outsider.
If you have a drought in ideas for new videos, maybe it would be interesting for you, and informative for the audience to put Erics claims up to the test? Eric dont seem like the click-baity type so I have a hard time dismissing his (and many others) claims.
Thank you for top quality content sir!
Cheers from Sweden
Wish there was a global filter in RUclips that could allow us to remove vids with title words "terrifying" "crazy" "oh no!" "unbelievable" "shocking" etc
There is, its called your brain
At last..I found a no nonsense James Webb Channel
Brilliant video. Thank you so much ☺️. I’ve been bombarded with useless videos about JWT ‘discoveries’ that were endless swirly pictures and mindless ‘speech’.
very cool sponsor!
Very nice as always 😊...
Nice video!
The straight goods from Arvin. As always. I'm pretty tired of the BS headlines I've seen. Thank you Mr. Ash!
I'm always hype when Arvin Ash releases a video. I have gained so much from this channels dissections of cosomology, quantum mechanics, and physics in general.
Much awaited content!
Always waiting for Arvin's video for a reason. Thank you Mr. Ash. But I want a video on "The Theory of Raikons". When it is coming?
Hardly surprising that Creationist-in-Chief Ken Ham would jump on the BS bandwagon.
Michio Kaku also spreaded such things like, JW proves us wrong! Or at least many YT channels used his quotes/ him in such way. Sad but don’t know why Kaku always leads such things...
Yeah, Kaku unfortunately says a lot of crazy stuff, not always accurately.
PLEASE do a video on Quantized Inertia. It shows that Dark Matter is no needed to model galaxy rotation by elegantly merging Unruh Radiation and Rindler Horizons (like the CasimirForce).
My understanding of the dimethyl sulfide "detection" from the exoplanet (K2-18b) is that it is currently only one possible interpretation of the data. Moreover, even if the DMS interpretation is correct, that still leaves the possibility that there are abiogenic processes we just don't know about yet that could produce DMS.
3:28
Shouldn’t the universe be a sphere and not a funnel?
that's the visualization of timeline, not that of actual universe
Super interesting, and so well explained. Thank you!
13:05 So its possible aliens can see what we're doing to our atmosphere? I got a bit ashamed.... 😄
Excellent. No hyperbole. Love it. JWST as successor to Hubble, yes. Also compliment. Hubble can see things JWST can't. Thus, Hubble remains relevant.
I'm a bit confused: the JWST is an infrared telescope, rather than a visible light telescope, but near the end of the video you are discussing the spectroscopic analysis of light and how it helps determine the atmosphere of planets. How can you do that if the JWST is only used for the infrared spectrum? Does it have some degree of visible light detection?
I should have made this more clear in the video. It's because the JWST has four different instruments that are utilized for different purposes. Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI), Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam), Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec), and Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph/Fine Guidance Sensor (NIRISS/FGS)
Don't forget what was once visible light has been redshifted to the infrared, exactly what JWST is designed to capture.
@@ArvinAsh Right, that makes sense - thanks for your reply, Arvin - love your work!
@@ximalas That's a good point. I just find it mind-boggling that they can separate out the spectrographic information from atmospheres of exoplanets from all the other infrared information coming in from stars and galaxies from so far away. The atmosphere must be such a tiny sliver of all the radiation that is taken in from objects that are almost point sources at that distance. The resolution and the data processing must be immense to do all this. But maybe I'm so mind-boggled because I'm such a dope about all this, so everything seems immense.
The Earth and everything on it, and everybody on it, Is made of Stardust, Thanks Mr Ash. 📡🇮🇹 🇺🇸
Can you do a video (or someone explain in the comments) on the accelerated expansion of the universe. Why do we need to add dark energy and an accelerating expansion to rationalize that further away galaxies are redshifted? I understand the explanation that light gets redshifted because of the expansion over time, but why can’t that same light just be redshifted because those galaxies were moving away very fast closer to the Big Bang? And closer galaxies are less redshifted because they have slowed down over time.
Dark Energy is not needed to explain the expansion of the universe, but is needed to explain the observed ACCELERATING expansion of the universe. The acceleration, predumably requires some kind of energy to power it.
@@ArvinAsh yeah I get that but what exactly is the evidence that it is accelerating. I always just hear people talk about the redshift of far away galaxies. But to me it would make sense that further away galaxies are going to be more redshifted because we are looking at them further back in time before they had time to slow down. this almost seems like evidence the expansion is slowing down if closer galaxies are less redshifted. Is the evidence just that the redshift is to much to just be caused by galaxies moving away very fast at the beginning of the universe?
@@ABetterName22 Distant objects are further away than expected, and we now think the expansion rate started to increase again about 5 billion years ago. The first observations of dimmer than expected (and so further than expected) supernovae at redshift between 0.4 and 1.0 (about 4 to 8 billion ly away) earned a Nobel prize and the 'discovery' of dark energy.
@@tonywells6990 ok cool that makes sense thanks
Look into the timescape model of expansion, it's a lot more intuitive than dark energy!
7:34 “Nothing is physics-shattering”! So you wouldn’t consider invoking something like “Super-dimensional Branes or Membranes” as you once mentioned in a video‽ That would be physics-shattering and possibly explain a number of things. But “Occam's razor” and all would put it low on the list of explanations. Fun to contemplate about how such large black holes exist at near the “beginning”.
Fair enough. Concepts like multiverses and branes are speculative, and at no point have I used that as a legit explanation for anything, but only as an intriguing idea. But there are those using data from the JWST to invoke "physics-shattering" concepts, which is quite laughable to me.
Video lived up to its title. Intriguing analysis of JWST discoveries minus any exaggeration
Very nice summarization of discoveries made with JWST. Thank you for this video.
Thank Professor Ash, for your commitment about science and to clarifiy about the infamous “..we need to rethink all we know about the universe…” ..( and get more funds for the Job…
Gravitational lensing makes me think that if we can get a mirror sufficiently far away to reflect our own galaxy back at us, we should be able to view our past. Is there a way to view the future?
JWST isn't just "infra red", it's also spectroscopic. It uses spectroscopy to capture the information, which is exponentially more data per pixel than any other scope we have. It makes Hubble archaic. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
Click bait is so widespread that now is the default expected... Every time I see something like that I already know is being exaggerated...
Hi, I tried seeing any camera view of the JWST, why we are unable to view as like ISS or spacex camera view! does normal camera works there?
I believe it carries such a camera, but it is pointed to itself for diagnostic purposes. I'm not sure NASA has turned it around to look away. I could be wrong though.
Professor Dave Explains is the BEST at saying what needs to be said, in the manner it SHOULD be said, against antiscience BS and misinformation.
Almost 1M subs!!!!!!!!!
Love this channel. Just one request - please remove the background music while you are talking/explaining.
WOW, Yes, I would deffinastely need to have the informatioin visibly in front of me or forget it. But to have ear phones would really help as well, because of my poor / bad hearing.
Bloody brilliant, love it, hooray AA!
Such a good video. I learned a lot in this one
Glad to hear it! Thanks for watching my friend.
ur officially my fav channel right after pbs
My friend. Is a thoughtful fairwell.😊😊😊
Thanks Arvin. I know I can click on your channel and get JWST truth and not clickbait. Question: Earth more or less was born at the same time as the Milky Way. To observe the universe, Would it be better to have evolved now when the galaxy is mature or when we were still a baby galaxy? Thanks!🙏
Interesting question! It depends on what you mean by "better." We are here, so for us, life like ours likely had a better chance to evolve during the time that it did. Our galaxy is almost as old as the universe. Much earlier in its life, Stars were much bigger and hotter in the past with much lower metal content. They would have burned up pretty quickly and now allowed enough time for life to evolve. And the availability of all the various elements needed for life were not present.
I often wonder, if space-time is the substrate that all matter is contrived upon, what stops the expansion of space-time from causing expansion locally?
Could this even be falsifiable since we exist within the system?
Gravitational attraction within our solar system, galaxy, and even nearby galaxies is orders of magnitude stronger than expansion due to dark energy. Dark energy's effects are only observable on hundreds of millions and billions-light year scales.
@@ArvinAsh Thank you, Arvin! That is the clearest explanation I've ever received for this question.
How good it is to see and hear these scientific programs / videos, even some where the best people in science speak. Some of them also do this in other programs in the media, and most of all they talk about the new instruments they want.
In CERN, they are talking about a new and even bigger accelerator than the LHC, which will surpass and replace the LHC, so that the curiosity of science can be satisfied even more, and the same applies to the astronomers who would like to have the next big project after JWT, which can look even further back into space and creation.
There are many other areas than these 2 mentioned here, where the same wishes and demands for new things are present, and each time for many many many billions. in expenses.
- Good thing all these scientists in all possible fields don't waste their time thinking about the state of our planet, and which they don't need to think about in everyday life or use to politically hold our politicians to account for, but are content to hunt and satisfy their own little branch of life, - a life on the planet is obviously not important to keep when you can get new and exciting toys far out in space, or 2 kilometers underground.
- To bad with the survival of our own planet and man, it is obviously so insignificant!
"that's coming up, right now"... I always await this with excitement 🙂 Arvin is just awesome 😎
Thanks Arvin!
Fascinating stuff.
Thank you Arvin, well made explanation. About the early galaxy developement, couldn´t invlation be the problem? It´s in the graphics, you´ve shown, and in all other graphics of the universe too, a paradigm in cosmology, though it never was proven. What if it never happened? could it explain, tha the early galaxies were bigger/brighter than predicted?
could black holes and formation of supermassive black holes have happened in early universe, maybe earlier than stars?
Tell me why galaxies wiggle at first, into an "S" form, then continue spinning? Why? WHY? Can't get this question answered.
Population III Stars almost *need* to exist. We know big bang nucleosynthesis didn't make enough heavy elements for the kinds of stars we see today to form, and the lack of heavy elements in the early universe would have made the clouds of gas cool slower and promoted the formation of larger stars.
Nice break down Ash.
I’m still unconvinced about dark energy and dark matter. It would be nice if you could make simple video explaining this theory. It always feels like it’s just something astrophysics need to explain things with a bow on top to me. I see so many people trying there best to say it’s a thing.👍
Dark matter is the observation that there is more gravity in and around galaxies that we can account for from known sources such as stars and gas. Dark energy is the observation that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating as it increases in volume.
@@tonywells6990 In the Dark matter observation I wonder if something is missed in the weight of neutron stars that are falling into quasars. They are everywhere. In the Dark energy no so much observation there as I understand it, things that pop into and out of existence we will never see that may transfer energy into a galaxy and the universe. I mean no harm in my proposal it is as frustrating for me as it is for scientists who want this to be a solution.
@@brown2889 They have pretty much found all, or nearly all, of the missing normal matter, which was in the form of hydrogen (as well as helium) gas between galaxies, which makes up about 50% of the total.
@@tonywells6990 I’m sorry Tony. I just can’t believe that. I also have a feeling that when a bigger telescope is built like JWST we are going to find more galaxies fully formed further out. Not necessarily saying BB didn’t happen but that everything out there, the horizon is bigger than we currently know.
@@brown2889 Not sure what you mean. Those young galaxies are very small compared to older galaxies, as expected.
we've just had some insights as to why this is so. its a problem with chemistry then right? the early universe was far more reactive bc of the low number of different elements. i think.
For every great science RUclips channel (like this one) there are hundreds of those click bait AI generated garbage piles you need to sift through. Thanks for the great content!
özledik arvin
5:40 - Arvin, you put a big red X mark on that title! Thank you. But I hope you don't get sued by the "scientific" MAGA counterpart!
I don't think I have seen the words "scientific" and "MAGA" in the same sentence before. So I have no idea what that term means!
@@ArvinAsh Well, assuming that it is known that a MAGA liar lies in politics, I borrowed the term to mean who does the same in science YT channels. Never mind. "MAGAs-in-Science" may be a better term.
If there’s 3 different time pictures of the same galaxy would and space and time are continuous could you see more than 3 time stamps by changing which wavelengths of light you’re looking at?
Thanks
could there have been larger supermassive black holes that formed larger galaxies in earlier universe?
Why is there never gravitational lensing through just dark matter itself ? There's always a galaxy to create the effect. If there is so much more of this dark matter im assuming there would be enough of it to do this by itself.
Yes! An expert's view. 😁
Why do physicists not talk about the effects of time dilation experienced inside the initial 10^43 seconds of the big bang until the emergence of gravity? we're comparing those to Earth years and seconds.
I just know that whatever amount of gravity you are under, the faster time ticks relative to space experiencing less curvature. Since the singularity of the big bang has to be the densest point in the history of the universe, isn't time going to be vastly longer and dilated; if there are ever any points with less curvature? (for relativistic effects)
Take Interstellar for example. Planets orbiting Gargantua dilated time heavily compared to Earth. If the initial universe was the greatest singularity ever, doesn't that mean the singularity experienced significantly more time than the more diffuse and 'empty' regions towards its outer radius? E.g. If we could send Cooper to the Big Bang (impossibilities aside for a moment) How long will he have aged until today? 13.8 billion years? Or longer?
Great question! And there is a good answer. Sure, there was gravitational time dilation, but remember that this is due to relativity. So any dilation only has meaning when comparing clocks. The Big Bang happened everywhere so there were no other clocks to compare it to. The "proper" time then was the same in the portion of the universe where earth and the sun eventually formed. Within the frame of reference of the universe at 10^-43s, a picosecond was a picosecond everywhere.
@@ArvinAsh Thanks for that! My amateur grasp didn't have a way to rule this kind of effect out.
The tiny red dots, peka boo blue ,green young metaless galaxies mixed in that didn't collapse nebula while neighbors did is even harder.
As if multi verse galaxies no universe. This type horizon paradoxes to scale is mirrored in all feilds of study grand unified evolutionary theory is part of
i dont understand this theory of universe consisting of small gas clouds which come together to form bigger and bigger galaxies.. if the universe was small and dense , isnt it the other way around?
The universe is expanding whilst the matter in it gravitates together and forms larger and larger structures.
The issue is not about tweaking models. There is no way to reconcile huge galaxy cluster evolution at 300 million years in those models. The universe is either much older or the models need to be trashed. Of course, the possibility that red shifting is caused by something else remains ignored, like those photons interact with trillion of other photons before getting to us, so what does that do to the result? Yeah, who cares.
Planet Wild is awesome! I’m a monthly contributor.
thank you for sifting through the hyperbole!
❤Thank you very much publisher
Tell us more about your conviction that JWST will discover life.
It may have already happened with the example I pointed out in the video. But, I think given the JWST's reach in terms of the number of planets it can analyze, it seems inevitable to me that it will analyze a planet that will have more than just one marker for life. If there are multiple markers, then chances would be very high that it does have life. We probably will not be able to say with 100% certainty, but I believe it will find compelling evidence.
Great video! BBC worthy in my opinion (although not a fan of the generic video clips, if I’m honest;) Thanks.
Yer, but ... what about the age of the universe being expanded? That's a pretty big thing too.
0:38 Galaxy GLAS z12
Technically JWST is not Hubble's successor. It's a different type of telescope so they compliment each other. They do have Hubble's successor "planned". It's going to have a significantly wider field of view and I think the same resolution. I believe it's called the Habital Worlds Observatory and projected to launch on 2041.
This channel is a marvel.
Voice is different in this video!!
I had covid, so might sound congested.
@12:09 I get why they are used but these stock chemist clips are so contrived it’s both funny and sad. Funny that this is the stereotypical bubbling brew that a chemist works on and sad that it has nothing in common with the tools that chemists use today.
👍