If you’re struggling, consider therapy with BetterHelp #ad. Click betterhelp.com/drbecky for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a credentialed professional specific to your needs.
Quite a shame to see yet another shill for a terrible, shady harmful sponsor. Especially with how much I enjoyed the subject matter. It’s sad what a disappointment RUclips is nowadays. . .
I've always had a keen interest in astronomy, but I pursued computer science instead. I occasionally read the linked papers, but I don't have the education to fully understand them, so I love that there are astrophysicists like Dr. Becky who are able to explain these studies and discoveries in ways that layman me can understand. Good job, Dr. Becky! Your efforts to educate the rest of us are appreciated!
I remember the time when the error bars on both methods were still overlapping. Articles I red back then were mostly confident that this would work itself out. So much more fun this way.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 JWST is fixing something. It's fixing everybody's heads. Here's what I hear. Scientists: We measured something, and we modeled it, and the measurements don't agree with our model. The real-world measurements are more likely to be wrong than the abstract model made by humans. We just need to take them again for the millionth time and they'll agree with our model. JWST: *retakes measurements with insane precision* Nope. Your model is just wrong. Scientists: Bullocks. Other Scientists: Maybe what we thought was a big bang is really an illusion caused by a quasi-cyclic cosmol.... Scientists: Rabble, rabble, rabble! Scientists think because they have too many things built up around an idea that idea is more likely to be true. But having a patchwork of things propping up an idea is not necessarily a good thing. Scientists are failing to consider that some of the patches on the Standard Model are pretty weak. I mean come on. Dark Matter? Dark Energy? They're obviously making something up and placing it everywhere on a map that it needs to be to make up for something they don't know, and in the process, they are creating very unfair standards for much simpler and more logical ideas to gain acceptance. I mean, if I can just make up a word and say it describes 100% of what I don't know, nothing real can beat that. MoND could describe 99.9% of everything we see, and it would never be enough. Scientists need to take a punch like this every now and then to make sure they're doing actual science and not propping up old ideas with bandage after bandage to make it seem like something is "standing the test of time."
yeh, the hubble concept works better if you look at it from light slowing instead of big bang and ever expanding universe. slowing by 4.6mm/s/y works without darkk matter or 'space' expanding faster than light.
@JohnDoe-jh5yr na. As he said. Fractals of the unknown. Don't know who you are. Don't know what this is. Don't know where you come from. Don't know where you're going. And your knowledge is floating in the unknown, appears from nowhere to vanish again.😅❤
I feel like the most common phrase I have heard in space-related videos since the JSWT went live is "This should not exist in our model of the Universe". lol What an exciting time to be alive though, such fascinating discoveries and I'm sure we'll get more mind blowing findings as the research continues.
The reason for that is that mostly these discoveries of the JWST get reported on. If you look at _all_ observations the JWST has made, you'll see that most of these _did_ agree with expectations.
@Paulancar YES, THATS TRUTH!!!!!!!! (See, I can also write in caps and use many exclamation marks. :D ) The model did not fail completely, and I know that. "megastructures of 4 and 3 billion light years distanced 9 billion light year" WTF are you talking about?!? :D :D :D Apparently you misunderstood some news. Or you were lied to. "This is having a lot of pride, vanity and egotism." Indeed. The people who claim that a universe which is 13.8 billion years old and at least 93 billion light years in diameter was created only for humans, on a tiny little planet in a total backyeard of the cosmos, which have existed only for at most 300 000 years - these people have a lot of pride, vanity and egotism. And: THERE IS NO CREATOR OF ALL THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Uhhh, are you SURE about that? If so, show me the proof. Now, before you start typing back at me IN ALL CAPS, calm down a little bit. I'm not a creationist. But, you cannot tell me (or anyone) that science has PROVEN there was not a creator. Personally, I don't think there was a creator, but if you are going to adamantly claim there is NOT a creator, you (as the claimant) have to prove it. I'm pretty sure "THERE IS NO CREATOR OF ALL THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is such a claim. Now, prove it. Also, to be fair, for all of those out there claiming there IS a creator of all things, I say to them: prove it. So, looking at you @Paulancar... prove it.
@00:39 I'm so glad the went with 'The Big Ring' and not with the first suggestion, The Big Sphincter '. I'm so glad that someone at these conferences knows how to name things.
The Big Ring is the formation, and the Big Sphincter is whatever bastard put that thing there. just when we thought we had our theories just about sorted and there were just a few adjustments to make...
It's actually not that difficult: you take by how many sigma the results are not compatible before and after, and for each of them you take (1-) the single-sided cumulative probability function at that specific sigma level. You obtain two (very low) levels of probability for the two measurements to be compatible, then you take the ratio of that, and there's your number 😉
I knew a guy who was majoring in nuclear engineering, and minoring in astronomy. I asked him what he thought of the methods used in astronomy and he laughed. He said that nuclear engineering is extremely precise, and astronomy is founded on suppositions that are so tenuous that he could not understand how anyone could call it a science. Studying both caused him to see how the two fields deal with ideas of precision in vastly different ways.
the frequency i hear "much more/less than would be expected" on these videos only goes to show our best models still have so much growth and development to do. Very exciting stuff!
"Crisis in Cosmo" questions: Why is there a huge leap in value for the P13 measurement and after? It leaps entirely outside the confidence levels of all the previous background predictions. Doesn't that seem like a problem worth solving? There is a huge shift in estimated values just looking at the cosmic background measurements in that era. Statistically unlikely. ---Also, Why does option 2 only have a problem with its model? why not a problem with its measurements like option 1? Seems pretty hard to be able to measure Micro Kelvins that are 13.8 billions years old.
I love how you specify "from our perspective here on earth" Too many people think "close in the sky, close in the universe" Love your work. Keep it up. Wish we had some more blackhole news.
I think the best way to solve the crisis in cosmology is to cease labeling the parameter the Hubble Constant. Instead, we should label it the Hubble Variable. After all, for as long as it has been around, the number has kept shifting around.
That just introduces new problems. Why does it change over time? How is it changing over time? What sort of experiment could measure how it has changed over time?
Yeah ultimately this is going to have to happen but cosmologists have for many many years been very stubborn and reluctant to give up their favorite model assumption the so called "cosmological principal" despite it having been repeatedly being challenged by mathematicians as violating the rules of mathematics specifically as it relates to the rules and definitions of calculus for centuries. The natural consequence of throwing away that so called principal based on the work by Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore in their paper on inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology is that in such a nontrivial universe tiny fluctuations in the initial conditions will automatically lead to the rate of expansion varying locally based on the past history of local curvature for time slices of a given frame of reference in spacetime. In blunt terms if you are doing calculus the Hubble rate can never be constant. The rate of change at small scales might be small but at cosmological scales it will never be small since the no big crunch theorem in the above mentioned paper shows that in order to be an actual nontrivial solution to the actual Einstein field equations (which have no analytical solutions). Still this is the same situation for the general Schrödinger Equation, Naiver stokes equations, Magnetohydrodynamics... basically every other system of partial differential equations where outside of special limits or boundary conditions the solutions are non analytical. It seems like it might be the case that at some point in the generational turnover that the nature of the assumption being made had gotten collectively forgotten and taken for granted to be true. However Nathan Secrest et al 2021 did a good falsification test of the cosmological principal using 1.3 million quasars from CatWISE to construct a dipole to which to compare to the CMB as if the dipole is purely kinematic as cosmologists assume then these dipoles should be identical. The problem is they are not with over 4.9 Sigma statistical significance which basically rules out any variation of the cosmological principal and all models dependent on it with a scale of homogeneity and isotropy less than or equal to the size of the observable universe. I think subsequent follow up validation tests have now boosted this result to over 5 sigma statistical significance which is the gold standard for confirmation of results in other areas of physics so it's kind of a big deal as it is just about as ironclad a debunking of the cosmological principal and thus Lambda CDM that you can get. So some what ironically the cosmological crisis is proving Einstein right (again its only cosmologists who were wrong running on a train of wishful thinking where you take approximations and assumptions to be implicitly assumed to be true. Although to be fair there is a good mathematical reason why the get these results making this assumption as if you fix the rate of expansion then redshift and distance do largely have a simple relationship, but absent such a simplification no distance is only one of many independent variables related to the redshift of a given geodesic path thus when cosmologists use redshift to derive distances they are implicitly force fitting the data to their choice cosmological model. The consequence that would be expected is that the so called Hubble constant will depend on which sources are included rather than converging to a single observed value which is basically a direct description of this so called crisis in cosmology.
Of course the value of Hubble parameter has been changing as the Universe ages. The "crisis" happens because the two methods we have to measure the Hubble parameter AT THE PRESENT TIME, H0, don't give the same value.
Great episode! My money was always on something being wrong with the current cosmological model and it looks like we are heading that way - exciting times!
Check out the plasma universe theory. It says that the cosmos was not created purely by gravity, but also (and maybe mostly) by electromagnetic forces. It's grounded on well-proven EM principles and doesn't require fantasies like dark matter, dark energy, singularities, black holes, etc.
Thank you for the report on the AAS meeting in New Orleans. Also, good stuff about the Ho measurement > option 1 > crowding problem. The plot thickens & I look forward to more papers. You're doing great work and it's appreciated!
Awesome video!! My mother had a large vocabulary of made up terms to describe how she felt at any given time. Among them: "flooshy" and "grunky" were her most memorable and frequently used.
I remember some computer simulation results being discarded over the past two decades, because it didn't match the mainstream ideas of astrophysics. Look at the new analysis, I think one group's discarded simulaton got those early galaxy shapes & giant black hole right.
I have been trying to keep abreast of the news in astro physics and your link for ADS is going to be very helpful. Meanwhile the paper you covered on SMBH sizes being large in the past was very eye opening. It leads us to speculate that SMBH could be drive evolution like you noted. Thanks for the light !
Could the reason for the universe not being uniform on large scales be that the transition of being energy-dominated to matter-dominated could be a second order phase change around a critical point? If so, those sorts of phenomenon can produce a fractal-like structure, where no matter how far out you zoom it never becomes even.
I just gotta say how much I love this channel, especially when you talk about the real theoretical stuff... That you doesn't treat it's audience like idiots or take "pop-sci" takes, while understanding that we aren't professional astrophysicists. RUclips is at its best when it's 'smart', and this is youtube at its best.
Regarding the banana-shaped galaxies, wouldn't we expect images of more distant galaxies to be more distorted from passing through more gravitational lenses on the way to our telescopes? So could the distortion simply be an artifact of distance and distortion rather than the actual shape of the galaxy? Do we even have enough data to correct for such effects at such great distances?
Could the big arc and the big ring just be a huge galaxy cluster ? And maybe some of the galaxies on the rings are farther away and the studies were wrong ?
Great stuff, Doctor! Thank you for all the hard work. Just checking but I thought an extended pinky at arm's length is more like 1 degree , not 0.2 degrees.
By the way, you can see a model of how many nebulae formed, it really looked like it: When the Starship upper stage was already far away, like a dot on the screen , it finally exploded - and for a second or two, the explosion cloud (as it filled most of the screen) looked like some of these nebulae that we can see with our telescopes. It was in the second full Starship test flight. When you want to see it, if you see a rocket from the side or if you see a yellow color in the explosion (thumb nail), it's not what I mean, that explosiin looks different. I mean it where you can barely see the rocket from the back, far away, in the center of the screen (still firing the engines, a faint white glow in a small spot of the screen, so far away) and then it explodes and you see a structure in the explosion cloud like a nebula in a telescope, it's just expanding very quickly. The explosion cloud looks white in the videos (as I wrote, yellow explosions are from a short distance, that are something different, no comparison to the effect that I mean). Of course, it's just like a tiny model of the real nebulae, so you only have about a second to see it, but it has structures in it like some of the nebulae in space might have. But as the nebulae in space are much bigger, our livespan is so short that even in our livespan we hardly see these interstellar clouds expand and evolve... I find it fascinating, that this explosion looks just as a nebula might look, but only for about a second or so (quicker because it's so small, altough the upper stage was 9m in diameter and about 30m long or so). The reason for the explosion was, that they had too much oxygen. For some reason they needed to fill the tank, but they had no payload, it was just an early test flight, so they needed to release that oxygen... and they did... And it formed an explosive environment...
In regards to "The "Big Ring" Megastructure of Galaxies" I love the fact that the Universe cares not a bit about our presumptions about how it should have developed. Since we don't understand the basics of 96% of the mass-energy of the Universe, how could of "our" understanding of Cosmology be anything but incomplete.
Hey Dr Becky, do you keep a list of the songs that you've sung at the end of your video's? :D I don't recall you ever singing the same song more then once, and you've made a ton of video's thru the years.
Been watching your content for a while now and love it but I finally worked out why I've had this nagging thought that you looked so familiar. Turns out its from a Sky at Night segment you presented that I watched in passing a while back and only just made the connection. So cool :)
Dr... Dr... Give the News.... Cause I have a bad case of needing to hear from you...r brilliance. In all of my life I have never heard news as good as the news today in the astrophysics world. Your simply the best at delivering it.
I don't know a lot about the various astronomy supjects, but I just like listening to Dr Becky get excited about them. I do hope someone figures out the crisis and can move us on to new physics. Hop to Dr. Becky. Time to suss this out.
there are no standard candles. I imagine you have to compensate for the materials of the star, optical gravity (gravitational lensing), magnetism, etc.
Re:Better help, as a person with low focus both visually and mentally, my anxiety is about so many services using the Internet as their primary interface. No lie.
I've always used the Orion Constellation to get a bearing on the Pleiades Cluster, but I didn't see it in your star map. Below the horizon? I have heard that the Ancient Greeks used to use the Cluster as a means of finding out who would make a good archer. If you could see seven distinct stars in the cluster you were a good archery candidate. Apparently, people of more average vision typically only see five or six.
23:16 I think it's incredibly fascinating that it looked like the values were converging, until suddenly they were not. Even the early divergences still had overlapping error bars. But now, both measurements are clearly not overlapping. It's almost like early scientists were too afraid to immediately publish data that directly contradicted the previous results. I wonder how much the initial 2001 Distance Ladder measurement affected the early CMB measurement calculations. Peer pressure might have pushed people to avoid publishing data that might seem contradictory.
Yooo anyone else hear that whisper that comes up a little after 27:35 shiii had me shook I thought it was in my house somewhere not the video until I replayed it to make sure I wasn’t going crazy lol
One has to keep in mind that when looking at the furthest galaxies, these are the brighter, more spectacular ones. It's a little like looking at New York from the other side of the Hudson River during a fog: what you see are the brightest lights. So it is with the vast majority of lower brightness garden variety galaxies; they are rarely, if ever observed, despite being the in the majority. We'll have to wait for the next generation of telescopes.
I always enjoy the little songs in the bloopers. "You will never get away from the criii-sis in cosmology" would be a fun ending song for a short film.
This is splendid, though that fairly well goes without saying. What I'm writing this to say is that I'm amazed (as you point out, it's something of a taboo topic) and immensely pleased that you are pairing with a mental health organization. Thank you. [I will note that I have no personal stake -- it is an organization that I hadn't heard of before seeing it mentioned here.]
Dr Becky, I love your content! Thank you for night sky news and these recaps. I love hearing updates on the crisis in cosmology because the idea that we may have to rethink the current model of the universe is so exciting! lol. Thank youuuuuu!!! Learning so much here.
RIP ingenuity. never thought a helicopter 140 million miles away would tug on my heart strings...... but here we are. looks like one of the blades hit the ground when landing.
How I picture the reason for having so many flat disc galaxies - When the mass in the region was "young" there were irregularities in the mass distribution that created the conditions for large clumps to come together forming the center super massive black hole. It also has some small irregularities in int's mass distribution and that made bigger drag while moving in space time. That made the part wit more mass to move slower and so creating the spin (3d objects can spin in only one axes ). The spin created gravitation waves that transpose the 1 way motion to the other matter in the system forming a disc..
You guys might be wrong on the base redshift calculation also. Might be a small variable missing other than the Doppler effect and this gets magnified over great distances if not taken into account properly. G Lensing itself points to the fact that light bends around objects and is not always taking the straightest route to our detectors.
"according to our best model of the universe" you mean according to the obviously obsolete and obviously dumb gravitational-reductionist inflationary model, which somehow is surprisingly always wrong but still the default assumption anyways it's not like this Big Ring changes anything that you should have already noticed from the Cosmic Web
This is amazing very interesting podcast but the audio quality needs some work. The mic is picking up all the echo in the room. I’m listening on nice speakers and it’s very noticeable, making it harder to understand an already complex topic. Suggest using a better mic, closer to the speaker and putting up some material on the walls to absorb the echo. (Or use a different location).
If this was discussed in a previous video, let me know. If the Hubble constant was different in the early universe, would that not effect the red shift, and therefore the apparent distance to the earliest galaxies? I would imagine that this has already been considered somewhere along the line.
I think the megastructures may be related to differing amounts of expansion in different areas(for whatever reason). Could be like the edges of "bubbles" or interacting areas of different "densities". But who knows, could be Schrodinger's universe, the more we look the more we break/affect, that would be hilarious.
Becky you need to address this sponsor issue, I studied psychology and I wouldn't recommend these people, if you are contractually bound then let your fans know.At least acknowledge their concerns.
These megastructures are incredibly exciting. I mean, the cosmological model I learned over the years is that the universe started as a kind of formless plasma of sorts concentrated in a tiny area, and that over millions of years, congealed into a kind of uniform web of material randomly, but uniformly, strewn over the observable universe. But these megastructures indicate that something insanely powerful gave the young universe a wrench, or that the formless plasma actually had form. This of course begs the question, what was/is squeezing/pushing/etc. matter to create these shapes? When did it start? Is it still doing it? I don't think we'll find a grumpy old white man in a robe, but assuming these phenomenon are real, my guess is that something even larger than or adjacent to or something to our universe gave things an initial push.
A question @DrBecky considering the Hubble Tension and the discrepancies between different methods of measuring the universe's expansion rate, could our motion through curved spacetime be influencing our inertial frame of reference more significantly than currently assumed? Might this be causing the observed disagreement between measurement methods, leading us to believe they are inconsistent when, in fact, they might be in agreement if viewed from a correctly adjusted inertial frame? Essentially, could the impact of our motion in curved space be distorting our observations to a degree that we haven't fully accounted for in cosmological models? Sorry Just a layman
When the galaxies emerging together, what they’re looking at you said, do they merge together off of the intensity of their main core star or either a black hole supernova so basically whatever’s got the most strongest magnetic field are they attracted to that even if they’re bigger?🇬🇧🇬🇧🙏🌍❤️🔜🚀🛒👋
Thinking about this another way. If you have ever watched something explode in slow motion, this will make more sense thinking of it in that context. Big Bang: Less massive particles accelerate quicker and lead the frontal edge of the shockwave. More massive particles (objects) accelerate more slowly, however they carry more momentum and are effected less by the less massive particles. The less massive are then affected by the gravity of the more massive. This slows their speed relative to the more massive. Eventually the more massive overtake the less massive and the gravity effect on the less massive then causes them to speed up. Given the known rate of expansion of the universe, there should be observable differences. We should be able to see if there is any difference in the known rate vs the rate of the supermassive blackholes observed in the early universe by JWST are moving away from a center.
I remember an astronomy prof telling me about 15 years ago that "We kind of just assume that the universe makes sense and wants to be understood. It's starting to look like we were wrong on both of those."
It occurred to me when you were explaining about Cepheid variables that you might also use the lowest brightness as an additional measurement to analyse their distance I.e. if Cepheid variables have a certain relationship between peak-to-trough brightness and and their absolute brightness , that you could attribute extra trough brightness to the contribution from unresolved stars.
29:45 Does the intensity or the slope tell you about where the ends are? When finding Pi, increasing the number of segments decrease the change for each step until you can say that 10 steps beyond, the change will be this amount. Would doubling that get a very low tolerance to find where Pi is?
In a previous video, you explain that the mass of the galaxies were all assumed to be the same as the Milky Way, but that one paper examined early galaxies found that it’s probably not the case. If galaxies are not all the same mass, could that change calculations in the expansion of the universe? Could that be a factor in the Hubble tension?
In re to Hubble tension, i had an idea but I cannot stress enough how much I understand that I’m likely not correct, but haven’t found any means of checking… Do we account for the time it takes for the light to reach us when making calculations based off standard candles? I understand redshift and those concepts, but I’m thinking in a different way. It seems to me that a calculation done from a candle 10 light years away would produce accurate data for the expansion of the universe 10 years ago, if we use the same math for a candle 100 light years away, that data would be a snapshot of expansion 100 years ago… In my mind, failing to account for this difference in time could results in a skewing of the data as we include standard candles from further away (but I’m not smart enough to understand that actual math used and if my idea is accounted for already).
Fume hoods in high-school? Wow. My high-school chem class had open flame Bunsen burners fed by rubber tubing on slate lab benches. And this was the 90s
I have always had the feeling of looking further back into the past at more distant galaxies and structure has a high degree of uncertainty of observation that what is being looked at can be interpreted and understood correctly, and with confidence compared to the more recent times of cosmological history. ie what is seen in the galactic neighbourhood. Hence these strangely shaped galaxies of cigar or arc shape, can they be the vision of unresolved merging of early galaxies? As for and the "crisis in cosmology" and difficulties of measuring very distant galaxies and measuring standard candles, has there ever been considered that the light from these standard candles are absorbed by intergalactic gas that makes them appear fainter or some form of alteration via unseen or unknown gravitational objects ? This is the second time I have come across Dr Becky on you tube. I think I will have to add this to my already massive number of book marks.
Stupid question on the parallax measurement: How empty is our solar system, as in "Is there a noticeable dispersion (change in refractive index)?" that has to be taken into account for refraction?
Hey Becky. Hope you're okay and just wanted to say looking really well did you have a nice Christmas Becky?? Hope everyone is well in the comments section too people always remember everyone there is always some person that is so much worse off in the world that is really struggling with something or with everything. Please think before you post something nasty or horrible that little thing to you is probably a massive horrible comment to a person who's struggling try and do good be nice to people. You will be really shocked when you start doing good things you start feeling so much better and smiling to yourself and other people start enjoying being around you more as well. May everyone's day today be so good much love ❤❤❤
Wait - when we say that the structure was 4 billion lightyears across, does that assume that the structure was as big then as it would have to be now if light travelled instantaneously? Cause what if the structure was closer together, but the light sent out from it has taken further-apart paths due to the expansion of space?
Thank You for another great video with so many interesting night sky news (and for link for video with tips with astrophotography!) You gave me back my lost hope, hope that ones I will make shoot nice picture with my phone (S20) or camera (Panasonic FZ2000)! Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks😊 for the brief on Giant Mega- structures. I am a big supporter of NBWF and see this as evidence of the Big,small,mini,micro- bang NBWF Cosmology... which btw also produces an exponentially decaying inflation. Tada!
If you’re struggling, consider therapy with BetterHelp #ad. Click betterhelp.com/drbecky for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a credentialed professional specific to your needs.
Have you seen the documentary The Bethlehem star? A lawyer made it.
Unsubbed because of Betterhelp, I'm running out of science channels to watch because they're all promoting these quacks.
If you are struggling stay well away from BetterHelp. Really disappointed in you Dr Becky.
Quite a shame to see yet another shill for a terrible, shady harmful sponsor. Especially with how much I enjoyed the subject matter. It’s sad what a disappointment RUclips is nowadays. . .
@@motichelbecome a patron and air your grievance. Also having an ad you don't like said nothing about the science
I've always had a keen interest in astronomy, but I pursued computer science instead. I occasionally read the linked papers, but I don't have the education to fully understand them, so I love that there are astrophysicists like Dr. Becky who are able to explain these studies and discoveries in ways that layman me can understand. Good job, Dr. Becky! Your efforts to educate the rest of us are appreciated!
We and one of the same
I remember the time when the error bars on both methods were still overlapping. Articles I red back then were mostly confident that this would work itself out. So much more fun this way.
I would totally be here for it if Night Sky News always ended with a "Crisis in Cosmology" section :-)
It's probably just two different alien jamming signals being used to quieten the annoying little blue dot.
The error bars don't overlap with what they use to predict.
So i think the uncertainty is much bigger. 😅
🚩All cosmology crises will be solved if arrogant “scientists”admit that the age of the universe is in fact MUCH MUCH MUCH older than they think🤏
Actually, it'd be super interesting to go back and see when the tone of articles shifted
Hubble: "Idk man, it just doesn't look right..."
JWST: "Aight, step aside, let the big boys take--"
Hubble: "what"
JWST: "Bollocks."
😂 I love this
JWST is the new guy in the office who thinks they'll fix everything.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 JWST is fixing something. It's fixing everybody's heads. Here's what I hear.
Scientists: We measured something, and we modeled it, and the measurements don't agree with our model. The real-world measurements are more likely to be wrong than the abstract model made by humans. We just need to take them again for the millionth time and they'll agree with our model.
JWST: *retakes measurements with insane precision* Nope. Your model is just wrong.
Scientists: Bullocks.
Other Scientists: Maybe what we thought was a big bang is really an illusion caused by a quasi-cyclic cosmol....
Scientists: Rabble, rabble, rabble!
Scientists think because they have too many things built up around an idea that idea is more likely to be true. But having a patchwork of things propping up an idea is not necessarily a good thing. Scientists are failing to consider that some of the patches on the Standard Model are pretty weak. I mean come on. Dark Matter? Dark Energy? They're obviously making something up and placing it everywhere on a map that it needs to be to make up for something they don't know, and in the process, they are creating very unfair standards for much simpler and more logical ideas to gain acceptance. I mean, if I can just make up a word and say it describes 100% of what I don't know, nothing real can beat that. MoND could describe 99.9% of everything we see, and it would never be enough. Scientists need to take a punch like this every now and then to make sure they're doing actual science and not propping up old ideas with bandage after bandage to make it seem like something is "standing the test of time."
yeh, the hubble concept works better if you look at it from light slowing instead of big bang and ever expanding universe. slowing by 4.6mm/s/y works without darkk matter or 'space' expanding faster than light.
@@chrisoakey9841 c is constant. And we can test that for the last few billion years. It hasn't changed.
I continue to be so impressed with how clearly you explain complex concepts. Thanks!
Thank you, very kind of you to say
It's so cool that we keep learning how much we don't know.
Fractals of knowledge.
@JohnDoe-jh5yr na. As he said. Fractals of the unknown.
Don't know who you are. Don't know what this is. Don't know where you come from. Don't know where you're going.
And your knowledge is floating in the unknown, appears from nowhere to vanish again.😅❤
@@aurelienyonrac I like this so much, I'm going to copy it as I feel this is the best way to explain matters to as incomprehensible as this.
Yeah it's fascinating
I feel like the most common phrase I have heard in space-related videos since the JSWT went live is "This should not exist in our model of the Universe". lol What an exciting time to be alive though, such fascinating discoveries and I'm sure we'll get more mind blowing findings as the research continues.
The reason for that is that mostly these discoveries of the JWST get reported on. If you look at _all_ observations the JWST has made, you'll see that most of these _did_ agree with expectations.
@Paulancar YES, THATS TRUTH!!!!!!!! (See, I can also write in caps and use many exclamation marks. :D ) The model did not fail completely, and I know that.
"megastructures of 4 and 3 billion light years distanced 9 billion light year"
WTF are you talking about?!? :D :D :D Apparently you misunderstood some news. Or you were lied to.
"This is having a lot of pride, vanity and egotism."
Indeed. The people who claim that a universe which is 13.8 billion years old and at least 93 billion light years in diameter was created only for humans, on a tiny little planet in a total backyeard of the cosmos, which have existed only for at most 300 000 years - these people have a lot of pride, vanity and egotism.
And: THERE IS NO CREATOR OF ALL THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Uhhh, are you SURE about that? If so, show me the proof. Now, before you start typing back at me IN ALL CAPS, calm down a little bit. I'm not a creationist. But, you cannot tell me (or anyone) that science has PROVEN there was not a creator. Personally, I don't think there was a creator, but if you are going to adamantly claim there is NOT a creator, you (as the claimant) have to prove it. I'm pretty sure "THERE IS NO CREATOR OF ALL THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is such a claim. Now, prove it. Also, to be fair, for all of those out there claiming there IS a creator of all things, I say to them: prove it. So, looking at you @Paulancar... prove it.
Don't respond, it martyrs their ignorance and makes Logic cringe. @@bjornfeuerbacher5514
dropping the 8σ label on the alternative model like "yea, its not this" lol
@00:39 I'm so glad the went with 'The Big Ring' and not with the first suggestion, The Big Sphincter '. I'm so glad that someone at these conferences knows how to name things.
The Big Ring is the formation, and the Big Sphincter is whatever bastard put that thing there. just when we thought we had our theories just about sorted and there were just a few adjustments to make...
The Goatse Galaxy?
@@nzlemming I think you are on to something there...
Uranus Grande
What is wrong with a big Sphincter?
I'm waiting for a paper describing a formula for CCF (Crisis in Cosmology Factor), which calculates the factor in which JWST makes the Crisis worse 😅
It's actually not that difficult: you take by how many sigma the results are not compatible before and after, and for each of them you take (1-) the single-sided cumulative probability function at that specific sigma level. You obtain two (very low) levels of probability for the two measurements to be compatible, then you take the ratio of that, and there's your number 😉
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Cosmology is a deep wonderful subject. The ultimate truism about cosmology is the NBKA Paradox...aka Nobody Knows Anything Paradox.
Night Sky News is a great way to keep updated on newest information. Thank you, Dr Becky.
I knew a guy who was majoring in nuclear engineering, and minoring in astronomy. I asked him what he thought of the methods used in astronomy and he laughed. He said that nuclear engineering is extremely precise, and astronomy is founded on suppositions that are so tenuous that he could not understand how anyone could call it a science. Studying both caused him to see how the two fields deal with ideas of precision in vastly different ways.
the frequency i hear "much more/less than would be expected" on these videos only goes to show our best models still have so much growth and development to do. Very exciting stuff!
"Crisis in Cosmo" questions: Why is there a huge leap in value for the P13 measurement and after? It leaps entirely outside the confidence levels of all the previous background predictions. Doesn't that seem like a problem worth solving? There is a huge shift in estimated values just looking at the cosmic background measurements in that era. Statistically unlikely.
---Also, Why does option 2 only have a problem with its model? why not a problem with its measurements like option 1? Seems pretty hard to be able to measure Micro Kelvins that are 13.8 billions years old.
The diagrams you use to explain the physics are very helpful.
I love how you specify "from our perspective here on earth"
Too many people think "close in the sky, close in the universe"
Love your work. Keep it up.
Wish we had some more blackhole news.
Seeing may be believing,
But believing doesn't make it True.
Kinda like.. astrology haha. What would our zodiac look like from Pluto? 😂
I think the best way to solve the crisis in cosmology is to cease labeling the parameter the Hubble Constant. Instead, we should label it the Hubble Variable. After all, for as long as it has been around, the number has kept shifting around.
If only it was that easy to solve it... 🤣
That just introduces new problems.
Why does it change over time?
How is it changing over time?
What sort of experiment could measure how it has changed over time?
Yeah ultimately this is going to have to happen but cosmologists have for many many years been very stubborn and reluctant to give up their favorite model assumption the so called "cosmological principal" despite it having been repeatedly being challenged by mathematicians as violating the rules of mathematics specifically as it relates to the rules and definitions of calculus for centuries. The natural consequence of throwing away that so called principal based on the work by Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore in their paper on inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology is that in such a nontrivial universe tiny fluctuations in the initial conditions will automatically lead to the rate of expansion varying locally based on the past history of local curvature for time slices of a given frame of reference in spacetime. In blunt terms if you are doing calculus the Hubble rate can never be constant. The rate of change at small scales might be small but at cosmological scales it will never be small since the no big crunch theorem in the above mentioned paper shows that in order to be an actual nontrivial solution to the actual Einstein field equations (which have no analytical solutions).
Still this is the same situation for the general Schrödinger Equation, Naiver stokes equations, Magnetohydrodynamics... basically every other system of partial differential equations where outside of special limits or boundary conditions the solutions are non analytical.
It seems like it might be the case that at some point in the generational turnover that the nature of the assumption being made had gotten collectively forgotten and taken for granted to be true.
However Nathan Secrest et al 2021 did a good falsification test of the cosmological principal using 1.3 million quasars from CatWISE to construct a dipole to which to compare to the CMB as if the dipole is purely kinematic as cosmologists assume then these dipoles should be identical. The problem is they are not with over 4.9 Sigma statistical significance which basically rules out any variation of the cosmological principal and all models dependent on it with a scale of homogeneity and isotropy less than or equal to the size of the observable universe. I think subsequent follow up validation tests have now boosted this result to over 5 sigma statistical significance which is the gold standard for confirmation of results in other areas of physics so it's kind of a big deal as it is just about as ironclad a debunking of the cosmological principal and thus Lambda CDM that you can get.
So some what ironically the cosmological crisis is proving Einstein right (again its only cosmologists who were wrong running on a train of wishful thinking where you take approximations and assumptions to be implicitly assumed to be true. Although to be fair there is a good mathematical reason why the get these results making this assumption as if you fix the rate of expansion then redshift and distance do largely have a simple relationship, but absent such a simplification no distance is only one of many independent variables related to the redshift of a given geodesic path thus when cosmologists use redshift to derive distances they are implicitly force fitting the data to their choice cosmological model. The consequence that would be expected is that the so called Hubble constant will depend on which sources are included rather than converging to a single observed value which is basically a direct description of this so called crisis in cosmology.
Of course the value of Hubble parameter has been changing as the Universe ages. The "crisis" happens because the two methods we have to measure the Hubble parameter AT THE PRESENT TIME, H0, don't give the same value.
I hope this is a joke haha
Great episode! My money was always on something being wrong with the current cosmological model and it looks like we are heading that way - exciting times!
The Earth is Flat, Stationary and Non-Rotating.
@@godsbeautifulflatearth I hope you mean that as a joke, because the evidence proves otherwise.
@@PhilW222oof, I thought they were joking but check their profile…
Check out the plasma universe theory. It says that the cosmos was not created purely by gravity, but also (and maybe mostly) by electromagnetic forces. It's grounded on well-proven EM principles and doesn't require fantasies like dark matter, dark energy, singularities, black holes, etc.
Thank you for the report on the AAS meeting in New Orleans. Also, good stuff about the Ho measurement > option 1 > crowding problem. The plot thickens & I look forward to more papers. You're doing great work and it's appreciated!
Awesome video!!
My mother had a large vocabulary of made up terms to describe how she felt at any given time. Among them: "flooshy" and "grunky" were her most memorable and frequently used.
I remember some computer simulation results being discarded over the past two decades, because it didn't match the mainstream ideas of astrophysics. Look at the new analysis, I think one group's discarded simulaton got those early galaxy shapes & giant black hole right.
Crilly described my whole Sunday! I didn't have a word for it though, just like I'm getting sick but never quite got there
I have been trying to keep abreast of the news in astro physics and your link for ADS is going to be very helpful. Meanwhile the paper you covered on SMBH sizes being large in the past was very eye opening. It leads us to speculate that SMBH could be drive evolution like you noted. Thanks for the light !
oh i love the fact that you always add links !
Could the reason for the universe not being uniform on large scales be that the transition of being energy-dominated to matter-dominated could be a second order phase change around a critical point? If so, those sorts of phenomenon can produce a fractal-like structure, where no matter how far out you zoom it never becomes even.
I just gotta say how much I love this channel, especially when you talk about the real theoretical stuff... That you doesn't treat it's audience like idiots or take "pop-sci" takes, while understanding that we aren't professional astrophysicists. RUclips is at its best when it's 'smart', and this is youtube at its best.
Regarding the banana-shaped galaxies, wouldn't we expect images of more distant galaxies to be more distorted from passing through more gravitational lenses on the way to our telescopes? So could the distortion simply be an artifact of distance and distortion rather than the actual shape of the galaxy? Do we even have enough data to correct for such effects at such great distances?
That's exactly what I thought as well.
[Banana galaxy included for scale] 😋
Could the big arc and the big ring just be a huge galaxy cluster ? And maybe some of the galaxies on the rings are farther away and the studies were wrong ?
That’s a good point !!
Great stuff, Doctor! Thank you for all the hard work.
Just checking but I thought an extended pinky at arm's length is more like 1 degree , not 0.2 degrees.
By the way, you can see a model of how many nebulae formed, it really looked like it: When the Starship upper stage was already far away, like a dot on the screen , it finally exploded - and for a second or two, the explosion cloud (as it filled most of the screen) looked like some of these nebulae that we can see with our telescopes.
It was in the second full Starship test flight.
When you want to see it, if you see a rocket from the side or if you see a yellow color in the explosion (thumb nail), it's not what I mean, that explosiin looks different. I mean it where you can barely see the rocket from the back, far away, in the center of the screen (still firing the engines, a faint white glow in a small spot of the screen, so far away) and then it explodes and you see a structure in the explosion cloud like a nebula in a telescope, it's just expanding very quickly. The explosion cloud looks white in the videos (as I wrote, yellow explosions are from a short distance, that are something different, no comparison to the effect that I mean).
Of course, it's just like a tiny model of the real nebulae, so you only have about a second to see it, but it has structures in it like some of the nebulae in space might have.
But as the nebulae in space are much bigger, our livespan is so short that even in our livespan we hardly see these interstellar clouds expand and evolve...
I find it fascinating, that this explosion looks just as a nebula might look, but only for about a second or so (quicker because it's so small, altough the upper stage was 9m in diameter and about 30m long or so).
The reason for the explosion was, that they had too much oxygen. For some reason they needed to fill the tank, but they had no payload, it was just an early test flight, so they needed to release that oxygen... and they did... And it formed an explosive environment...
Love your bloopers 😂 I call that "pre-sickness" feeling, "the creeping crud." I had it last week. This week has been YUCK 🤧🤒
In regards to "The "Big Ring" Megastructure of Galaxies" I love the fact that the Universe cares not a bit about our presumptions about how it should have developed. Since we don't understand the basics of 96% of the mass-energy of the Universe, how could of "our" understanding of Cosmology be anything but incomplete.
Hey Dr Becky, do you keep a list of the songs that you've sung at the end of your video's? :D I don't recall you ever singing the same song more then once, and you've made a ton of video's thru the years.
thanks for the information dr becky
could the shapes of the galaxy just be distortions in space-time as the universe evolved?
Been watching your content for a while now and love it but I finally worked out why I've had this nagging thought that you looked so familiar. Turns out its from a Sky at Night segment you presented that I watched in passing a while back and only just made the connection. So cool :)
Could the arc / big ring just be a huge galaxy cluster?
Right that’s what I was thinking !
I love Night Sky News
Dr... Dr... Give the News.... Cause I have a bad case of needing to hear from you...r brilliance. In all of my life I have never heard news as good as the news today in the astrophysics world. Your simply the best at delivering it.
I haven't watched the full video but I know for sure that it will be amazing as always
I don't know a lot about the various astronomy supjects, but I just like listening to Dr Becky get excited about them. I do hope someone figures out the crisis and can move us on to new physics. Hop to Dr. Becky. Time to suss this out.
there are no standard candles. I imagine you have to compensate for the materials of the star, optical gravity (gravitational lensing), magnetism, etc.
Video editing skills are top notch, great content as usual.
Re:Better help, as a person with low focus both visually and mentally, my anxiety is about so many services using the Internet as their primary interface. No lie.
I've always used the Orion Constellation to get a bearing on the Pleiades Cluster, but I didn't see it in your star map. Below the horizon? I have heard that the Ancient Greeks used to use the Cluster as a means of finding out who would make a good archer. If you could see seven distinct stars in the cluster you were a good archery candidate. Apparently, people of more average vision typically only see five or six.
23:16 I think it's incredibly fascinating that it looked like the values were converging, until suddenly they were not. Even the early divergences still had overlapping error bars. But now, both measurements are clearly not overlapping. It's almost like early scientists were too afraid to immediately publish data that directly contradicted the previous results. I wonder how much the initial 2001 Distance Ladder measurement affected the early CMB measurement calculations. Peer pressure might have pushed people to avoid publishing data that might seem contradictory.
Yooo anyone else hear that whisper that comes up a little after 27:35
shiii had me shook I thought it was in my house somewhere not the video until I replayed it to make sure I wasn’t going crazy lol
I heard it
One has to keep in mind that when looking at the furthest galaxies, these are the brighter, more spectacular ones. It's a little like looking at New York from the other side of the Hudson River during a fog: what you see are the brightest lights.
So it is with the vast majority of lower brightness garden variety galaxies; they are rarely, if ever observed, despite being the in the majority.
We'll have to wait for the next generation of telescopes.
I always enjoy the little songs in the bloopers. "You will never get away from the criii-sis in cosmology" would be a fun ending song for a short film.
This is splendid, though that fairly well goes without saying. What I'm writing this to say is that I'm amazed (as you point out, it's something of a taboo topic) and immensely pleased that you are pairing with a mental health organization. Thank you. [I will note that I have no personal stake -- it is an organization that I hadn't heard of before seeing it mentioned here.]
Dr Becky, I love your content! Thank you for night sky news and these recaps. I love hearing updates on the crisis in cosmology because the idea that we may have to rethink the current model of the universe is so exciting! lol. Thank youuuuuu!!! Learning so much here.
RIP ingenuity. never thought a helicopter 140 million miles away would tug on my heart strings...... but here we are.
looks like one of the blades hit the ground when landing.
Oh noes! .... But it held up exceptionally well! What a lil' trooper!
love the blooper roll at the end! 😂
As an astronomer/astrophysicist , spot on keep a working knowledge of ALL the stars/planets/ groups/clustera/superclusters in your head?
Fuck Better Help, get a better sponsor.
Another great episode Dr Becky. Would love to see your content on nostr, people can even leave you tips every time you post a new video!
How I picture the reason for having so many flat disc galaxies - When the mass in the region was "young" there were irregularities in the mass distribution that created the conditions for large clumps to come together forming the center super massive black hole. It also has some small irregularities in int's mass distribution and that made bigger drag while moving in space time. That made the part wit more mass to move slower and so creating the spin (3d objects can spin in only one axes ). The spin created gravitation waves that transpose the 1 way motion to the other matter in the system forming a disc..
The sound seems to be clipping and distorting a bit. I also had to turn my volume right down. Great content as usual though.
You guys might be wrong on the base redshift calculation also. Might be a small variable missing other than the Doppler effect and this gets magnified over great distances if not taken into account properly. G Lensing itself points to the fact that light bends around objects and is not always taking the straightest route to our detectors.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job. Keep it up.
"according to our best model of the universe"
you mean according to the obviously obsolete and obviously dumb gravitational-reductionist inflationary model, which somehow is surprisingly always wrong but still the default assumption anyways
it's not like this Big Ring changes anything that you should have already noticed from the Cosmic Web
This is amazing very interesting podcast but the audio quality needs some work. The mic is picking up all the echo in the room. I’m listening on nice speakers and it’s very noticeable, making it harder to understand an already complex topic. Suggest using a better mic, closer to the speaker and putting up some material on the walls to absorb the echo. (Or use a different location).
This lady's speed of information delivery heats my brain. There's nothing wrong with that.
Aren’t you aware that BetterHelp is a scam?
Outtakes are on point this month.
Betterhelp? Definitely not watching anymore.
If this was discussed in a previous video, let me know. If the Hubble constant was different in the early universe, would that not effect the red shift, and therefore the apparent distance to the earliest galaxies? I would imagine that this has already been considered somewhere along the line.
Thank you for bringing these enjoyable videos. These are certainly exciting times for those of us with an interest in cosmology.
One thing I have learnt about astronomy is, 'If something shouldn't exist... it probably dose'! 😊
Do measurements in the standard candle take in to account the amount of dust between galaxies? Would this make them dimmer the further away they are?
Really exciting to start to see the fruits of JWST ripped! I can only imagine what’s yet to come in the coming years!
Astrophysicists, the only group of PhDs who get paid to be wrong all the time, then use their failures to gain additional funding. BRILLIANT! 😅
I think the megastructures may be related to differing amounts of expansion in different areas(for whatever reason). Could be like the edges of "bubbles" or interacting areas of different "densities". But who knows, could be Schrodinger's universe, the more we look the more we break/affect, that would be hilarious.
I am never tired of the crisis in cosmology - it's the best bit 🎉🎉
Becky you need to address this sponsor issue, I studied psychology and I wouldn't recommend these people, if you are contractually bound then let your fans know.At least acknowledge their concerns.
These megastructures are incredibly exciting. I mean, the cosmological model I learned over the years is that the universe started as a kind of formless plasma of sorts concentrated in a tiny area, and that over millions of years, congealed into a kind of uniform web of material randomly, but uniformly, strewn over the observable universe. But these megastructures indicate that something insanely powerful gave the young universe a wrench, or that the formless plasma actually had form. This of course begs the question, what was/is squeezing/pushing/etc. matter to create these shapes? When did it start? Is it still doing it?
I don't think we'll find a grumpy old white man in a robe, but assuming these phenomenon are real, my guess is that something even larger than or adjacent to or something to our universe gave things an initial push.
Thank you Dr. Becky for another great video. Can't imagine how you find time to create these amazing videos.
A question @DrBecky considering the Hubble Tension and the discrepancies between different methods of measuring the universe's expansion rate, could our motion through curved spacetime be influencing our inertial frame of reference more significantly than currently assumed? Might this be causing the observed disagreement between measurement methods, leading us to believe they are inconsistent when, in fact, they might be in agreement if viewed from a correctly adjusted inertial frame? Essentially, could the impact of our motion in curved space be distorting our observations to a degree that we haven't fully accounted for in cosmological models?
Sorry Just a layman
When the galaxies emerging together, what they’re looking at you said, do they merge together off of the intensity of their main core star or either a black hole supernova so basically whatever’s got the most strongest magnetic field are they attracted to that even if they’re bigger?🇬🇧🇬🇧🙏🌍❤️🔜🚀🛒👋
Dumb question, but do the periods of the Cepheid Variables get stretched out by the red shift as well?
I love the idea of direct collapse black hole.
I get checking the method of measurement first, but I’m not clear on why the first thought isn’t “oh, our model is clearly wrong”.
About the large black holes: Seems to implicate black holes instead of taking, they are giving.
Thinking about this another way. If you have ever watched something explode in slow motion, this will make more sense thinking of it in that context.
Big Bang: Less massive particles accelerate quicker and lead the frontal edge of the shockwave. More massive particles (objects) accelerate more slowly, however they carry more momentum and are effected less by the less massive particles. The less massive are then affected by the gravity of the more massive. This slows their speed relative to the more massive. Eventually the more massive overtake the less massive and the gravity effect on the less massive then causes them to speed up.
Given the known rate of expansion of the universe, there should be observable differences. We should be able to see if there is any difference in the known rate vs the rate of the supermassive blackholes observed in the early universe by JWST are moving away from a center.
I remember an astronomy prof telling me about 15 years ago that "We kind of just assume that the universe makes sense and wants to be understood. It's starting to look like we were wrong on both of those."
It occurred to me when you were explaining about Cepheid variables that you might also use the lowest brightness as an additional measurement to analyse their distance I.e. if Cepheid variables have a certain relationship between peak-to-trough brightness and and their absolute brightness , that you could attribute extra trough brightness to the contribution from unresolved stars.
29:45 Does the intensity or the slope tell you about where the ends are? When finding Pi, increasing the number of segments decrease the change for each step until you can say that 10 steps beyond, the change will be this amount. Would doubling that get a very low tolerance to find where Pi is?
In a previous video, you explain that the mass of the galaxies were all assumed to be the same as the Milky Way, but that one paper examined early galaxies found that it’s probably not the case. If galaxies are not all the same mass, could that change calculations in the expansion of the universe? Could that be a factor in the Hubble tension?
In re to Hubble tension, i had an idea but I cannot stress enough how much I understand that I’m likely not correct, but haven’t found any means of checking…
Do we account for the time it takes for the light to reach us when making calculations based off standard candles? I understand redshift and those concepts, but I’m thinking in a different way. It seems to me that a calculation done from a candle 10 light years away would produce accurate data for the expansion of the universe 10 years ago, if we use the same math for a candle 100 light years away, that data would be a snapshot of expansion 100 years ago…
In my mind, failing to account for this difference in time could results in a skewing of the data as we include standard candles from further away (but I’m not smart enough to understand that actual math used and if my idea is accounted for already).
Fume hoods in high-school? Wow. My high-school chem class had open flame Bunsen burners fed by rubber tubing on slate lab benches. And this was the 90s
Thank you for your videos. It’s always cool learning new things. Your personality and your framing of these subjects makes it a lot of fun. Thank you…
I have always had the feeling of looking further back into the past at more distant galaxies and structure has a high degree of uncertainty of observation that what is being looked at can be interpreted and understood correctly, and with confidence compared to the more recent times of cosmological history. ie what is seen in the galactic neighbourhood.
Hence these strangely shaped galaxies of cigar or arc shape, can they be the vision of unresolved merging of early galaxies? As for and the "crisis in cosmology" and difficulties of measuring very distant galaxies and measuring standard candles, has there ever been considered that the light from these standard candles are absorbed by intergalactic gas that makes them appear fainter or some form of alteration via unseen or unknown gravitational objects ?
This is the second time I have come across Dr Becky on you tube. I think I will have to add this to my already massive number of book marks.
Stupid question on the parallax measurement: How empty is our solar system, as in "Is there a noticeable dispersion (change in refractive index)?" that has to be taken into account for refraction?
In Finland, the word for "crilly" (assuming it is with c) is "pöhnä", (I feel crilly = Minulla on pöhnäinen olo)
The only time I'm glad to see a doctor!
thank you again Dr.Becky for all your videos
Nice summary as usual. And thanks for including the month/year in the thumbnail :)
Hey Becky. Hope you're okay and just wanted to say looking really well did you have a nice Christmas Becky?? Hope everyone is well in the comments section too people always remember everyone there is always some person that is so much worse off in the world that is really struggling with something or with everything. Please think before you post something nasty or horrible that little thing to you is probably a massive horrible comment to a person who's struggling try and do good be nice to people. You will be really shocked when you start doing good things you start feeling so much better and smiling to yourself and other people start enjoying being around you more as well. May everyone's day today be so good much love ❤❤❤
Thank you for making this so much fun to keep up with! You're fantastic!
Thanks for the updates Dr B. The questions just keep getting bigger. Is this the new Neptune calibrated nail polish? I hope so ;)
Wait - when we say that the structure was 4 billion lightyears across, does that assume that the structure was as big then as it would have to be now if light travelled instantaneously? Cause what if the structure was closer together, but the light sent out from it has taken further-apart paths due to the expansion of space?
Thank You for another great video with so many interesting night sky news (and for link for video with tips with astrophotography!) You gave me back my lost hope, hope that ones I will make shoot nice picture with my phone (S20) or camera (Panasonic FZ2000)! Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks😊 for the brief on Giant Mega- structures. I am a big supporter of NBWF and see this as evidence of the Big,small,mini,micro- bang NBWF Cosmology... which btw also produces an exponentially decaying inflation. Tada!