It's so amazing what astronomers have figured out just by looking up! There's so much information to unpack, just constantly beaming down from the skies and literally hitting us on the head.
Now this is a great video. To actually see you more like a scientist. Great subject. This tipe of video is much more interesting, much more informations and somehow you succeed to make it so simple for us to understand all this informations that ar the result of many years of hard work of many scientists. All of you deserve our full gratitude. Thank you Dr. Becky and please let all the science community know this.
I very much enjoyed this contribution from Dr. Becky. What a great explanation of how scientists find new facts by building on what they already know (sometimes even in different fields). We stand on the shoulders of giants indeed! I guess one could now do the same analysis on other globular clusters to verify or improve the precision of this number? ~10-12 uB is just unfathomably small!
Holy guacamole! I liked it how astronomy is once again not only the best testing device for judging by physical theories, but also an instrument for developing fundamental physics on quantum level!
Globular Clusters, great place for Civilisation to build an empire. Lots of Systems close together within easy reach. It's like the Empire builders Jackpot!
It's not entirely true to say they don't respond to the EM force. As with gravity the effects can be largely ignored, but they're not zero. Indeed all known particles respond to all known forces through complex interactions of one sort or another. It should be noted however that the neutrino's moment is very, very small, the cluster result suggests it's on the order of a trillionth that of an electron's.
How can massless photon decay into a particle with (although very small) mass? Wouldn't that imply you're creating mass out of nothing, which is not possible?
You can "create" and "destroy" mass. For example, in nuclear fission, if you split an atom into two smaller atoms, the sum of the mass of the two smaller atoms is less than the mass of the original atom. The "missing" mass has been "converted" to energy, energy that we haverst in nuclear power plant. Now, for the truly interesting (and mind-bending) bit: Note that I put quotation marks everywhere for a reason: mass is not a true fundamental property of matter. Mass arise from the energy contained in a system. The more energy the system (for example the nucleus of an atom) has, the more massive it will be (or you can say: the more energy the system has, the more it will bend space-time). One crazy example of this is that if you take a spring, and compress it (adding potential energy in form of tension in the spring), you will make the spring heavier! But only very very slightly so (not really measurable tbh). Back to the atoms, there is potential energy held in the bonds between subatomic particles. When you split them, the resulting atoms do not have the same arrangement of subatomic particles, so they do not have the same combined mass. So the famous equation E=mc^2 is more that just how much energy you can get from mass, it's a true equivalence between the two (with a constant to balance the equation). But if energy is mass, why doesn't light have mass? Because it's a bit more complicated than that. But if you take light and somehow manage to get enough of it into the same spot, you can create a blackhole (which is then called a kugelblitz). Or if you manage to capture light in a box with perfect mirrors (not really possible in practice though), the box will be heavier with the light inside it than without.
@@max_kl I made a mistake, forgot to square c (33ng seemed way too much, and for a reason...). The correct added mass would be about 10^-16g = 0.1 fg. Still more than I expected though.
I have predıcted with my theory and my formula 6.3 tımes greater speed of light which is measured as apparently inside of M87 black hole. I SUGGEST HAVING A LOOK AT THE FIRST PART OF MY THEORY AND MY FIRST FORMULA WHICH DETERMINES A LINEAR VELOCITY OF...6.3 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ETC. AND I TOLD WHERE OUR MEASURED CONSTANTS ARE ROOTED IN. We need to change the concept of matter that makes us imprisoned by all kinds of impressions and especially by accepting the vacuum illusion which it has been sitting comfortably in it
What's all this that I've been reading about in the news then in the past few weeks about neutrinos being detected "for the first time" in a particle detector, when there's that picture at 1:50 from 1970 (which I'd actually remembered seeing before!)??
In this case it's the first detection of neutrinos *at a particle collider*. It's like being able to breed pandas in captivity; not the first time the subject has been encountered, but a milestone that makes their study much easier. With the new neutrino detector they'll be able to monitor the neutrino production of the collider and look for new physics there.
@@garethdean6382 but.....i mean.... that bubble chamber the picture is of from 1970 was also presumably connected ya know....to a particle collider. I'm guessing SPS or something. I still don't get it.
Check out the principle documentary scientific community agrees with beautiful FLAT EARTHERS that we are one beautiful family on a non rotating earth in the magnetic CENTER MASS OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE 🙏
Always a happy day when a new DeepSky video comes out ! :)
Same here!
i found this on my telescope tonight! it was my first "object" I've ever found and it made me quite emotional actually.
I would have paid attention in class if I had a teacher like Dr. Becky…please keep up the amazing videos.
It's so amazing what astronomers have figured out just by looking up! There's so much information to unpack, just constantly beaming down from the skies and literally hitting us on the head.
And a Dr Becky bonus too !
Now this is a great video. To actually see you more like a scientist. Great subject. This tipe of video is much more interesting, much more informations and somehow you succeed to make it so simple for us to understand all this informations that ar the result of many years of hard work of many scientists. All of you deserve our full gratitude. Thank you Dr. Becky and please let all the science community know this.
I very much enjoyed this contribution from Dr. Becky. What a great explanation of how scientists find new facts by building on what they already know (sometimes even in different fields). We stand on the shoulders of giants indeed!
I guess one could now do the same analysis on other globular clusters to verify or improve the precision of this number? ~10-12 uB is just unfathomably small!
Yes! New DeepSky episode, one of my favorite targets and Dr Becky. Christmas comes early sometimes 🤣
I wonder how many there are left to do???
@@denisroym2110 if they stick to the Messier catalog not many, but hey the universe is a very big place and they'll think of something.
I just realized Becky's channel is now bigger than DeepSkyVideos. That's crazy.
And I’ve been missing it all along :(
Holy guacamole! I liked it how astronomy is once again not only the best testing device for judging by physical theories, but also an instrument for developing fundamental physics on quantum level!
Thanks Brady and Becky
65 million neutrinos passed through the thumb up I gave for the video!
Every second!
Amazing Dr Becky is Back :D
A Brady and Dr Becky Collab, best thing I have seen today.
Finally 5's turn👍
Dr. Becky back in tha houuuuuse
Yay, she’s back!
Dr. Bec understood all you mentioned about WIMPS. I got lost at the new term magnetic biapole ! !!! Will come back again to check understanding.
Please please make a video on Boötes void!
awesome Video!! This My favourite Globular Cluster In Messier catalog :)
47, 61, 72, 107, 108, just these five objects are left now to make the Messier playlist complete.
Thank you so much!
Wow, that was really interesting!
Excellent : ) Merry Christmas
Globular Clusters, great place for Civilisation to build an empire. Lots of Systems close together within easy reach. It's like the Empire builders Jackpot!
Huh, I never would've guessed astronomers classify clusters by how messy they are.
But are the bigger or smaller number more messier?
Dr. Becky!
There's a neutrino lab called SNOLAB in Ontario, Canada. If anyone is interested. Yay, Canadian science 🇨🇦🖖
Great video
Hello Dr. Becky
Truly fascinating!!
This is just amazing. Only eight to go. :(
thank you!
This video makes my day 😍
Beckyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....woohoo
I love this woman's energy
That’s really fricken cool
If neutrinos don't respond to the electromagnetic force, how can they have a magnetic dipole?🤔
They must have a dipole because of their weak interactions in beta decays.
It's not entirely true to say they don't respond to the EM force. As with gravity the effects can be largely ignored, but they're not zero. Indeed all known particles respond to all known forces through complex interactions of one sort or another.
It should be noted however that the neutrino's moment is very, very small, the cluster result suggests it's on the order of a trillionth that of an electron's.
That's amazing.
Only six to go! :)
And here's me thinking it was a road
Gli ammassi globulari sono gli oggeti più belli del cielo! LIKE 72
I'm deeply embarrassed to say I immediately thought "OMG Dr. Becky drew a willy!" I think I've been watching too many QI episodes lately. 🤦♂
Imagine our sollar system would be inside this cluster 🙂
What came from Tasmania?????
How can massless photon decay into a particle with (although very small) mass? Wouldn't that imply you're creating mass out of nothing, which is not possible?
The photons have energy, and that can be converted into mass, E=mc2
You can "create" and "destroy" mass. For example, in nuclear fission, if you split an atom into two smaller atoms, the sum of the mass of the two smaller atoms is less than the mass of the original atom. The "missing" mass has been "converted" to energy, energy that we haverst in nuclear power plant.
Now, for the truly interesting (and mind-bending) bit:
Note that I put quotation marks everywhere for a reason: mass is not a true fundamental property of matter. Mass arise from the energy contained in a system. The more energy the system (for example the nucleus of an atom) has, the more massive it will be (or you can say: the more energy the system has, the more it will bend space-time). One crazy example of this is that if you take a spring, and compress it (adding potential energy in form of tension in the spring), you will make the spring heavier! But only very very slightly so (not really measurable tbh).
Back to the atoms, there is potential energy held in the bonds between subatomic particles. When you split them, the resulting atoms do not have the same arrangement of subatomic particles, so they do not have the same combined mass.
So the famous equation E=mc^2 is more that just how much energy you can get from mass, it's a true equivalence between the two (with a constant to balance the equation).
But if energy is mass, why doesn't light have mass? Because it's a bit more complicated than that. But if you take light and somehow manage to get enough of it into the same spot, you can create a blackhole (which is then called a kugelblitz). Or if you manage to capture light in a box with perfect mirrors (not really possible in practice though), the box will be heavier with the light inside it than without.
@@Astor_V So if I lift an object up into a shelf it gains a tiny bit of mass, while I get lighter?
@@max_kl I made a mistake, forgot to square c (33ng seemed way too much, and for a reason...). The correct added mass would be about 10^-16g = 0.1 fg. Still more than I expected though.
@@Astor_V Thanks! Though it seems like one of your comments didn't get through, maybe you included a link?
I don't think I've ever understood a diagram that I've seen in a scientific paper.
My red giant branch tip. . .
Sometimes blue hypergiant
I have predıcted with my theory and my formula 6.3 tımes greater speed of light which is measured as apparently inside of M87 black hole. I SUGGEST HAVING A LOOK AT THE FIRST PART OF MY THEORY AND MY FIRST FORMULA WHICH DETERMINES A LINEAR VELOCITY OF...6.3 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ETC. AND I TOLD WHERE OUR MEASURED CONSTANTS ARE ROOTED IN. We need to change the concept of matter that makes us imprisoned by all kinds of impressions and especially by accepting the vacuum illusion which it has been sitting comfortably in it
These people are so smart - makes me feel uneducated. But I can play Classical Gas.
3 years to get this video out? Who are you, cgp grey! 😂
♥️
So basically.... 😎
What's all this that I've been reading about in the news then in the past few weeks about neutrinos being detected "for the first time" in a particle detector, when there's that picture at 1:50 from 1970 (which I'd actually remembered seeing before!)??
I think what's new is the way how the neutrino is created, not that one has been detected.
In this case it's the first detection of neutrinos *at a particle collider*. It's like being able to breed pandas in captivity; not the first time the subject has been encountered, but a milestone that makes their study much easier. With the new neutrino detector they'll be able to monitor the neutrino production of the collider and look for new physics there.
@@garethdean6382 but.....i mean.... that bubble chamber the picture is of from 1970 was also presumably connected ya know....to a particle collider. I'm guessing SPS or something. I still don't get it.
@@Muonium1 That was probably naturally occurring neutrino flux, not created by man.
i am informing you that according to the returnyoutubedislike plugin this video as of this moment has only 8 dislikes (1K likes)
I think I just pooped...
Poor becky having to slum it on the deep sky videos channel.
Check out the principle documentary scientific community agrees with beautiful FLAT EARTHERS that we are one beautiful family on a non rotating earth in the magnetic CENTER MASS OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE 🙏
Your mum is the centre of mass of the entire universe
@@oliverwilson11 I think you are wrong. It’s the other way around. Every child is at the centre of their mom’s universe. ;)
@@rhoddryice5412
Lol true :)
you're on the wrong channel love......................