@@sokolum - She is OK, pretty good for the most part. She does have some more fringe ideas about a few topics if I remember right, but still with watching.
Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?
it's not ONLY for children. what an ignorant comment. you apparently have an ego problem. in a developed nation about 70% of people never make it to university. of the remaining 30% maybe half go into sciences and half into humanities, so only 15% get past high school math. half of those get a C+ or less so don't really know what they're doing. 7.5% therefore know something, and probably only a tenth of those use high level math on a regular basis. so you are now at 0.75% of the adult population... that's being generous. and in developing countries it's probably 1/100th of that. so, no, 99%+ of the adult population are not children. nor do they have the intellect of children.
This video popped up on my RUclips feed and I realized I was behind one my Fermilab videos. I am going back right now to see what I missed. Keep it up Fermilab!
Thanks Don. I wanted to personally congratulate and thank you for the effort you've put into explaining physics to the public for a very long time. I wish you health and the joy of knowledge of physics never ends.
I love this sort of content hearing about the unknown framed in this way stirs the imagination. It is the best form of science education I have come across. Please keep making this content.
I love that our minds seek rules and order and sensible answers to every cosmic bump in the road, never settling for "it might just be made like that" . Love your teaching method, keeping me riveted 30 years after I last saw the inside of a lecture hall.
Great video! I had read some articles about the topics covered here, but didn't really understand them until i saw this video. Hope to see more, and wishing you a quick recovery from whatever is ailing you, take care!
This cmb series you have is just fascinating to me, keep them coming!! I appreciate you putting things into terms that "regular" folks can understand. I'm already familiar with Fourier transforms and such, so your explanation there was simple to follow.
I read somewhere that this cold part of the universe may be the result of a severe energy exploition of entire galaxies or even galaxy clusters by a type 3 civilization. Any comments on that? I personally find it a very likely explanation.
It might also explain the hot ring around it. As the civilization expands like a bubble turning its frontiers hotter than normal and leaving at his path a drained from energy part of the universe.
@@petrosgitsidis295 I am not expert in physics at all (engineer here), but I don't think so. By one side the concept of a 3rd level civilization is highly speculative already and do not extends (as far as I remember) to more than one galaxy, and in any case it would generate a signal signature identifiable in some way (as energy is only transformed). By other hand, the CMB radiation was originated about 380 000 years after big bang, in an epoch in which galaxies still didn't exist.
Amazing video. Thank you to all Fermilab team working for this excellent channel and Dr. Lincoln for explaining things so complex in this accessible way. I appreciate how the big questions are addressed, and the misconceptions are exposed and the right answers explained. I always learn something really amazing in any single video. I am sincerely thankful.
Thank you sir for taking the time to explain these interesting subjects for nonmathemeticians. I could understand the concepts you were illustrating and enjoy the wonderment! Well done.
I am really interested in the cold spot and what we know and don't know about it. I would love it if you made another video about it in the future. Thank you for expanding my personal universe!
Hi Don!! Thanks for filling the super-void in my head! I have had no episodes of brain freeze anymore since shortly after I started watching this channel! (
The greatest mystery : Where have all the missing Odd Socks gone ? You always started off life with Even socks... but eventually, as you do laundry, you will discover you now have an odd amount of socks... and ... where have the vanished gone ?!?
Is the fact that we can see back in to time at all, due to the expansion of the universe and the speed of light a unique thing we should appreciate how unique that is? I mean it is pretty special that what we see is any galaxy as it was in the past, not current. That's pretty interesting.
Actually when we look at our own feet we see them as how they looked in the past, when light got reflected by them and started it's journey up to our eyes.
Could the alignment of of the spherical waveforms be a function of observation bias? We can only see them from effectively a singularity so the CMB will appear perpendicular to is in all directions.
Actually the alignment is exactly what would be predicted if the measured dipole in the CMB is *cosmological*(i.e. caused by an inherit asymmetry in the distribution of matter/energy at the time of the reionization epoch) rather than kinematic (due to the motion of our solar system) as has been typically assumed for simplicity (without any supporting evidence) and to allow the analytically solvable Friedmann solutions to be able to be assumed to be approximately applicable for our universe (and thus avoiding the nonlinear domain of the Einstein field equations) Thankfully Ellis & Baldwin (1984) devised an experimental test which would be able to check the validity of the assumption of a kinematic dipole by measuring a large sample size of over a million cosmologically distant i.e. high redshift sources one could construct a dipole measurement which if the assumption of a kinematic dipole was true should be identical in both direction and magnitude of the CMB dipole. If it is not identical then the purely kinematic dipole assumption is falsified, i.e. there is a large real cosmological dipole component in the CMB which can not be removed by a relativistic reference frame correction to allow one to shift to a supposed CMB inertial frame. In what is probably the most important breakthrough in cosmology in recent years which sadly has been largely ignored this was finally tested with over a million sources by Nathan J. Secrest et. al (Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 APJL 908 L51). Using a final sample size of 1.36 million quasars after the removal of possible sources of contamination from the local universe they were able to show that the measured dipole while similar enough in direction (only off by 8 degrees so not statistically significant enough) the magnitude was more than twice that of the CMB dipole which is a 4.9 Sigma significance discrepancy from a kinematic dipole. This *is* significant enough to falsify the kinematic dipole assumption while also solving a number of cosmological mysteries, the apparent dipole quadrupole octupole etc. alignment, the measured acceleration of the rate of expansion(without requiring the existence of dark energy), the discrepancy in observed rate of expansion over time(again without requiring the existence of dark energy). Basically about half a dozen mysteries/discrepancies in cosmology just go away just by removing the cosmological principal which hinged on the purely kinematic CMB dipole assumption to avoid falsification by the CMB measurements since all these discrepancies under Lambda CDM are natural predictions of the general Einstein field equations in a universe with a significant initial anisotropy and inhomogeneity. Occam's razor strikes lambda CDM dead in favor of an anisotropic and inhomogeneous general solution of the Einstein field equations without the assumption of dark energy. It is just about as big of a simplification as the Heliocentric model of the solar system(with Kepler's laws) were over the Ptolemaic model except that the math is of course much harder since there are no nice neat analytical solutions anymore.
The ecliptic plane is nearly perpendicular to the galactic plane. As a result, the heliosphere is highly non-symmetric with respect to the "top" half facing "forward" and "bottom" half facing "backwards". Perhaps the "axis of evil" is an artifact of the structure of the heliosphere?
Is there any difference in polorization or wavelength in the microwaves comming from the cold spot and around it, compared to microvaves from other parts of the CMB? If, can that information then be used to substantiate any of the theories?
The CMB map is always presented in its modified form. It would be interesting to see the processing it goes through, with details, so we could understand how much delicate it is. To me it seems that some amount of "cleaning up" is left undone, if there are solar system related artifacts left. Also, why the sphere map of CMB is almost never shown, only the not-so-clear elliptic map?
Bingo this is a critical point that has often been missed in the discussion. In particular the data clean up is largely dependent on our *assumptions* In particular a really big assumption is that the dipole in the CMB is purely kinematic allowing us to perform a relativistic frame shift to an *assumed* frame where the CMB is isotropic and uniform. If part of the CMB dipole is not kinematic i.e. not due to the net motion of our frame of reference then the assumed frame where the CMB is isotropic and uniform does not exist and all conclusions dependent on that assumption (in particular the supposed existence of dark energy as a major component of the Universe and the validity of the cosmological principal) fall apart like a house of cards in the wind under the weight of huge systematic biases that swamp out any signals in the data. Luckily this assumption can be tested as proposed by Elis & Baldwin in 1984 (G. F. R. Ellis, J. E. Baldwin, MNRAS, Volume 206, Issue 2, January 1984, Pages 377-381, doi.org/10.1093/mnras/206.2.377) The tricky bit is that you need a very large sample size to show this with any degree of statistical significance i.e. you need more than a million sources. Last year however Nathan Secrest and collaborators (Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 APJL 908 L51) finally performed this test on a final sample size of 1.36 million quasars measured by WISE over its initial and extended mission phases. The results show that distant sources have a significantly larger dipole which while "only" 8 degrees off from the CMB dipole is more than twice as large in magnitude and thus is at 4.9 sigma discrepancy with a purely kinematic dipole (i.e. only a 1 in 2 million chance of being a statistical fluke) Things are consequently looking pretty bad for a lot of cosmological results it looks like Cosmology is going to have to come to terms with the general nonlinear domain of the Einstein field equations.
Dear Dr. Lincoln, Hello, fellow Rose-Hulman alum who decided to pursue a research career with a focus on teaching! I have a couple questions that I'd love to get your input on: 1. Suppose we have a black hole out on the edge of a galaxy. As it moves about, it will of course accrete dust and light, but it'll also accrete dark matter (assuming dark matter is made of particles). What fraction of its growth would be attributed to regular matter, what fraction to radiation, and what fraction to dark matter? Would an excess of growth over the expected growth from radiation & regular matter be evidence for dark matter? What would be the best way to measure its mass? Period of an orbiting pulsar, maybe? 2. When looking for new fundamental particles, what are the benefits of colliding protons in the LHC, instead of, say, protons & antiprotons, or lead ions, or electrons? 3. Who, in your opinion, are the great science communicators of biology and chemistry? 4. What aspects of science communication do we as a community need to focus more on? Early education? Technical explanations? Visualization?
Thanks for another great video, one thing that struck me, if it turns out that there is really no cold spot wouldn't that impune all the rest of the data we have on the CMB?
I wonder how we can be sure the CMB apparent alignment with the solar system is not more than a ficticious artifact created during the measurements. I wonder how it is possible to remove all the interference created by the Milky Way in order to get a clean CMB signal.
Actually the CMB alignment is more tricky than given here because it is only an assumption that the total dipole in the CMB is kinematic in origin i.e. purely a Doppler shift which can be removed by a relativistic transformation to reach an assumed isotropic CMB reference frame. If the dipole is at east partly not kinematic but rather is cosmological in origin i.e. caused by a large scale asymmetry in the energy/matter distribution of the early universe back during the CMB epoch then the alignment of that CMB dipole with the Quadrupole and Octupole etc. terms is exactly what would be predicted. This kinematic assumption has been typically assumed for simplicity (without any supporting evidence) and to allow the cosmological principal to avoid being falsified by the CMB which by saving the cosmological principal allows cosmologists to make assumptions to let them use the analytically solvable Friedmann solutions to the general Einstein field equations which are only exact solutions in the case of prefect isotropy and homogeneity at all scales. This then allows cosmologists to avoid having to deal with the nonlinear domain of the Einstein field equations which are fundamentally chaotic. Thankfully Ellis & Baldwin (1984) devised an experimental test which would be able to check the validity of the assumption of a kinematic dipole by measuring a large sample size of over a million cosmologically distant i.e. high redshift sources one could construct a dipole measurement which if the assumption of a kinematic dipole was true should be identical in both direction and magnitude of the CMB dipole. If it is not identical then the purely kinematic dipole assumption is falsified, i.e. there is a large real cosmological dipole component in the CMB which can not be removed by a relativistic reference frame correction to allow one to shift to a supposed CMB inertial frame. In what is probably the most important breakthrough in cosmology in recent years which sadly has been largely ignored this was finally tested with over a million sources by Nathan J. Secrest et. al (Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 APJL 908 L51). Using a final sample size of 1.36 million quasars after the removal of possible sources of contamination from the local universe they were able to show that the measured dipole while similar enough in direction (only off by 8 degrees so not statistically significant enough) the magnitude was more than twice that of the CMB dipole which is a 4.9 Sigma significance discrepancy from a kinematic dipole. This is significant enough to falsify the kinematic dipole assumption while also solving a number of cosmological mysteries, the apparent dipole quadrupole octupole etc. alignment, the measured acceleration of the rate of expansion(without requiring the existence of dark energy), the discrepancy in observed rate of expansion over time(again without requiring the existence of dark energy). Basically about half a dozen mysteries/discrepancies in cosmology just go away just by removing the cosmological principal which hinged on the purely kinematic CMB dipole assumption to avoid falsification by the CMB measurements since all these discrepancies under Lambda CDM are natural predictions of the general Einstein field equations in a universe with a significant initial anisotropy and inhomogeneity. Occam's razor strikes lambda CDM dead in favor of an anisotropic and inhomogeneous general solution of the Einstein field equations without the assumption of dark energy. It is just about as big of a simplification as the Heliocentric model of the solar system(with Kepler's laws) were over the Ptolemaic model except that the math is of course much harder since there are no nice neat analytical solutions anymore. When this finally gets through to cosmology it will just mean that like every other field of science they will have to deal with the fundamentally chaotic and thus unpredictable nature of complex systems governed by nonlinear systems of partial differential equations. Honestly this becomes obvious in the face of Gödel's incompleteness theorems which are a fundamental corner stone of the mathematical rules of logic and form the basis of modern computational mathematics and theory.
For sure, and now they have subtracted the entire milkyway to produce an image of the black hole in the middle. I find that impossible to do with any statistical significance. Looking past a billion highly compact region of stars? I don't think so. Computer programs can do anything you want, called confirmation bias. Once it produced what they wanted, it was all good.
I KNEW YOU WOULD GET A NEW HAIRCUT! LOOKING HANDSOME Dr. D! Best channel. Spacetime channel is getting weird and stepping away from fundamentals (watered down with a lot of conjecture) and sometimes goes on tangents perpendicular to logic. Your videos are the best.
I wonder: if a super void can distort the CMB signal, how can we be sure other factors like gravity lensing by dark matter distribution are not distorting it too?
Because they use computer programs to remove the heat detected from galaxies, stars, etc, etc, which means they can make their program produce anything they want! Sure they might try hard, but how can you know how much heat to subtract? These videos NEVER explain HOW they come up with this stuff we take as fact.
Maybe the universe started out as some kind of (particle) with gargantuan mass, in some infinite vacuum, that became unstable and decayed in a release of all the energy and mass that resulted in the Big Bang. The genesis particle would be a cool name. But seriously is it plausible?
@@moonchase A Genesis Particle, if it even exists, could be a particle of pure energy rather than one of actual mass. Or one with properties unknown to us. But I'm just speculating here. The other thing is could the unification of gravity with other forces of the universe be combined in such a primordial particle? Bear in mind I'm just trying to think outside the box with this because conventional physics doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. IDK.
Im and electrical engineer but I have worked as a mechanical engineer for the past several years. In my mechanical work I have used FFTs quite a bit. Just as much as I do with my electrical work. Machine vibrations, pressure signals, flow signals and even sound, help diagnose system issues when broken into their individual frequencies. And in a recent case I worked on, we proved a digital system was inducing mechanical vibrarions by probing several signals and correlating bode plots.
The idea that intervening space can cause variations in the signal we receive from the CMB makes me concerned that it may be the cause of other variation seen in the CMB.
What's the answer? I don't know. That in itself gives Don such credibility that he is clear on the boundaries between knowledge and conjecture. Keep it up Don. Oh, and his audiobook for The Evidence for Modern Physics was outstanding. A lot of material overlap with some of his videos, but I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing as it was organized in a more front-to-back explanation rather than topical like this channel.
If you went a few dozen light years to the left and took a picture of the CMB, would it be the same? Also, if we waited a million years and took the picture again, would it look the same? I suppose it wouldnt, and therefore since its an evolving picture, coincidences like the cold spot will happen sometimes.
It would the same way a few light years to the left, but not exactly the same. It would not look the same a few million years in the future. Because the universe is expanding the cmb cools down with time. In a few million years it will be somewhat colder.
Silly question... but why cannot there be lots of supervoids thus explaining the cmb variation. Seems like a strange hypothesis to use on one very small section of the cmb and ignore it for the rest.
Great question, if you wanna understand easily in simple terms. Let's take a example when you speak in vaccum your voice will be slow and diminished after a certain distance. But you can listen upto very small distance. If there is membrane at that some voice can be heard. Just like sound need medium to travel. In the same way the wave also need energy and other particles to travel. At the exit of the void the wave particles gain similar energy what they lost at the entrance of the void. In rhe actual space wavelength also changes, that thing known as redshift happenings because of expansion of universe Thanks for asking the question 😊
I think it's about the fact that when entering the void, there's more mass behind than in front of a given photon. The photon can't slow down, so it loses energy by becoming lower frequency. As it travels towards the opposite edge, there's more mass in front than behind, causing the opposite effect. Monis's explanation is a great analogy but that's about waves in a medium. A photon is a quantum wavelet that (in theory) doesn't need a medium. It's also a particle that goes at the speed of light. Those are important differences.
@@gyozakeynsianism thanks a lot for the applause, wait lemme explain more simply Temperature of the void is responsible for the change, as dr said temp is lower in the void. When the quantum particles travel in the colder area the speed of particles slower down and vice versa. To understand this in real world scenario. Imagine you are boiling water in covered beaker in which a pipe is connected and the end of pipe is also in beaker but a pipe is cooled by ice The water gained energy during boiling ( but condensed into water from water vapours when this condensed water again become water vapours because it gain energy. And you also tried nicely. But there is a catch here, space isn't true vaccum. Even so called void has some particle density
@@monisrajput8056 Dr. Don said temperature is measured to be lower in the supervoid. This is assuming that what we're actually measuring is true, original CMB. But one alternative theory is that a large, empty opening in space that is younger than the Big Bang could be in the way of the CMB, which could result in lower temperatures (meaning the supervoid would not actually be a measure of the CMB). CMB radiation passes through this smaller, closer void and makes it cooler. It's hard to believe this is about interaction between photons and matter, because even outside this theorized void, space between galaxies is both immense and very empty. The theorized void would be even emptier. And if there were interaction with matter, we'd expect scattering of the light; the light that makes it though is almost certainly not scattered and therefore didn't interact with matter.
@@gyozakeynsianism well man the void may be created with the perfect supernova of star. Every matter interacts with other matter except dark matter. Scattering also happens but it very minute it remains unnoticed.
So..the CMB proved the Earth is the center of the Universe. Big deal, that's not important. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and just move on... Now, let's talk about the cold spot. You gotta love 'science'.
Dear Dr Lincoln, we met you on an elevator at Fermilab about 10 years ago (and no, I don;t expect you to remember), but I do have one very pressing question that I have yet to see discussed (and if you can point me to a paper that does answer this question, please do) is why are the first generation of quarks "backwards" in their spin and mass components (the up at 2/3 spin is half as massive as the down at -1/3 spin) whilst the charm and top (truth) quarks at 2/3 spin are much more massive than the strange and bottom (beauty) quarks? It might look like this is an example of symmetry breaking. Can you help explain this?
Approximately how many points went into creating the famous CMB? One would presume that is something that is known. Also, the most evocative title cards!
In all the diagrams of the spherical harmonics, I notice UV spheres are used. UV sphere have clearly defined poles... Was UV spherical projection used anywhere in these calculations, and if so, do the axis of evil align with the UV sphere's polar axis?
I propose that this man be given a Nobel Prize for ‘talking’. He is that good in talking down complexity into digestible quantised bits for his viewers.
I must admit I am a skeptic. Can light be a particle that bumps the next particle and then bumps the next particle. Yep that's a wave. Can dark energy be also a wave that bumps randomly around us like photons.
Dr. Don, If a void could explain the cold spot in the CMB, then could it be possible for smaller voids to explain all of the temperature differences in the CMB? If so, can the temperature distributions of the CMB be a reliable source of data, as it pertains to the initial epochs? -Thanks.
The first thing that comes to mind here is that somehow the CMB axis orientation influenced the axis of the formation of the solar system like some sort of universal coriolis effect (but this would imply that most star systems in the universe are aligned and I think we'd have noticed that) The second thing that comes to mind is that the flat distribution of gravity in the solar system is somehow distorting our perception of the CMB (not even sure how either of these would or wouldn't make sense, though)
I really enjoy several speakers, but this fellow is my favorite. What I’d like to see is Neil Matt Sabine Becky all sit with Don and chat for an hour or two about, we’ll, about anything they want. I’d likely find most topics interesting. Lol. I’m easy. Just to have them all together chatting over coffee/tea. Just an idea!!
Might sound a bit stupid but wouldn't the cmb favour or align with the solar system because it’s from that star system that it is being observed? I imagine the same would be true regardless of position in space. So if someone in a star system 500m Lya from earth observed the cmb, the pattern would look slightly different and appear to align with them but only due to the observers relative position. We might also be primed to interpret data in a way that highlights our importance on a subconscious or limbic level, regardless of how sober and cognisant we might be. I’d love to know what the cmb looks like from andromeda, maybe each planet, moon, cell, lepton, so on, has its own vantage cmb baby photo
I always look forward to these videos. Does the analysis of the CMB allow us to determine the distance to the CMB? I presume the the origin of the CMB to be at or near the boundary of the univirse in all directions ?
As far as I know the CMB is the boundary of the "observable" universe, 46 billion (1E9) light years away, which arrived to us from all directions after travelling almost 13.8 billion (1E9) years. This is possible because the universe expanded, allowing the light to seems as having travelled more than possible in an stationary universe. The universe could be even much bigger than this 92 billions light years diameter bubble, but that is the further we can see.
The origin of the CMB was the Big Bang. The CMB was about 380,000 years after the BB. So technically it's 13.7 Billions - 380,000 Light-years away and ago. I'd guess you could say it's at near the boundary of the visible universe and yes all directions. Although it's about something like 45 billion light-years away today because the universe has been expanding ever since. The whole universe may be at least 500 times bigger than the visible universe. Something like that.
@@tTtt-ho3tq Thanks, that's what I presumed. I was just wondering if we developed any tricks to measure the distance the way we can to some stars. In other words does the CMB reveal or confirm anything about the uniform shape of the universe?
@@alanr3705 Oh, those are the details. I don't do details or windows. The details are hard. You really have to know to study the details. Sorry I've no idea. Even Einstein's special relativity don't make no sense to me already. I'm sure they have methods to measure all those things. I'd think someone would come up with some good ideas if there's something better. I just follow blindly. Physics is universal worldwide. Einstein's, quantum mechanics, etc are all the same to every scientists around the world. And remember physics is everything. That's why I watch this or others.
Question. One wiggle gives a pattern. Two giggles gives an other pattern and so on... How many wiggles does have the CMB. Maybe that frequency tells us something about the CMB?
The CMB calculation needs to subtract microwave transmission from the dust in the Mullet Way, right? + subtracting other local microwave transmissions? If so, these seem to be obvious places bias towards our local reference frame can be introduced. So obvious, it's likely the first place searched.
The axis of evil doesn't seem terribly unlikely in such a large sample size. You're bound to find apparent patterns in large random samples. But there's probably more to it than that.
yeah what's the big deal? a couple of them spherical harmonics in the set of 4000 just happen to be orientated similarly to the solar system. seems like coincidence
This is one of the best science channels on RUclips for sure and Don is such a good host!
Sabine Hossenfelder also awesome !!!
He is THE host, others are boring :)
@@sokolum - She is OK, pretty good for the most part. She does have some more fringe ideas about a few topics if I remember right, but still with watching.
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?
it's not ONLY for children. what an ignorant comment. you apparently have an ego problem. in a developed nation about 70% of people never make it to university. of the remaining 30% maybe half go into sciences and half into humanities, so only 15% get past high school math. half of those get a C+ or less so don't really know what they're doing. 7.5% therefore know something, and probably only a tenth of those use high level math on a regular basis. so you are now at 0.75% of the adult population... that's being generous. and in developing countries it's probably 1/100th of that.
so, no, 99%+ of the adult population are not children. nor do they have the intellect of children.
This video popped up on my RUclips feed and I realized I was behind one my Fermilab videos. I am going back right now to see what I missed. Keep it up Fermilab!
Thanks Don. I wanted to personally congratulate and thank you for the effort you've put into explaining physics to the public for a very long time. I wish you health and the joy of knowledge of physics never ends.
rugby ball would've made more sense though. 😅
I’m not a physicist but I understand everything that you say easily.. Not fully, but easily.. Kudos for simplifying it for us, mere mortals..
If a lay person can understand something, it is probably "un-scientific".
@@hidgik Such nonsense.
@@metcas Apparently you have absolutely no idea of what used to be called sarcasm or irony. Good luck.
@@hidgik Use /s then. This is the internet lol
I love this sort of content hearing about the unknown framed in this way stirs the imagination. It is the best form of science education I have come across. Please keep making this content.
This channel immediately shows me how much I don't know. Thanks!
I love that our minds seek rules and order and sensible answers to every cosmic bump in the road, never settling for "it might just be made like that" . Love your teaching method, keeping me riveted 30 years after I last saw the inside of a lecture hall.
10:15. At 2.7°K, calling the CMB "a pretty cool thing" is quite an understatement!
Dr. Don's sprinkles of down-to-earth non-physicist humor is what makes his physics topics so fascinating to watch. Thanks Dr. Don!!
Is everything OK Dr. Don? Are you well? I hope so!!
An entertaining and easy-to-understand book about the cosmic microwave background radiation alignment debate is Axis of Beginning.
Great video! I had read some articles about the topics covered here, but didn't really understand them until i saw this video. Hope to see more, and wishing you a quick recovery from whatever is ailing you, take care!
This cmb series you have is just fascinating to me, keep them coming!! I appreciate you putting things into terms that "regular" folks can understand. I'm already familiar with Fourier transforms and such, so your explanation there was simple to follow.
Don Lincoln is a such a total hero. I fully expect him to be the one who explains the meaning of life soon.
Keep these coming! Thanks for the fun approach to complex topics!
I read somewhere that this cold part of the universe may be the result of a severe energy exploition of entire galaxies or even galaxy clusters by a type 3 civilization. Any comments on that? I personally find it a very likely explanation.
It might also explain the hot ring around it. As the civilization expands like a bubble turning its frontiers hotter than normal and leaving at his path a drained from energy part of the universe.
@@petrosgitsidis295 I am not expert in physics at all (engineer here), but I don't think so. By one side the concept of a 3rd level civilization is highly speculative already and do not extends (as far as I remember) to more than one galaxy, and in any case it would generate a signal signature identifiable in some way (as energy is only transformed). By other hand, the CMB radiation was originated about 380 000 years after big bang, in an epoch in which galaxies still didn't exist.
Amazing video. Thank you to all Fermilab team working for this excellent channel and Dr. Lincoln for explaining things so complex in this accessible way. I appreciate how the big questions are addressed, and the misconceptions are exposed and the right answers explained. I always learn something really amazing in any single video. I am sincerely thankful.
Thank you sir for taking the time to explain these interesting subjects for nonmathemeticians. I could understand the concepts you were illustrating and enjoy the wonderment! Well done.
Real science videos about mysteries of the universe are awesome, can't wait for more!
I have been waiting for this for so long! I finally "see" it. Thank you so much for the graphical explanation!!
Always a great day when Don appears on my feed! Thank you Don!
I am really interested in the cold spot and what we know and don't know about it. I would love it if you made another video about it in the future. Thank you for expanding my personal universe!
fascinating as ever.thanks Doctor Lincoln and keep up the good work.
Best of the Best current physical science channel. Thank you.
I do love these mind bending journeys with Dr Don
Dr. Lincoln is nailing it, as usually! ;)
Hi Don!! Thanks for filling the super-void in my head! I have had no episodes of brain freeze anymore since shortly after I started watching this channel! (
My head already has a super void in it.
I'd like to hear some discussion about Roger Penrose's claim that the CMB contains concentric patterns that support his theory of a cyclic universe.
Penrose 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦
The greatest mystery : Where have all the missing Odd Socks gone ? You always started off life with Even socks... but eventually, as you do laundry, you will discover you now have an odd amount of socks... and ... where have the vanished gone ?!?
Dude. Dr. Don. That goofball analogy was wonderful. I've never heard it before.
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
Is the fact that we can see back in to time at all, due to the expansion of the universe and the speed of light a unique thing we should appreciate how unique that is? I mean it is pretty special that what we see is any galaxy as it was in the past, not current. That's pretty interesting.
Actually when we look at our own feet we see them as how they looked in the past, when light got reflected by them and started it's journey up to our eyes.
Yoooo Don is back!!! Great video as always!
Congrats on the 600K subs!!!
Could the alignment of of the spherical waveforms be a function of observation bias? We can only see them from effectively a singularity so the CMB will appear perpendicular to is in all directions.
Actually the alignment is exactly what would be predicted if the measured dipole in the CMB is *cosmological*(i.e. caused by an inherit asymmetry in the distribution of matter/energy at the time of the reionization epoch) rather than kinematic (due to the motion of our solar system) as has been typically assumed for simplicity (without any supporting evidence) and to allow the analytically solvable Friedmann solutions to be able to be assumed to be approximately applicable for our universe (and thus avoiding the nonlinear domain of the Einstein field equations)
Thankfully Ellis & Baldwin (1984) devised an experimental test which would be able to check the validity of the assumption of a kinematic dipole by measuring a large sample size of over a million cosmologically distant i.e. high redshift sources one could construct a dipole measurement which if the assumption of a kinematic dipole was true should be identical in both direction and magnitude of the CMB dipole. If it is not identical then the purely kinematic dipole assumption is falsified, i.e. there is a large real cosmological dipole component in the CMB which can not be removed by a relativistic reference frame correction to allow one to shift to a supposed CMB inertial frame.
In what is probably the most important breakthrough in cosmology in recent years which sadly has been largely ignored this was finally tested with over a million sources by Nathan J. Secrest et. al (Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 APJL 908 L51). Using a final sample size of 1.36 million quasars after the removal of possible sources of contamination from the local universe they were able to show that the measured dipole while similar enough in direction (only off by 8 degrees so not statistically significant enough) the magnitude was more than twice that of the CMB dipole which is a 4.9 Sigma significance discrepancy from a kinematic dipole.
This *is* significant enough to falsify the kinematic dipole assumption while also solving a number of cosmological mysteries, the apparent dipole quadrupole octupole etc. alignment, the measured acceleration of the rate of expansion(without requiring the existence of dark energy), the discrepancy in observed rate of expansion over time(again without requiring the existence of dark energy).
Basically about half a dozen mysteries/discrepancies in cosmology just go away just by removing the cosmological principal which hinged on the purely kinematic CMB dipole assumption to avoid falsification by the CMB measurements since all these discrepancies under Lambda CDM are natural predictions of the general Einstein field equations in a universe with a significant initial anisotropy and inhomogeneity.
Occam's razor strikes lambda CDM dead in favor of an anisotropic and inhomogeneous general solution of the Einstein field equations without the assumption of dark energy. It is just about as big of a simplification as the Heliocentric model of the solar system(with Kepler's laws) were over the Ptolemaic model except that the math is of course much harder since there are no nice neat analytical solutions anymore.
The ecliptic plane is nearly perpendicular to the galactic plane. As a result, the heliosphere is highly non-symmetric with respect to the "top" half facing "forward" and "bottom" half facing "backwards". Perhaps the "axis of evil" is an artifact of the structure of the heliosphere?
The data from Dark Energy Survey recently matched with CMB supervoid theory. I hope you shed some light on the current understanding Dr. Lincoln ..?
Is there any difference in polorization or wavelength in the microwaves comming from the cold spot and around it, compared to microvaves from other parts of the CMB? If, can that information then be used to substantiate any of the theories?
Good seeing you back Dr. Don! I am going with the "it just happened that way" theory! 😂😂👍👍
Just want more...always entertaining.
The CMB map is always presented in its modified form. It would be interesting to see the processing it goes through, with details, so we could understand how much delicate it is. To me it seems that some amount of "cleaning up" is left undone, if there are solar system related artifacts left.
Also, why the sphere map of CMB is almost never shown, only the not-so-clear elliptic map?
Bingo this is a critical point that has often been missed in the discussion. In particular the data clean up is largely dependent on our *assumptions* In particular a really big assumption is that the dipole in the CMB is purely kinematic allowing us to perform a relativistic frame shift to an *assumed* frame where the CMB is isotropic and uniform.
If part of the CMB dipole is not kinematic i.e. not due to the net motion of our frame of reference then the assumed frame where the CMB is isotropic and uniform does not exist and all conclusions dependent on that assumption (in particular the supposed existence of dark energy as a major component of the Universe and the validity of the cosmological principal) fall apart like a house of cards in the wind under the weight of huge systematic biases that swamp out any signals in the data.
Luckily this assumption can be tested as proposed by Elis & Baldwin in 1984 (G. F. R. Ellis, J. E. Baldwin, MNRAS, Volume 206, Issue 2, January 1984, Pages 377-381, doi.org/10.1093/mnras/206.2.377) The tricky bit is that you need a very large sample size to show this with any degree of statistical significance i.e. you need more than a million sources.
Last year however Nathan Secrest and collaborators (Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 APJL 908 L51) finally performed this test on a final sample size of 1.36 million quasars measured by WISE over its initial and extended mission phases. The results show that distant sources have a significantly larger dipole which while "only" 8 degrees off from the CMB dipole is more than twice as large in magnitude and thus is at 4.9 sigma discrepancy with a purely kinematic dipole (i.e. only a 1 in 2 million chance of being a statistical fluke)
Things are consequently looking pretty bad for a lot of cosmological results it looks like Cosmology is going to have to come to terms with the general nonlinear domain of the Einstein field equations.
@@Dragrath1 thank you very much for the information
Dear Dr. Lincoln,
Hello, fellow Rose-Hulman alum who decided to pursue a research career with a focus on teaching! I have a couple questions that I'd love to get your input on:
1. Suppose we have a black hole out on the edge of a galaxy. As it moves about, it will of course accrete dust and light, but it'll also accrete dark matter (assuming dark matter is made of particles). What fraction of its growth would be attributed to regular matter, what fraction to radiation, and what fraction to dark matter? Would an excess of growth over the expected growth from radiation & regular matter be evidence for dark matter? What would be the best way to measure its mass? Period of an orbiting pulsar, maybe?
2. When looking for new fundamental particles, what are the benefits of colliding protons in the LHC, instead of, say, protons & antiprotons, or lead ions, or electrons?
3. Who, in your opinion, are the great science communicators of biology and chemistry?
4. What aspects of science communication do we as a community need to focus more on? Early education? Technical explanations? Visualization?
thank you Dr Don
Thanks for another great video, one thing that struck me, if it turns out that there is really no cold spot wouldn't that impune all the rest of the data we have on the CMB?
I had the exact same thought
I love your channel, you have helped me understand so much! Please keep doing it as long as you can!
Great Video !!!
A good science channel is the one in which they are not affraid to say we don’t know
I wonder how we can be sure the CMB apparent alignment with the solar system is not more than a ficticious artifact created during the measurements. I wonder how it is possible to remove all the interference created by the Milky Way in order to get a clean CMB signal.
My thoughts too.
Actually the CMB alignment is more tricky than given here because it is only an assumption that the total dipole in the CMB is kinematic in origin i.e. purely a Doppler shift which can be removed by a relativistic transformation to reach an assumed isotropic CMB reference frame.
If the dipole is at east partly not kinematic but rather is cosmological in origin i.e. caused by a large scale asymmetry in the energy/matter distribution of the early universe back during the CMB epoch then the alignment of that CMB dipole with the Quadrupole and Octupole etc. terms is exactly what would be predicted. This kinematic assumption has been typically assumed for simplicity (without any supporting evidence) and to allow the cosmological principal to avoid being falsified by the CMB which by saving the cosmological principal allows cosmologists to make assumptions to let them use the analytically solvable Friedmann solutions to the general Einstein field equations which are only exact solutions in the case of prefect isotropy and homogeneity at all scales.
This then allows cosmologists to avoid having to deal with the nonlinear domain of the Einstein field equations which are fundamentally chaotic.
Thankfully Ellis & Baldwin (1984) devised an experimental test which would be able to check the validity of the assumption of a kinematic dipole by measuring a large sample size of over a million cosmologically distant i.e. high redshift sources one could construct a dipole measurement which if the assumption of a kinematic dipole was true should be identical in both direction and magnitude of the CMB dipole. If it is not identical then the purely kinematic dipole assumption is falsified, i.e. there is a large real cosmological dipole component in the CMB which can not be removed by a relativistic reference frame correction to allow one to shift to a supposed CMB inertial frame.
In what is probably the most important breakthrough in cosmology in recent years which sadly has been largely ignored this was finally tested with over a million sources by Nathan J. Secrest et. al (Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 APJL 908 L51). Using a final sample size of 1.36 million quasars after the removal of possible sources of contamination from the local universe they were able to show that the measured dipole while similar enough in direction (only off by 8 degrees so not statistically significant enough) the magnitude was more than twice that of the CMB dipole which is a 4.9 Sigma significance discrepancy from a kinematic dipole.
This is significant enough to falsify the kinematic dipole assumption while also solving a number of cosmological mysteries, the apparent dipole quadrupole octupole etc. alignment, the measured acceleration of the rate of expansion(without requiring the existence of dark energy), the discrepancy in observed rate of expansion over time(again without requiring the existence of dark energy).
Basically about half a dozen mysteries/discrepancies in cosmology just go away just by removing the cosmological principal which hinged on the purely kinematic CMB dipole assumption to avoid falsification by the CMB measurements since all these discrepancies under Lambda CDM are natural predictions of the general Einstein field equations in a universe with a significant initial anisotropy and inhomogeneity.
Occam's razor strikes lambda CDM dead in favor of an anisotropic and inhomogeneous general solution of the Einstein field equations without the assumption of dark energy. It is just about as big of a simplification as the Heliocentric model of the solar system(with Kepler's laws) were over the Ptolemaic model except that the math is of course much harder since there are no nice neat analytical solutions anymore.
When this finally gets through to cosmology it will just mean that like every other field of science they will have to deal with the fundamentally chaotic and thus unpredictable nature of complex systems governed by nonlinear systems of partial differential equations. Honestly this becomes obvious in the face of Gödel's incompleteness theorems which are a fundamental corner stone of the mathematical rules of logic and form the basis of modern computational mathematics and theory.
For sure, and now they have subtracted the entire milkyway to produce an image of the black hole in the middle. I find that impossible to do with any statistical significance. Looking past a billion highly compact region of stars? I don't think so. Computer programs can do anything you want, called confirmation bias. Once it produced what they wanted, it was all good.
Excellent Program
I KNEW YOU WOULD GET A NEW HAIRCUT! LOOKING HANDSOME Dr. D! Best channel.
Spacetime channel is getting weird and stepping away from fundamentals (watered down with a lot of conjecture) and sometimes goes on tangents perpendicular to logic. Your videos are the best.
I wonder: if a super void can distort the CMB signal, how can we be sure other factors like gravity lensing by dark matter distribution are not distorting it too?
Maybe a super void and a black whole in between or inside it?
No doubt such factors *are* distorting it. It just appears that their effects are minimal.
@@jursamaj maybe we can't see it (the effect)or imagine what it could be changed into?
Because they use computer programs to remove the heat detected from galaxies, stars, etc, etc, which means they can make their program produce anything they want! Sure they might try hard, but how can you know how much heat to subtract? These videos NEVER explain HOW they come up with this stuff we take as fact.
Maybe the universe started out as some kind of (particle) with gargantuan mass, in some infinite vacuum, that became unstable and decayed in a release of all the energy and mass that resulted in the Big Bang. The genesis particle would be a cool name. But seriously is it plausible?
Check out "quantum creation." I think it points to a very likely scenario for how the big bang occurred.
@@moonchase A Genesis Particle, if it even exists, could be a particle of pure energy rather than one of actual mass. Or one with properties unknown to us. But I'm just speculating here. The other thing is could the unification of gravity with other forces of the universe be combined in such a primordial particle? Bear in mind I'm just trying to think outside the box with this because conventional physics doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. IDK.
Im and electrical engineer but I have worked as a mechanical engineer for the past several years. In my mechanical work I have used FFTs quite a bit. Just as much as I do with my electrical work. Machine vibrations, pressure signals, flow signals and even sound, help diagnose system issues when broken into their individual frequencies. And in a recent case I worked on, we proved a digital system was inducing mechanical vibrarions by probing several signals and correlating bode plots.
Havent seen him for a while and is it me or does he seem out of breath alot. Hope he is doing ok, great channel
I love watching your informative videos. Your voice and lungs seem much weaker- hopefully not Covid!
Be well!!! : )
Dr. Don, looking good. Wish you good health and a nice day, thank you for the video.
The idea that intervening space can cause variations in the signal we receive from the CMB makes me concerned that it may be the cause of other variation seen in the CMB.
For me this is the best scientific classrom for ignorant viewers like myself. I enjoy the channel enourmosly. Thank you very much.
What an awesome explanation of Fourrier analysis for the layman! Hope I may use it too!
Thank you!
What's the answer? I don't know. That in itself gives Don such credibility that he is clear on the boundaries between knowledge and conjecture. Keep it up Don. Oh, and his audiobook for The Evidence for Modern Physics was outstanding. A lot of material overlap with some of his videos, but I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing as it was organized in a more front-to-back explanation rather than topical like this channel.
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
The most interesting videos with content "I don't know" on RUclips. 👍
If you went a few dozen light years to the left and took a picture of the CMB, would it be the same? Also, if we waited a million years and took the picture again, would it look the same?
I suppose it wouldnt, and therefore since its an evolving picture, coincidences like the cold spot will happen sometimes.
It would the same way a few light years to the left, but not exactly the same.
It would not look the same a few million years in the future. Because the universe is expanding the cmb cools down with time. In a few million years it will be somewhat colder.
nice questions
Silly question... but why cannot there be lots of supervoids thus explaining the cmb variation. Seems like a strange hypothesis to use on one very small section of the cmb and ignore it for the rest.
Hi Professor. Great episode 👍 but there's something bothers me: why the void is causing wavelength to change while regular (non-void) space does not?
Great question, if you wanna understand easily in simple terms.
Let's take a example when you speak in vaccum your voice will be slow and diminished after a certain distance. But you can listen upto very small distance. If there is membrane at that some voice can be heard.
Just like sound need medium to travel. In the same way the wave also need energy and other particles to travel.
At the exit of the void the wave particles gain similar energy what they lost at the entrance of the void.
In rhe actual space wavelength also changes, that thing known as redshift happenings because of expansion of universe
Thanks for asking the question 😊
I think it's about the fact that when entering the void, there's more mass behind than in front of a given photon. The photon can't slow down, so it loses energy by becoming lower frequency. As it travels towards the opposite edge, there's more mass in front than behind, causing the opposite effect.
Monis's explanation is a great analogy but that's about waves in a medium. A photon is a quantum wavelet that (in theory) doesn't need a medium. It's also a particle that goes at the speed of light. Those are important differences.
@@gyozakeynsianism thanks a lot for the applause, wait lemme explain more simply
Temperature of the void is responsible for the change, as dr said temp is lower in the void. When the quantum particles travel in the colder area the speed of particles slower down and vice versa.
To understand this in real world scenario.
Imagine you are boiling water in covered beaker in which a pipe is connected and the end of pipe is also in beaker but a pipe is cooled by ice
The water gained energy during boiling ( but condensed into water from water vapours when this condensed water again become water vapours because it gain energy.
And you also tried nicely. But there is a catch here, space isn't true vaccum.
Even so called void has some particle density
@@monisrajput8056 Dr. Don said temperature is measured to be lower in the supervoid. This is assuming that what we're actually measuring is true, original CMB. But one alternative theory is that a large, empty opening in space that is younger than the Big Bang could be in the way of the CMB, which could result in lower temperatures (meaning the supervoid would not actually be a measure of the CMB). CMB radiation passes through this smaller, closer void and makes it cooler.
It's hard to believe this is about interaction between photons and matter, because even outside this theorized void, space between galaxies is both immense and very empty. The theorized void would be even emptier. And if there were interaction with matter, we'd expect scattering of the light; the light that makes it though is almost certainly not scattered and therefore didn't interact with matter.
@@gyozakeynsianism well man the void may be created with the perfect supernova of star.
Every matter interacts with other matter except dark matter.
Scattering also happens but it very minute it remains unnoticed.
10:58
"That was pretty cool"
Indeed, but if you go far enough back in time, CMB was really hot.
Great! Thank you!
Thanks for sharing your knowledge of the cosmos
It wasn't clear for me the difference of a 'photon on a void' and not making the 'void photon' less energetic...
As always, I will generously like this Fermilab vid which was extremely interesting, but went way over my head.
Beautiful, inspiring work.
I love those "I dunno"-moments. that's when some less honest pop-scientists try to peddle speculation.
So..the CMB proved the Earth is the center of the Universe. Big deal, that's not important.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and just move on...
Now, let's talk about the cold spot.
You gotta love 'science'.
Nice presentation.
Great video as usual ☘️☘️☘️
in case anyone is interested, his t-shirt reads: √-4=2 it's all fun and games until someone loses an i
Dear Dr Lincoln, we met you on an elevator at Fermilab about 10 years ago (and no, I don;t expect you to remember), but I do have one very pressing question that I have yet to see discussed (and if you can point me to a paper that does answer this question, please do) is why are the first generation of quarks "backwards" in their spin and mass components (the up at 2/3 spin is half as massive as the down at -1/3 spin) whilst the charm and top (truth) quarks at 2/3 spin are much more massive than the strange and bottom (beauty) quarks? It might look like this is an example of symmetry breaking. Can you help explain this?
This channel: "Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free..." to quote my favorite band, who I think would approve.
Rush!
Can you please explain the physics of the polarized beam splitter like you did with refraction and speed of light in glass.
Excellent explanations .
Is it possible the answers to the questions in this video can be derived from tacos? Because all I’ve got is tacos.
Approximately how many points went into creating the famous CMB? One would presume that is something that is known. Also, the most evocative title cards!
We need more Dr. Don please.....
In all the diagrams of the spherical harmonics, I notice UV spheres are used. UV sphere have clearly defined poles... Was UV spherical projection used anywhere in these calculations, and if so, do the axis of evil align with the UV sphere's polar axis?
I propose that this man be given a Nobel Prize for ‘talking’. He is that good in talking down complexity into digestible quantised bits for his viewers.
I must admit I am a skeptic. Can light be a particle that bumps the next particle and then bumps the next particle. Yep that's a wave. Can dark energy be also a wave that bumps randomly around us like photons.
Dr. Don, If a void could explain the cold spot in the CMB, then could it be possible for smaller voids to explain all of the temperature differences in the CMB? If so, can the temperature distributions of the CMB be a reliable source of data, as it pertains to the initial epochs? -Thanks.
The first thing that comes to mind here is that somehow the CMB axis orientation influenced the axis of the formation of the solar system like some sort of universal coriolis effect (but this would imply that most star systems in the universe are aligned and I think we'd have noticed that)
The second thing that comes to mind is that the flat distribution of gravity in the solar system is somehow distorting our perception of the CMB
(not even sure how either of these would or wouldn't make sense, though)
I really enjoy several speakers, but this fellow is my favorite. What I’d like to see is Neil Matt Sabine Becky all sit with Don and chat for an hour or two about, we’ll, about anything they want. I’d likely find most topics interesting. Lol. I’m easy. Just to have them all together chatting over coffee/tea. Just an idea!!
cant they just look at other star systems to see if they line up too and then u can tell if its just a coincidence with the solar system?
Is CMB free of photon multiplier effect can CMB attain absolute zero entropy fate
Might sound a bit stupid but wouldn't the cmb favour or align with the solar system because it’s from that star system that it is being observed? I imagine the same would be true regardless of position in space. So if someone in a star system 500m Lya from earth observed the cmb, the pattern would look slightly different and appear to align with them but only due to the observers relative position. We might also be primed to interpret data in a way that highlights our importance on a subconscious or limbic level, regardless of how sober and cognisant we might be. I’d love to know what the cmb looks like from andromeda, maybe each planet, moon, cell, lepton, so on, has its own vantage cmb baby photo
I always look forward to these videos. Does the analysis of the CMB allow us to determine the distance to the CMB? I presume the the origin of the CMB to be at or near the boundary of the univirse in all directions ?
As far as I know the CMB is the boundary of the "observable" universe, 46 billion (1E9) light years away, which arrived to us from all directions after travelling almost 13.8 billion (1E9) years. This is possible because the universe expanded, allowing the light to seems as having travelled more than possible in an stationary universe. The universe could be even much bigger than this 92 billions light years diameter bubble, but that is the further we can see.
The origin of the CMB was the Big Bang. The CMB was about 380,000 years after the BB. So technically it's 13.7 Billions - 380,000 Light-years away and ago. I'd guess you could say it's at near the boundary of the visible universe and yes all directions. Although it's about something like 45 billion light-years away today because the universe has been expanding ever since. The whole universe may be at least 500 times bigger than the visible universe. Something like that.
@@tTtt-ho3tq Thanks, that's what I presumed. I was just wondering if we developed any tricks to measure the distance the way we can to some stars. In other words does the CMB reveal or confirm anything about the uniform shape of the universe?
@@alanr3705
Oh, those are the details. I don't do details or windows. The details are hard. You really have to know to study the details. Sorry I've no idea. Even Einstein's special relativity don't make no sense to me already. I'm sure they have methods to measure all those things. I'd think someone would come up with some good ideas if there's something better. I just follow blindly. Physics is universal worldwide. Einstein's, quantum mechanics, etc are all the same to every scientists around the world. And remember physics is everything. That's why I watch this or others.
I love that there's so much more that we don't know. So much adventure ahead! We are going to learn some amazing things!
Dude, you got a haircut! Thanks for the awesome videos BTW!
Question. One wiggle gives a pattern. Two giggles gives an other pattern and so on... How many wiggles does have the CMB. Maybe that frequency tells us something about the CMB?
Love this series,
Thanks Don.
The CMB calculation needs to subtract microwave transmission from the dust in the Mullet Way, right? + subtracting other local microwave transmissions? If so, these seem to be obvious places bias towards our local reference frame can be introduced. So obvious, it's likely the first place searched.
The axis of evil doesn't seem terribly unlikely in such a large sample size. You're bound to find apparent patterns in large random samples. But there's probably more to it than that.
yeah what's the big deal? a couple of them spherical harmonics in the set of 4000 just happen to be orientated similarly to the solar system. seems like coincidence