I would be disappointed if they could explain all of Webb's observations with current physics. This is why it's out there, to challenge our understanding and reveal new unimaginable truths. The learning will never stop, hopefully. Great video 👍
Why would it be disappointing? What's disappointing is rather that we still haven't been able to figure out how the universe works. If we were to find a model that agreed with absolutely everything we observed, that would rather be delightful.
@@outisnemo8443 rating the object by disappointment or delight throws the weight of the rating back to the subject-observer. what observes what? does the truth lie in the nonduality of both? is that the good question?
@@outisnemo8443 ? the issue is how the universe works, you bring up delight versus disappointment on grounds of absolute truth and then you shift to no religion? science is including philosophy in order to include any understanding and approach. nonduality is a perfect scientific method to approach notions such as relative and absolute. but, uh noone is asking anyone to evolve faster than one can. one can stick to one's 'science' if that brings the standstill one feels comfortable with.
@@djoniebie: What I said was that I'd be delighted if we found a model that described the universe perfectly, rather than disappointed. That's a scientific and testable matter. What you're talking about is religious gobbledygook with no relation to science.
Solid explanations. A lack of the overused stock video of fake scientists. Instead we get beautiful graphs and overlays and even a bit of thought provoking conjecture. Good job!
Right… Now it is only fake ‘science’… A ‘space vacuum’ does not exist and even if it did, then astronomical spectroscopy is still complete and utter bullshit.
@@rwarren58 I was trying to be a responsible adult to determine what was going on the world, since I wanted to be able to plan the future of my family. Since I don't do things halfheartedly, I got myself into trouble quickly. The breadth and depth of the deception is _astronomical_ (pun intended).
2nd time I visit this channel. When I saw the title, I thought it was clickbait, or, worse, quackery. But oh boy I was wrong. This is truly a masterpiece of science communication. Thank you so much.
That probably means you haven't been paying much attention. People like Lerner have for decades been pointing to the myriad incongruences between Big Bang and observed reality, and even wrote about what they knew JWST would find, which is exactly what JWST has indeed found. That's true science.
I'm just a humble Paramedic, and this stuff is way above my pay grade of understanding, BUT, it's extremely Fascinating, like Mr Spock says. Thank you from all you're subscribers and viewers🙂👍
@ZeusandAthena - I can highly recommend you to check out Neil deGrasse Tyson and his RUclips channel: Star Talk Very insightful and informative, and at times even hilarious
It’s just mind boggling that in every galaxy, there could be billions of solar systems housing Earth like planet with different life formations. There are over 2 trillions of galaxies in the observable universe 🤯
@@Just_Juiced- Or the exact opposite. If we’re staring into their past. Than life has possibly emerged after the fact. Earth had a Cambrian explosion over 500 million years ago. When complex life-forms started rapidly evolving. So to distant galaxies we may appear “lifeless”.
@@empyrean196 exactly and it is absolutely mind boggling to think about the fact that life on these planets could exist and possibly intelligent life but we just won’t see them because of the way light travels
@@adamcunningham2511 that's actually way too simplistic. One sees in a different spectrum of light to the other it's not distance it's a type of light that it can detect. They're actually vastly more different. I recommend launch pad astronomy's channel for JWST information.
They're both not real and the pictures are all artist renditions back when during the hubble years and now they are all AI generated with filters for color. None of it is real, your money is just being stolen for other projects that our government doesn't have to answer for.
I really appreciated the analysis of the significance of the CEERS galaxy on a more technical level, with the implications for cosmology. That’s been a frustration for me with a lot of the Webb results, beautiful pictures, but what do they mean? Thanks for the more in-depths explanation.
It's so frustrating, right? Not understanding something that in no way affects you is hell! Before, we didn't know it existed, never once did it worry us, but now all bets are off the table. What does it mean? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!! Pull the plug on the James Webb telescope! Please!!! I'm going to go insane! Oh, the humanity! AaaaAAAaaahhh!!!
Not gonna lie, but this went WAAAAY over my head. As I understand it (and I probably don't) this galaxy appears to exist in two separate times (since z ≈ 5 means it's closer than z ≈ 13, and therefor is later in time) without existing in between. It's a space-time continuum, so I guess saying it exists in two different places without it having traveled that distance is an equally valid explanation, even though there is a time difference between the two existences. Not sure if we could just be looking at two different galaxies that existed at different times in line with one another, but I suspect that smarter minds have ruled that possibility out.
What wasn't discussed in this video was the potential for refraction of the light rays by an intermediate large mass object/galaxy, giving the appearance of two separate objects. This has been observed previously.
It must be kept in mind that knowledge and understanding in the sciences is fluid and changing and is in no way "settled science". Being born in the 1950s I was fascinated growing up with the space race. It is amazing how little was known and understood in the recent past and the future will be no kinder to our present knowledge. I'm careful with absolutes because things change as progress is made and time passes. What we know today may not resemble the future.
Also am a child of the '50s. I Still feel robbed about Pluto's demotion and the wrong head on the Chicago Museum Brontosaurus. If the Cosmology Model is shown to need adjustment with a further Epoch, then declare Victory and do it! I sure won't cry in my breakfast cereal about that; I'm struggling to know just which Mandela timeline I'm on and how many more major historical ones there can be of which we'll take notice.
Why is it a threat to our current cosmology. It might change our view but I don't see it as a threat as much as it is learning new information and adjusting accordingly to it. This is exciting not threatening.
My contention has always been the JWT will provide more questions than answers. Its been in use for what just a few weeks now? Imagine a year from now.
How can you state that we're looking into the last unknown epoch of our cosmic timeline? As with the transition from Hubble to the James Webb telescope, our information is merely the best we have given our current state of the art technology and our best minds. In the future we'll have better technology and be able to "see" farther than we can now. Of course, that would break physics even more and challenge assumptions about the big bang theory either a little or a lot. Unless science is to be a religion, we shouldn't hold any of the ideas we currently have as sacrosanct and should be prepared for whatever future observations have for us, including "breaking" physics and completely changing everything we currently think about the big bang and how our universe started. All that is just our best assessment given what information we have right now.
"Unless science is to be a religion, we shouldn't hold any of the ideas we currently have as sacrosanct" Haha, science as something besides a religion? You're about a century too late for that, I'm sorry to say.
@@mylesleggette7520 Hey, of all the religions, science at least gives us some pretty cool benefits and inventions every once in a while (unlike some other religions, which only stifle inventions and benefits)
They conveniently leave out the fact the info coming in is actually disproving the BB theory as you said. They have finding things that is impossible if the bang happened at all.
I'm waiting for something to challenge the currently accepted age of the universe. I've never been satisfied with the answers every time I ask "How do we know it's ~13 billion years old?"
How do they know?! If you really wanted to find out, you could. Here are a couple of easy to digest videos to help you get a better understanding. ruclips.net/video/VOz4PkdY7aA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/tDZZEaqQPNY/видео.html
Straight up i'm just going to put this out there, whenever there is a documentary of some sort this is one voice that's able to keep my attention. All documentaries should use this voice =D
Great stuff. I do not, however , agree that anything we learn about anything is a threat to that discipline. That's science, you get better information, you change your outlook and begin to study the new phenomena.
Love this Series of writing down / printed out & explain the Scientific Measurement Units to the General Public who may not familiar with them! Thank You So Much for the efforts & the Wondrous tutorials! 🕯🌷🌿🌍💗🕊
I have always been skeptical of the "big bang" theory. there was never any explanation of before the big bang that i felt was plausible. plus even before this, we knew the universe is more light years big than the age of the supposed post big-bang universe. Now i am even more convinced that we are just taking our best guesses, and we have not seen the light quite yet. This is really exciting stuff. Looking forward to future discoveries from all the new hi-tech telescopes and sensing systems.
I convinced that God put anomalies in the universe to confuse the intelligent people that are too proud to realize their need for a Savior. I used to be one myself. There are alternative theories concerning astronomy. Check out Dr. Jason Lisle Dr. Russell Humphreys Dr. Danny Faulkner Amazing scientists that can help make sense of God's word and logical thought concerning 🌟 light.
Agreed. I am of the view that the universe is both eternal and infinite. The Original fractal. Far too much cosmology, rests on just a handful of assumptions. I don’t think they factor gravitational time dilation properly among other things when they examine the light from distant sources. Pretty sure that we are if we last long enough, going to discover that the universe continues infinitely in both direction and scale.
The bin bang theory is counter intuitive. How would a singularity of that much mass that is in our universe explode? It wouldn't. It would be like a black hole. It makes no sense.
amazing contents and beautiful presentation.This is one of my fav channel.It would be of great help if alongside these videos you also create basic astronomy series for basics concepts in astronomy. Keep making such wonderful videos.Cheers
The best free online lectures about astronomy, and cosmology, also a little physics maybe is a professor from New York named Jason Kendall- all of his lectures are so good! you will learn and apply so much i promise! SEA also has amazing coverage of cosmic subjects and objects with a calm, sober and clear way of narration-neither will cause panic or any anxiety, only make you wanna know more.
What I liked most about this vídeo presentation, are the news and honesty about the observations and duality of the hypothesis considered on behalf of true plain knowledge.
Redshift is an indication of the distant body's motion relative to Earth, the solar system and the Milky Way galaxy. Redshift is not a measurement of distance. It's implied when assuming space expands at an average rate of 70 km/s per megaparsec. The Hubble constant is not actually constant but an average of many different measurements. Why does the redshift even occur if light has a set speed and travels through space as a light particle? It should be traveling the same velocity regardless if space were stretching or not. Claiming the light is stretching because it is a wave contradicts the whole idea that light travels through space as a light particle and takes time to travel. The fact that the light is being stretched at all is a clear indicator it is a continuous field of energy instantly connecting the body radiating light to the observer or measuring device. The distant body and the observer are then quantumly entangled, so what happens to light radiating from the distant body instantly is conveyed to the light being measured by an observer, regardless of distance. All light in the EM field of the distant body is connected via quantum entanglement. We are unable to see the light of distant bodies as they looked in the past because the light information is conveyed in an instant through quantum entanglement. The supermassive galaxies like HD1 and TON 618 near the beginning of time are more massive than the Milky Way galaxy because they are older and the telescopes are measuring them in the now, not how they looked in the past. All the evidence indicates cosmological models are wrong. We cannot look into the past using a telescope no more than we can use a microscope to look into the future. Light information happens in a quantum instant when the observer or measuring device is contained inside the EM field being measured. All the light information in the distant body's light cone is quantumly entangled. This is a big deal. Because massive galaxies located some 13.5 billion light years away indicates a big bang didn't happen 13.8 billion years ago. Anyone here understand why?
"..We cannot look into the past using a telescope no more than we can use a microscope to look into the future...." Oh boy, you sure are befuddled.... hehehehe
As far as I know, redshift occurs because light loses it's energy because of the large distance it has to travel and hence it's wavelength increases and frequency decreases, which has been referred to as stretching. And no, you're wrong when you say we see things in space how they look at present. Light has a fixed velocity and so when we see something 100 light years away, we are seeing it how it was 100 years ago.
@@rohitkhanna You are the befuddled one believing we can see backwards in time. Soon the JWST will reveal they have measured galaxies larger than the Milky Way but further than 14 billion light years away. It will be the nail on the coffin of general relativity and Einstein's claims that we are able to see backwards in time. How could supermassive galaxies emerge, larger than the Milky Way before the big bang and cosmic inflation occurred? The question you should be asking yourself is how was a novice like myself able to accurately predict it while experts were not? They will be scratching their heads for decades trying to figure it out. I suspect you would not understand even if I explained why.
Great narration job and awesome graphics. I haven't a clue about most of what you are talking about, but by god, I'm damn sure you do, and it's fascinating regardless. ✌
You're not. You are seeing how it looked 12 billion years ago. Kind of like looking at the sun going down. When it is touching the ground that was eight minutes ago. That moment took eight minutes to reach your eyes. I get what your saying though. :)
Damn an astrology channel that doesn’t just regurgitate basic phrases and actually explains things. Keep up the good work more graphs and reporting pls.
An assumption backed up by literally everything we observe. - The expansion of the universe implies that the entire world was as small as an atom 13.8 billion years ago. - The Cosmic Microwave Background proves that the universe was a uniform "soup" of plasma 300,000 years ago and before that. Disbelief isn't a bad thing ; but you'd have to disprove those points and give arguments to give weight to your perspective.
I’m very happy that you are able to view the beginning of time. That your sharing what your finding. Imagine the material and exotic metals and minerals left behind that are still there from those agent galaxies. Too bad they’re so far away and unreachable for us. But what excites me more is there other intelligent life forms out there? This is what is more exciting for me for you to search for and find. All is exciting, but Whether we’re alone or not, it’s more interesting to me. Too bad we don’t have two of those James Webb telescope so out there, doing two different jobs.
Aside from the rich voice you use to narrate, I like how everything is presented in a "simpler but not simple" way. I learnt so much just from this video!
I'm trying to understand the math behind why there could be multiple Z-value solutions for this galaxy and how the probability of each solution is estimated. Any information as to what data/ mathematics is used to make those calculations would be appreciated.
@@jonathan4385 I mean, do you know which equations are used to calculate the z value and how they can have multiple answers? I was assuming it's something quadratic but I couldnt find it online with a few searches which is why I asked. There's a lot of equations in quantum mechanics and my familiarity is pretty limited
Thanks very much for this explanation which is great for people like me who are really interested but don't have a great deal of understanding about this particular part of Cosmology.
as far as we know the universe may be infinite. the reason we have an "EDGE" is because that's all the time we've had to allow light to travel that distance. If the universe was half its age we would have an "edge" half the distance from where it is now. That observable "bubble" (for lack of a better way to put it) would move to whereever youre observing from.
alternative conjecture to the high redshift: the galaxy is moving away faster, than anticipated, so it produces a higher redshift. had to do some skimming on the reading, so anybody in the field feel free to explain it further or correct me, but the interpretation of a higher redshift only indicates a higher velocity away from our observation point. normally that would correspond (please take note that correspond is a statistics relationship, but without the actual distance, it is only a probable correlation). so that higher redshift value, if using a scale of higher redshift = age closer to big bang, that would make absolute sense. but consider not everything was launched at the same velocity from the center of the big bang.
Schrodinger's Galaxy is not in 2 places at once - the signal we are receiving from that galaxy is being affected by other BIG systems that are affecting the signal we receive (see light is not constant), making the signal look like 2 unique signals as those systems pass in between us and the source
I have always speculated that light may be slowed going through parts of space via unforseen gasses and gravity wells, is it at all possible we have time wrong? Time is something man made up to make sense of the universe around us, we could still be wrong.
I really dont understand how people with any rational thought can believe this... Time is the progression of events. Time tells you to eat the fruit when its a fruit and not a seed. Time determines whether a Star is a star or a black hole. All radioactive isotopes that are identical to each other decay at the same rate. Time is the difference between meeting the love of your life, and spending time behind bars because you didnt check her ID No idea how people could think humans are literally GODS who created the 4th dimension of the universe which is TIME.
Yes, light is slowed down by any medium it travels through. The "speed of light" refers to the speed that light travels when it's in a vacuum. What does that have to do with time being "wrong" though?
Fascinating ! Huge computations! one day in the future, we will have the theory of the mechanism behind the big bang! looks like it is some kind of stellar universe production machine, mind-boggling!!!
@@executivesteps the fact that we are not able to explain how come these first few galaxies/black holes gain so much mass in just the early stages of universe
First time watching this channel. Took forever to get to any interesting parts. I recommend answering the questions “what is weird” and “why is that weird” sooner and more confidently - even a simple “it should be both very far away and very close to a nearer galaxy, and both options break our models” would have sufficed. Reading from a science paper verbatim before even giving the hook to keep watching was particularly grating. I get laying the foundation of what is redshift first but you can state the core tension in observations during that or right after.
I'd have to look more closely at the data, but I could see it having a high mass and luminosity due to an abundance of pop3 stars. If they're as potentially massive as models suggest, I think it could be a lonely explanation. Very mundane explanation, but that's not a bad thing, imo
the issue with that is that the galaxy is essentially very young, and the time it taken to get the light to us is very long, BUT we also dont know whats beyond that, maybe even more "weird" things will be discovered
Scientist should graciously accept the fact that our knowledge is limited. The more we study the more we come to know differently. No one can claim to have complete understanding.
Yea, you cannot really break physics. If physics does not work as espected, then there must be some unknown influencing the result. As long as everything, no matter how bizzare, can be replicated just by replicating conditions under which it happens, everything is just fine 🙂
Physics are what they are - if anything "breaks" it will be our current theories, due to our incomplete understanding. New discoveries will hardly "break" our knowledge, only add to it by filling some voids and correcting whatever bits that may be wrong.
Newton gave us a physics that worked. Einstein gave us a physics that worked better and explained a few more things. I would love to see an advance in physics that explains even more. Newton wasn’t “wrong” as much as limited in scope.
Mostly, it's lighting. The stuff out there that we're seeing is literally billions of times brighter than even our own sun - so, as long as we can catch the light emitted at the right wavelengths, we can see the objects. In even our own system, things like planets and asteroids, etc., are only reflecting the sun's light. Some bodies actually absorb the light, too. This makes seeing detail super difficult. The brightness of these objects is simply unimaginable on a human scale, for any of us, so I think that makes a deep understanding of how it's possible hard. For the fly-bys of planets, etc., there's actually been a lot more detail available every time it's happened... like, even Pluto, you can see incredible detail. That said, the cameras aren't the absolute best quality because visual info isn't generally nearly as useful for science as a lot of other measurements. A rocket can only carry so much stuff - this is limited by both budget and just propulsion capabilities - and so while a visual camera is usually included on these missions, it isn't as useful as equipment that takes science-based measurements. What it's useful for is keeping the public's interest, which provides funding, and of course for making the objects "real" for all of us...
@@sarahberlaud4285 i appreciate the attempt here. But I must disagree. We can see planets with our naked eye in the same fashion we see the stars. And this thing is supposedly seeing stuff billions and billions of miles away. The reflected light is quite adequate. Case in point: the fly-bys. If those are real, it demonstrates the light is adequate with even lesser camera capabilities. This new one should provide crystal clear everything within our solar system. Especially, the surface of the moon and our nearest or brightest reflecting planets. How would THAT be for keeping interest? I’d say it would be a hell of a lot MORE interesting to see clearer, deeper images of saturn and its moons than a white dots in places we’ll never reach. Aren’t we supposed to be going to mars? Where’s the images of that? I’m sorry, but, u can try to explain this stuff away, but outside of budget, which was already paid, no way u can explain why this thing isn’t producing much better images of stuff billions of light years closer. only reason it’s not is they’ve chosen not to. then, why is the question.
@@D369_ Well, I'm definitely not here to argue. I think you'd be surprised at the detail we have of the places you mention (like the moon and mars), and you might really enjoy those images! As for why they're not focusing Webb there, I think it's exactly because missions are making it there - including planned manned ones - and so it's not really as good a use of Webb's limited functioning time. The things it's picking up, no human in the conceivable future will ever get there. Mars? Human eyes will probably see it in real life within the coming decades. So, personally, I agree with their decision to see as far out as possible - all while totally respecting that others like yourself would rather know our own system even better.
Great voiceover, visuals and editing! The writing is great for the most part. One thing to improve, in my opinion: Writing throughout has "And" and "But" as sentence starters. There are also a couple spots with awkward pauses after a comma. Great video otherwise. I was "recommended" this and I'm not disappointed by any stretch. would love to see more of this.
Thanks for the vid. Very informative. I have always been a huge astrophysics nerd. I have seen several others about Webb and was left disappointed by the writer not knowing anything about what he was talking about. Just making them for money not caring about the quality of content. Great job!
It's strange to think that no matter what empty patch the telescope points at, the distant galaxy pattern starts looking the same. It's almost like we are in a bubble with no boundary.
I mean its a bit clickbaity. They dont think the galaxy exists at TWO distances at once. They just have 2 POSSIBLE locations, which they have to define further.
Considering it's a well known fact that different light waves move at different speeds, along this object is so far away, there is nothing in this video that can break physics. It just confirms what we already know and have known a long time.
Absolutely crazy universe ❤️❤️ so much to learn from your videos. Thank you so much for bringing best of the best space video, really interesting and informative. Nice hard work
My ONLY question is if CEERS is as far away as measured, what would the Milky Way redshift be if they were looking at us? If they're in fact older than us, would we not be detectable by them?
No matter where you are in the universe, your time frame reference is relative. So 13.8bn years that way, is 13.8bn years this way. Where this would get complicated is if you are the photon itself moving at c. That's when shit gets weird.
Surely all our knowledge is based on the 'observable' universe - is it not the case that the universe may have been expanding for even longer than we are aware,and therefore we will never know for sure that the 13.4 billion timescale is correct?
With all the extremely hard work done by us as humans to explore the distant universe, it’s still the “observable universe” which is being observed every era with a stronger equipments/scopes. As a result newer observations will definitely redefine our understanding and even refute many hypothesis including the big bang itself.
Bro you know we gotta get our asses on a bigger telescope that can see back to the Big Bang. JWST is doing great work in demonstrating to the world how important and interesting these telescopes are, given that they can literally look back in time
The creator of our simulation is clearly having a little more fun with us. But seriously, many people have long thought the current cosmological framework to be seriously questionable. BTW, red-shifted light is probably not due to recession, but due to the beginning of its transformation from energy photon to sub-atomic particle. It's the condensation of energy back to mass that's part of the energy-mass cycle of the universe.
@@idsdragon8293 It's not so obvious. Think about it. How do you explain gravitational lensing? Of course they tell you it's all "the fabric of space time', but the "fabric of space time" is not a real thing. Even wikipiedia says it is a conceptual framework for which there's no evidence in the real world. All the evidence for "relativity" is also evidence for light having mass. Every 'proof' of relativity shows electromagnetic bending. That is evidence of mass as a property of electromagnetism.
CEERS 1749, Z~17 Wow! 5 billion solar masses! Must have been loads of new stars, tremendous star-forming galaxy, hence all that ultra-violet emission! Amazing! The JWST is proving to be a fabulous instrument of exploration! Thanks for this very interesting video with clear explanations and great graphics!
I'd be really interested to see the spectra from those early stars. No idea how we'd reassemble it. But that would tell us a lot about the origins of early stellar chemistry from the earliest stars & supernovae. What elements are being produced back then in what quantities?
My pet theory is that there really was no "big bang" but matter at the beginning of the galaxy came from "white holes" which are the end points of temporal worm holes formed by the creation of black holes. Black holes suck in matter at the end of the universe, white holes spew it back out at zero entropy at the beginning of the universe. It is therefore possible that CEERS 1749 is not a galaxy at all, but a white hole. It would explain its high brightness and high solar mass at such an early stage of the universe. White holes would quickly burn themselves out once their matter has been exhausted, and the matter would start to clump together and generate entropy. Entropy = time. This would explain why neighboring galaxies have a significantly lower brightness and stellar mass formation rate -- they are exhausted white holes.
I have so many questions. I feel like we all want to act like we know what we are talking about, but we truly have no clue. The more our technology advances, the more we realize we were off. It makes me wonder about these other observations we come up with. How is it possible we are able to identify the mass of ceers 1749? Like how do we KNOW that mass is correct. With how much we have to change our answers, it makes me NOT want to believe any of this data we get.
It's explained in the video : spectrograms. You can view the visible world into two things : mass and energy. Both are part of the electromagnetic field. Our "visible" world is the electromagnetic world. Electromagnetic waves are extremely fast things. Light travels at 300,000 km/s. And light never stops traveling. Every second, it's travelled a tremendous distance. Given that the galaxies are billion years old, you can easily understand how we're able to see even extremely far objects : their light just had the time to reach us. Now, the funny thing is matter absorbs electromagnetic waves (light). *And different matter absorbs different waves.* So when you make a spectrogram of an object, you see what waves it's absorbing and what waves it's released. *That's how you determine the constitution of an object.* Now, we know the mass of each atom precisely. As a result, a thorough analysis of the spectrogram can be used to determine what atom is in an object and to which quantity. How does this work? First, you make a spectrogram of an object. On this spectrogram, black bars appear at the frequencies being absorbed by the matter. Then you just have to look which frequencies were absorbed. The intensity gives you the quantity of each atom in that object, and you just have to multiply those by the masses of each individual atom. Let's say : - 1 Atom A absorbs waves at frequencies of 10, 20 and 50 Hz. It weights 50g. - 1 Atom B absorbs waves at frequencies of 15, 70 and 100 Hz. It weights 100g. In our example, let's say you see black bars at 10, 20 and 50 Hz. Then you know your object is constituted of Atom A. The intensity of this black bar helps you understand there is 50 atoms A in your object. 1 atom A weights 50g, so your object weights 2500g. *This is how you deduce an object's mass only by looking at it.* My numbers are exaggerated of course ; this was just an explanation on the process of spectrograms. Now is this method without error? No, of course not. But it will very often give you a proper order of magnitude. And if it doesn't, you eventually find an inconsistency by making more analysis from different perspectives.
My guess is it somehow hit the perfect midpoint of lensing around a black hole or a star. Some of the light is shifting to one side and some to the other. Tho depending on the axis, i would almost expect more "clones" appearing, or a halo depending on relative angle
I would be disappointed if they could explain all of Webb's observations with current physics. This is why it's out there, to challenge our understanding and reveal new unimaginable truths. The learning will never stop, hopefully. Great video 👍
Why would it be disappointing? What's disappointing is rather that we still haven't been able to figure out how the universe works. If we were to find a model that agreed with absolutely everything we observed, that would rather be delightful.
@@outisnemo8443 rating the object by disappointment or delight throws the weight of the rating back to the subject-observer. what observes what? does the truth lie in the nonduality of both? is that the good question?
@@djoniebie:
Uh, this is a discussion about science, not religion.
@@outisnemo8443 ? the issue is how the universe works, you bring up delight versus disappointment on grounds of absolute truth and then you shift to no religion? science is including philosophy in order to include any understanding and approach. nonduality is a perfect scientific method to approach notions such as relative and absolute. but, uh noone is asking anyone to evolve faster than one can. one can stick to one's 'science' if that brings the standstill one feels comfortable with.
@@djoniebie:
What I said was that I'd be delighted if we found a model that described the universe perfectly, rather than disappointed. That's a scientific and testable matter. What you're talking about is religious gobbledygook with no relation to science.
Solid explanations. A lack of the overused stock video of fake scientists. Instead we get beautiful graphs and overlays and even a bit of thought provoking conjecture. Good job!
Right… Now it is only fake ‘science’…
A ‘space vacuum’ does not exist and even if it did, then astronomical spectroscopy is still complete and utter bullshit.
@@duncanvantongeren4646 How did you escape the Matrix?
@@rwarren58 I was trying to be a responsible adult to determine what was going on the world, since I wanted to be able to plan the future of my family.
Since I don't do things halfheartedly, I got myself into trouble quickly.
The breadth and depth of the deception is _astronomical_ (pun intended).
WYM fake scientists? You have an example?
@@Project_-jq7jw You really can't tell?
It keeps getting crazier and crazier, huh?
About what?
@@kaizakiarata9313 that the earth is flat.
Just few months after Webb was launched 👀
@@sasanrad then how is this taking pickles of space?
Could just be a simulation with all the anomalies being glitches that never got fixed
I love the detail that you provide, and I am endlessly fascinated by old 20 episodes, so keep them coming
2nd time I visit this channel. When I saw the title, I thought it was clickbait, or, worse, quackery. But oh boy I was wrong. This is truly a masterpiece of science communication. Thank you so much.
That probably means you haven't been paying much attention. People like Lerner have for decades been pointing to the myriad incongruences between Big Bang and observed reality, and even wrote about what they knew JWST would find, which is exactly what JWST has indeed found. That's true science.
Yep. Turned out to be clickbait after all....
No you were right. This is complete bullshit
@@jay.u nah-uh. That's the exact definition of clickbait.
Hahahaha
“Remain the last area unexplored in this universe…”. Breathtaking understatement.
"All we've got left to do is everything."
I'm just a humble Paramedic, and this stuff is way above my pay grade of understanding, BUT, it's extremely Fascinating, like Mr Spock says. Thank you from all you're subscribers and viewers🙂👍
@ZeusandAthena - I can highly recommend you to check out Neil deGrasse Tyson and his RUclips channel: Star Talk
Very insightful and informative, and at times even hilarious
@@david_oliveira71 I find him arrogant and pompous, just saying
@@freefall9832
Maybe if you were that smart you would be to
@@latouselatrec maybe, I remember him talking down to a ten year old and I wasn't impressed
@@david_oliveira71 Check out "PBS Space Time" (if you haven't already). Absolutely fantastic science content on that channel.
It’s just mind boggling that in every galaxy, there could be billions of solar systems housing Earth like planet with different life formations. There are over 2 trillions of galaxies in the observable universe 🤯
And none has life except for earth: fermi paradox
@@shaccooper we definitely don’t know that. We have only been able to directly observe a few thousand exoplanets so far
Mind boggling that any life on those planets could be long gone because the light we’re seeing is millions or billions of years old
@@Just_Juiced- Or the exact opposite. If we’re staring into their past. Than life has possibly emerged after the fact. Earth had a Cambrian explosion over 500 million years ago. When complex life-forms started rapidly evolving. So to distant galaxies we may appear “lifeless”.
@@empyrean196 exactly and it is absolutely mind boggling to think about the fact that life on these planets could exist and possibly intelligent life but we just won’t see them because of the way light travels
Best explanation of the differences between Hubble and Webb. This is simple, when it’s explained like it is here.
Yeah . One see a bit further. Not exactly rocket science is it?
@@adamcunningham2511 that's actually way too simplistic. One sees in a different spectrum of light to the other it's not distance it's a type of light that it can detect. They're actually vastly more different. I recommend launch pad astronomy's channel for JWST information.
@@adamcunningham2511 Farther, not further.
@@badcornflakes6374 who cares?
They're both not real and the pictures are all artist renditions back when during the hubble years and now they are all AI generated with filters for color. None of it is real, your money is just being stolen for other projects that our government doesn't have to answer for.
I have loved every episode of the Sunday Series...so interesting and informative. There is so much to learn.
Glad you enjoy it!
Very interesting. There is so much going on and so much more to discover and analyse.
Good graphics. keep doing what you are doing 👍
Thanks, will do!
@@TheSecretsoftheUniverse Keep doing what you're doing, or else 👿
Your the boss zec
Analyze
I really appreciated the analysis of the significance of the CEERS galaxy on a more technical level, with the implications for cosmology. That’s been a frustration for me with a lot of the Webb results, beautiful pictures, but what do they mean? Thanks for the more in-depths explanation.
It's so frustrating, right? Not understanding something that in no way affects you is hell! Before, we didn't know it existed, never once did it worry us, but now all bets are off the table. What does it mean? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!! Pull the plug on the James Webb telescope! Please!!! I'm going to go insane! Oh, the humanity! AaaaAAAaaahhh!!!
Great, simple explanation of distances, red shift and comparisons of Hubble and JWST. Thank you and please keep on with this series.
When you hear this style of narration you know it's going to be a video intended for half-wits.
Check out Halton Arp. His ideas will blow your mind..
X2 it's amazing to think we are seeing back in time
So many in delusion 🤦♂️🙉 how can you take the cartoons as a reality?
Not gonna lie, but this went WAAAAY over my head. As I understand it (and I probably don't) this galaxy appears to exist in two separate times (since z ≈ 5 means it's closer than z ≈ 13, and therefor is later in time) without existing in between. It's a space-time continuum, so I guess saying it exists in two different places without it having traveled that distance is an equally valid explanation, even though there is a time difference between the two existences.
Not sure if we could just be looking at two different galaxies that existed at different times in line with one another, but I suspect that smarter minds have ruled that possibility out.
What wasn't discussed in this video was the potential for refraction of the light rays by an intermediate large mass object/galaxy, giving the appearance of two separate objects. This has been observed previously.
It must be kept in mind that knowledge and understanding in the sciences is fluid and changing and is in no way "settled science". Being born in the 1950s I was fascinated growing up with the space race. It is amazing how little was known and understood in the recent past and the future will be no kinder to our present knowledge. I'm careful with absolutes because things change as progress is made and time passes. What we know today may not resemble the future.
True
You know just cartoons, it will not resemble in future.
@@stolearovigor281 You speak nonsense.
@@rickhale4348 what else you gonna say? I didn't expect something intelligent from you. Prove me wrong.
Also am a child of the '50s. I Still feel robbed about Pluto's demotion and the wrong head on the Chicago Museum Brontosaurus. If the Cosmology Model is shown to need adjustment with a further Epoch, then declare Victory and do it!
I sure won't cry in my breakfast cereal about that; I'm struggling to know just which Mandela timeline I'm on and how many more major historical ones there can be of which we'll take notice.
This is the type of stuff that keeps me interested in space stuff. Nice job man
Best series on JWST discoveries with insightful information clearly explained with animations. Please keep it coming, thanks for your efforts!
Check out Launch Pad Astronomy. That is by far the best JWST channel.
You should watch How the Universe works Because they talk about Ceres 1749
Keep drinking that koolaid! Good for you!!!
Why is it a threat to our current cosmology. It might change our view but I don't see it as a threat as much as it is learning new information and adjusting accordingly to it. This is exciting not threatening.
Simple but captivating..that's what Sunday Discovery Series is about....
Super work
Thank you very much!
Such mind blowing awesomeness…. God said “I am the Alpha and Omega” …
So grateful for NASA and those who built and continue to be the JWST team.
My contention has always been the JWT will provide more questions than answers. Its been in use for what just a few weeks now? Imagine a year from now.
How can you state that we're looking into the last unknown epoch of our cosmic timeline? As with the transition from Hubble to the James Webb telescope, our information is merely the best we have given our current state of the art technology and our best minds. In the future we'll have better technology and be able to "see" farther than we can now. Of course, that would break physics even more and challenge assumptions about the big bang theory either a little or a lot. Unless science is to be a religion, we shouldn't hold any of the ideas we currently have as sacrosanct and should be prepared for whatever future observations have for us, including "breaking" physics and completely changing everything we currently think about the big bang and how our universe started. All that is just our best assessment given what information we have right now.
Very Good 👍
👏
"Unless science is to be a religion, we shouldn't hold any of the ideas we currently have as sacrosanct" Haha, science as something besides a religion? You're about a century too late for that, I'm sorry to say.
@@mylesleggette7520 Hey, of all the religions, science at least gives us some pretty cool benefits and inventions every once in a while (unlike some other religions, which only stifle inventions and benefits)
They conveniently leave out the fact the info coming in is actually disproving the BB theory as you said. They have finding things that is impossible if the bang happened at all.
A JWST Guest on Event Horizon pointed out that dust in these early galaxies may be giving us larger redshifts than they really have.
Ohh yes, if experimental observation are in non in according with theories......observation are wrong, wow very cientific attitude, z= 17 → 5 ?????
Yep, she very much poured cold water on alot of these galaxies. Love the EH podcast.
I like that you defined "quiescent galaxy " for me . I would have fallen off right at that point if you hadn't, no joke. Great job 👏
I'm waiting for something to challenge the currently accepted age of the universe. I've never been satisfied with the answers every time I ask "How do we know it's ~13 billion years old?"
@Muzaffar Krylov The science nerd in me gleefully awaits that arrival.
13 billion years is just the average since there is no such thing as absolute time. So the universe is on average13 billion years old.
I always believe that the UNIVERSE is older than 14 BILLION because of our lack of knowledge of the Black holes 🕳, Dark matter, Dark energy 🤷🏿👀
How do they know?! If you really wanted to find out, you could.
Here are a couple of easy to digest videos to help you get a better understanding.
ruclips.net/video/VOz4PkdY7aA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/tDZZEaqQPNY/видео.html
Its not 13 billion years old, its infinite! The BBT is wrong.
Straight up i'm just going to put this out there, whenever there is a documentary of some sort this is one voice that's able to keep my attention. All documentaries should use this voice =D
Great stuff. I do not, however , agree that anything we learn about anything is a threat to that discipline. That's science, you get better information, you change your outlook and begin to study the new phenomena.
Well said
Love this Series of writing down / printed out & explain the Scientific Measurement Units to the General Public who may not familiar with them! Thank You So Much for the efforts & the Wondrous tutorials! 🕯🌷🌿🌍💗🕊
I have always been skeptical of the "big bang" theory. there was never any explanation of before the big bang that i felt was plausible. plus even before this, we knew the universe is more light years big than the age of the supposed post big-bang universe. Now i am even more convinced that we are just taking our best guesses, and we have not seen the light quite yet. This is really exciting stuff. Looking forward to future discoveries from all the new hi-tech telescopes and sensing systems.
That’s because of expansion
I convinced that God put anomalies in the universe to confuse the intelligent people that are too proud to realize their need for a Savior.
I used to be one myself.
There are alternative theories concerning astronomy.
Check out
Dr. Jason Lisle
Dr. Russell Humphreys
Dr. Danny Faulkner
Amazing scientists that can help make sense of God's word and logical thought concerning 🌟 light.
Agreed. I am of the view that the universe is both eternal and infinite. The Original fractal.
Far too much cosmology, rests on just a handful of assumptions.
I don’t think they factor gravitational time dilation properly among other things when they examine the light from distant sources.
Pretty sure that we are if we last long enough, going to discover that the universe continues infinitely in both direction and scale.
The bin bang theory is counter intuitive. How would a singularity of that much mass that is in our universe explode? It wouldn't. It would be like a black hole. It makes no sense.
@@JM-zg2jg Infinity is a mathematical idea. It does not exist in the natural world. The universe is not infinite.
clearly explained such complex scenarios. your videos feed my curiosity!
I look forward to JWST discovering that the Universe is 13.8 trillion rather than a mere 13.8 billion years old.
"mere" 13.8 billion 🤣🤣
Hello, i'm new here!
Good video! i like it :D
And Subscribed.
Imagine what we will know in a year, ten years and twenty years! It's too exciting. Thank you for explaining it so well.
Just decades ago, humanity didnt know there was more galaxies beyond Milky Way
Hopefully humanity hasn’t utterly cannibalized itself by then. Overconsumption is going to destroy all of this work eventually.
@@dx315 but "They" will use that as the reason/justification to shut it all down - for good !
@@TIMEtoRIDE900 take your meds please
I really enjoy your channel.
Keep offering videos of such quality.
Thanks for your job.
amazing contents and beautiful presentation.This is one of my fav channel.It would be of great help if alongside these videos you also create basic astronomy series for basics concepts in astronomy. Keep making such wonderful videos.Cheers
The best free online lectures about astronomy, and cosmology, also a little physics maybe is a professor from New York named Jason Kendall- all of his lectures are so good! you will learn and apply so much i promise! SEA also has amazing coverage of cosmic subjects and objects with a calm, sober and clear way of narration-neither will cause panic or any anxiety, only make you wanna know more.
What I liked most about this vídeo presentation, are the news and honesty about the observations and duality of the hypothesis considered on behalf of true plain knowledge.
Redshift is an indication of the distant body's motion relative to Earth, the solar system and the Milky Way galaxy. Redshift is not a measurement of distance. It's implied when assuming space expands at an average rate of 70 km/s per megaparsec. The Hubble constant is not actually constant but an average of many different measurements. Why does the redshift even occur if light has a set speed and travels through space as a light particle? It should be traveling the same velocity regardless if space were stretching or not. Claiming the light is stretching because it is a wave contradicts the whole idea that light travels through space as a light particle and takes time to travel. The fact that the light is being stretched at all is a clear indicator it is a continuous field of energy instantly connecting the body radiating light to the observer or measuring device. The distant body and the observer are then quantumly entangled, so what happens to light radiating from the distant body instantly is conveyed to the light being measured by an observer, regardless of distance. All light in the EM field of the distant body is connected via quantum entanglement. We are unable to see the light of distant bodies as they looked in the past because the light information is conveyed in an instant through quantum entanglement. The supermassive galaxies like HD1 and TON 618 near the beginning of time are more massive than the Milky Way galaxy because they are older and the telescopes are measuring them in the now, not how they looked in the past. All the evidence indicates cosmological models are wrong. We cannot look into the past using a telescope no more than we can use a microscope to look into the future. Light information happens in a quantum instant when the observer or measuring device is contained inside the EM field being measured. All the light information in the distant body's light cone is quantumly entangled. This is a big deal. Because massive galaxies located some 13.5 billion light years away indicates a big bang didn't happen 13.8 billion years ago. Anyone here understand why?
"..We cannot look into the past using a telescope no more than we can use a microscope to look into the future...." Oh boy, you sure are befuddled.... hehehehe
As far as I know, redshift occurs because light loses it's energy because of the large distance it has to travel and hence it's wavelength increases and frequency decreases, which has been referred to as stretching. And no, you're wrong when you say we see things in space how they look at present. Light has a fixed velocity and so when we see something 100 light years away, we are seeing it how it was 100 years ago.
@@rohitkhanna You are the befuddled one believing we can see backwards in time. Soon the JWST will reveal they have measured galaxies larger than the Milky Way but further than 14 billion light years away. It will be the nail on the coffin of general relativity and Einstein's claims that we are able to see backwards in time. How could supermassive galaxies emerge, larger than the Milky Way before the big bang and cosmic inflation occurred? The question you should be asking yourself is how was a novice like myself able to accurately predict it while experts were not? They will be scratching their heads for decades trying to figure it out. I suspect you would not understand even if I explained why.
@@ayudhdasroy7090 you don't know much then, do you ?
@@BigNewGames good for you. Keep it up. 😂
Great narration job and awesome graphics.
I haven't a clue about most of what you are talking about, but by god, I'm damn sure you do, and it's fascinating regardless. ✌
Mind blown by how we can observe materials 12 billions light years away.
You're not. You are seeing how it looked 12 billion years ago. Kind of like looking at the sun going down. When it is touching the ground that was eight minutes ago. That moment took eight minutes to reach your eyes. I get what your saying though. :)
@@mikejohnson55281 technical yes, light came to us (12 billions years later) and we're able to see it. Still mind blowing to see objects that far.
Damn an astrology channel that doesn’t just regurgitate basic phrases and actually explains things. Keep up the good work more graphs and reporting pls.
Hi there! I don't wanna be rude or a prick, but this channel is not about "astrology", but astronomy, astrophysics and so.
Best regards.
Phrases like, you'll meet your soul mate today?
@@jordivilaioliveras yeah got them mixed up lol
This makes a huge assumption that there actually was a Big Bang.
An assumption backed up by literally everything we observe.
- The expansion of the universe implies that the entire world was as small as an atom 13.8 billion years ago.
- The Cosmic Microwave Background proves that the universe was a uniform "soup" of plasma 300,000 years ago and before that.
Disbelief isn't a bad thing ; but you'd have to disprove those points and give arguments to give weight to your perspective.
it's weird how they talk about the big bang like it isn't just a theory.
I’m very happy that you are able to view the beginning of time. That your sharing what your finding. Imagine the material and exotic metals and minerals left behind that are still there from those agent galaxies. Too bad they’re so far away and unreachable for us.
But what excites me more is there other intelligent life forms out there? This is what is more exciting for me for you to search for and find. All is exciting, but Whether we’re alone or not, it’s more interesting to me. Too bad we don’t have two of those James Webb telescope so out there, doing two different jobs.
Not the beginning of time though.
Aside from the rich voice you use to narrate, I like how everything is presented in a "simpler but not simple" way. I learnt so much just from this video!
Glad you liked it!
I'm trying to understand the math behind why there could be multiple Z-value solutions for this galaxy and how the probability of each solution is estimated. Any information as to what data/ mathematics is used to make those calculations would be appreciated.
I have the same question.
Not sure if this is what you’re looking for but: Quantum Mechanics
@@jonathan4385 lol, just, all of it ?
@@joesadaka2534 well, it’s pretty simplistic and also not at all at the same time, which is also ironic lmao
@@jonathan4385 I mean, do you know which equations are used to calculate the z value and how they can have multiple answers? I was assuming it's something quadratic but I couldnt find it online with a few searches which is why I asked. There's a lot of equations in quantum mechanics and my familiarity is pretty limited
Thanks very much for this explanation which is great for people like me who are really interested but don't have a great deal of understanding about this particular part of Cosmology.
Imagine being at the edge of the universe and having stars in only half the sky
Out of curiosity, why do you think there's an edge of the universe?
as far as we know the universe may be infinite. the reason we have an "EDGE" is because that's all the time we've had to allow light to travel that distance. If the universe was half its age we would have an "edge" half the distance from where it is now. That observable "bubble" (for lack of a better way to put it) would move to whereever youre observing from.
alternative conjecture to the high redshift: the galaxy is moving away faster, than anticipated, so it produces a higher redshift.
had to do some skimming on the reading, so anybody in the field feel free to explain it further or correct me, but the interpretation of a higher redshift only indicates a higher velocity away from our observation point. normally that would correspond (please take note that correspond is a statistics relationship, but without the actual distance, it is only a probable correlation).
so that higher redshift value, if using a scale of higher redshift = age closer to big bang, that would make absolute sense.
but consider not everything was launched at the same velocity from the center of the big bang.
This series is perfect. Could we have thirty minutes of perfection please?
Schrodinger's Galaxy is not in 2 places at once - the signal we are receiving from that galaxy is being affected by other BIG systems that are affecting the signal we receive (see light is not constant), making the signal look like 2 unique signals as those systems pass in between us and the source
I have always speculated that light may be slowed going through parts of space via unforseen gasses and gravity wells, is it at all possible we have time wrong?
Time is something man made up to make sense of the universe around us, we could still be wrong.
"You're still not leaving work early." -- Boss
I really dont understand how people with any rational thought can believe this...
Time is the progression of events. Time tells you to eat the fruit when its a fruit and not a seed. Time determines whether a Star is a star or a black hole. All radioactive isotopes that are identical to each other decay at the same rate. Time is the difference between meeting the love of your life, and spending time behind bars because you didnt check her ID
No idea how people could think humans are literally GODS who created the 4th dimension of the universe which is TIME.
Yes, light is slowed down by any medium it travels through. The "speed of light" refers to the speed that light travels when it's in a vacuum. What does that have to do with time being "wrong" though?
Fascinating ! Huge computations! one day in the future, we will have the theory of the mechanism behind the big bang! looks like it is some kind of stellar universe production machine, mind-boggling!!!
Big Bang model seems to be in a pickle with new discoveries following in.
How so? CMB still intact. Expansion is real. And nucleosynthesis not challenged.
What “pickle” are you talking about?
@@executivesteps the fact that we are not able to explain how come these first few galaxies/black holes gain so much mass in just the early stages of universe
The explanation greatly helps me to understand things.
Thanks.
First time watching this channel. Took forever to get to any interesting parts. I recommend answering the questions “what is weird” and “why is that weird” sooner and more confidently - even a simple “it should be both very far away and very close to a nearer galaxy, and both options break our models” would have sufficed. Reading from a science paper verbatim before even giving the hook to keep watching was particularly grating.
I get laying the foundation of what is redshift first but you can state the core tension in observations during that or right after.
Good to see an interesting video about Webb that isn't clickbait or bollox
I'd have to look more closely at the data, but I could see it having a high mass and luminosity due to an abundance of pop3 stars. If they're as potentially massive as models suggest, I think it could be a lonely explanation. Very mundane explanation, but that's not a bad thing, imo
the issue with that is that the galaxy is essentially very young, and the time it taken to get the light to us is very long, BUT we also dont know whats beyond that, maybe even more "weird" things will be discovered
Thank you for the clear, succinct, illuminating explanations that helped me understand the central argument, including the vivid graphics.
Scientist should graciously accept the fact that our knowledge is limited. The more we study the more we come to know differently. No one can claim to have complete understanding.
Scientists all know full well our knowledge is limited. The problem is you were not aware that they were and assumed ignorance, due to your own.
Such a great explanation video GREAT VIDEO
Yea, you cannot really break physics. If physics does not work as espected, then there must be some unknown influencing the result. As long as everything, no matter how bizzare, can be replicated just by replicating conditions under which it happens, everything is just fine 🙂
No it´s broken we´re all going to die
@@K0bbii 💀💀
Physics are what they are - if anything "breaks" it will be our current theories, due to our incomplete understanding. New discoveries will hardly "break" our knowledge, only add to it by filling some voids and correcting whatever bits that may be wrong.
Newton gave us a physics that worked. Einstein gave us a physics that worked better and explained a few more things. I would love to see an advance in physics that explains even more. Newton wasn’t “wrong” as much as limited in scope.
i don’t understand… if we can see so damned far… why can’t we see the surface of stuff in our own solar system with extreme detail?
Mostly, it's lighting. The stuff out there that we're seeing is literally billions of times brighter than even our own sun - so, as long as we can catch the light emitted at the right wavelengths, we can see the objects.
In even our own system, things like planets and asteroids, etc., are only reflecting the sun's light. Some bodies actually absorb the light, too. This makes seeing detail super difficult.
The brightness of these objects is simply unimaginable on a human scale, for any of us, so I think that makes a deep understanding of how it's possible hard.
For the fly-bys of planets, etc., there's actually been a lot more detail available every time it's happened... like, even Pluto, you can see incredible detail. That said, the cameras aren't the absolute best quality because visual info isn't generally nearly as useful for science as a lot of other measurements. A rocket can only carry so much stuff - this is limited by both budget and just propulsion capabilities - and so while a visual camera is usually included on these missions, it isn't as useful as equipment that takes science-based measurements. What it's useful for is keeping the public's interest, which provides funding, and of course for making the objects "real" for all of us...
@@sarahberlaud4285 i appreciate the attempt here. But I must disagree. We can see planets with our naked eye in the same fashion we see the stars. And this thing is supposedly seeing stuff billions and billions of miles away. The reflected light is quite adequate. Case in point: the fly-bys. If those are real, it demonstrates the light is adequate with even lesser camera capabilities. This new one should provide crystal clear everything within our solar system. Especially, the surface of the moon and our nearest or brightest reflecting planets. How would THAT be for keeping interest? I’d say it would be a hell of a lot MORE interesting to see clearer, deeper images of saturn and its moons than a white dots in places we’ll never reach. Aren’t we supposed to be going to mars? Where’s the images of that? I’m sorry, but, u can try to explain this stuff away, but outside of budget, which was already paid, no way u can explain why this thing isn’t producing much better images of stuff billions of light years closer. only reason it’s not is they’ve chosen not to. then, why is the question.
@@D369_ Well, I'm definitely not here to argue. I think you'd be surprised at the detail we have of the places you mention (like the moon and mars), and you might really enjoy those images! As for why they're not focusing Webb there, I think it's exactly because missions are making it there - including planned manned ones - and so it's not really as good a use of Webb's limited functioning time. The things it's picking up, no human in the conceivable future will ever get there. Mars? Human eyes will probably see it in real life within the coming decades. So, personally, I agree with their decision to see as far out as possible - all while totally respecting that others like yourself would rather know our own system even better.
@pouya ok, but what’s all that gotta do with space-faring telescopic cameras dude?
Great voiceover, visuals and editing! The writing is great for the most part. One thing to improve, in my opinion: Writing throughout has "And" and "But" as sentence starters. There are also a couple spots with awkward pauses after a comma. Great video otherwise. I was "recommended" this and I'm not disappointed by any stretch. would love to see more of this.
hey buddies you are doing a great job.....
students like us feel very excited to this type of accurate and knowledge content
thanks a lot 🙏🙏
Great information, We learnt many parameters of Physics.
its perfect thanks.. enough competence, enough walkthrough
Speculation without knowledge is a dangerous thing
Too proud to just admit we don't have answers and we don't really know if any of our theories hold water.
I enjoyed the visual narration as well as the pleasant listening voice.
Thanks for educating us. It's an eye opener.
Thanks for good stuff. Very informative.
Thanks for the vid. Very informative. I have always been a huge astrophysics nerd. I have seen several others about Webb and was left disappointed by the writer not knowing anything about what he was talking about. Just making them for money not caring about the quality of content. Great job!
It's strange to think that no matter what empty patch the telescope points at, the distant galaxy pattern starts looking the same. It's almost like we are in a bubble with no boundary.
I found it all so daunting. We're just a teeny tiny speck in the big picture.
Fascinating. Thank you for this wonderful video! The visuals were stunning.
It wouldnt be possible for a galaxy that massive and active to have formed so quickly
I mean its a bit clickbaity.
They dont think the galaxy exists at TWO distances at once.
They just have 2 POSSIBLE locations, which they have to define further.
May I ask where the stellar videos could be found? I would like to use some for a school project. Thanks so much~
Considering it's a well known fact that different light waves move at different speeds, along this object is so far away, there is nothing in this video that can break physics. It just confirms what we already know and have known a long time.
I love cosmology, especially at Neiman Marcus. I just love walking through the store and seeing the Chanel, La Mer and La Prairie beauty products.
Absolutely crazy universe ❤️❤️ so much to learn from your videos. Thank you so much for bringing best of the best space video, really interesting and informative. Nice hard work
Thank you for the references! ^.^
Awesome video, very informative with good visuals. Narration could use some different inflections now and then. Thank you for putting this together!
robotic
Very interesting could we have the link to the publication on arxiv or nasa ?
The arxiv link is in the description
My ONLY question is if CEERS is as far away as measured, what would the Milky Way redshift be if they were looking at us? If they're in fact older than us, would we not be detectable by them?
No matter where you are in the universe, your time frame reference is relative. So 13.8bn years that way, is 13.8bn years this way. Where this would get complicated is if you are the photon itself moving at c. That's when shit gets weird.
Surely all our knowledge is based on the 'observable' universe - is it not the case that the universe may have been expanding for even longer than we are aware,and therefore we will never know for sure that the 13.4 billion timescale is correct?
Waiting for some surprising discoveries 🤩💕
Finding out so many things from such limited data is amazing!
The delivery is so precise, I almost cannot tell if robot voice or real
It's scripted and slowed down.
With all the extremely hard work done by us as humans to explore the distant universe, it’s still the “observable universe” which is being observed every era with a stronger equipments/scopes. As a result newer observations will definitely redefine our understanding and even refute many hypothesis including the big bang itself.
Why is it the so called experts still believe in notions of their own making ? Then report them as fact. MONEY!!!!!
I love the series. It's exciting and scary at the same time
Scary? How?
I won't be surprised at us looking at the same galaxy from different angles, the further we go back in time.
9:13 What a beautiful cosmic tide - the perfect picture that pruves that light refreacts or
bends by electromagnetism.
Bro you know we gotta get our asses on a bigger telescope that can see back to the Big Bang. JWST is doing great work in demonstrating to the world how important and interesting these telescopes are, given that they can literally look back in time
The creator of our simulation is clearly having a little more fun with us. But seriously, many people have long thought the current cosmological framework to be seriously questionable. BTW, red-shifted light is probably not due to recession, but due to the beginning of its transformation from energy photon to sub-atomic particle. It's the condensation of energy back to mass that's part of the energy-mass cycle of the universe.
I think the sky is blue
@@idsdragon8293 It's not so obvious. Think about it. How do you explain gravitational lensing? Of course they tell you it's all "the fabric of space time', but the "fabric of space time" is not a real thing. Even wikipiedia says it is a conceptual framework for which there's no evidence in the real world. All the evidence for "relativity" is also evidence for light having mass. Every 'proof' of relativity shows electromagnetic bending. That is evidence of mass as a property of electromagnetism.
CEERS 1749, Z~17 Wow! 5 billion solar masses! Must have been loads of new stars, tremendous star-forming galaxy, hence all that ultra-violet emission! Amazing! The JWST is proving to be a fabulous instrument of exploration! Thanks for this very interesting video with clear explanations and great graphics!
I'd be really interested to see the spectra from those early stars. No idea how we'd reassemble it. But that would tell us a lot about the origins of early stellar chemistry from the earliest stars & supernovae. What elements are being produced back then in what quantities?
My pet theory is that there really was no "big bang" but matter at the beginning of the galaxy came from "white holes" which are the end points of temporal worm holes formed by the creation of black holes. Black holes suck in matter at the end of the universe, white holes spew it back out at zero entropy at the beginning of the universe.
It is therefore possible that CEERS 1749 is not a galaxy at all, but a white hole. It would explain its high brightness and high solar mass at such an early stage of the universe. White holes would quickly burn themselves out once their matter has been exhausted, and the matter would start to clump together and generate entropy. Entropy = time. This would explain why neighboring galaxies have a significantly lower brightness and stellar mass formation rate -- they are exhausted white holes.
Very entertaining to listen to commentaries on cosmology
Too me this sounds like more evidence that the universe in its current understanding is far older than we can measure
I have so many questions. I feel like we all want to act like we know what we are talking about, but we truly have no clue. The more our technology advances, the more we realize we were off.
It makes me wonder about these other observations we come up with. How is it possible we are able to identify the mass of ceers 1749? Like how do we KNOW that mass is correct. With how much we have to change our answers, it makes me NOT want to believe any of this data we get.
Exactly. How do you know the mass when you don't even know the true distance?
It's explained in the video : spectrograms.
You can view the visible world into two things : mass and energy. Both are part of the electromagnetic field. Our "visible" world is the electromagnetic world.
Electromagnetic waves are extremely fast things. Light travels at 300,000 km/s. And light never stops traveling. Every second, it's travelled a tremendous distance.
Given that the galaxies are billion years old, you can easily understand how we're able to see even extremely far objects : their light just had the time to reach us.
Now, the funny thing is matter absorbs electromagnetic waves (light). *And different matter absorbs different waves.* So when you make a spectrogram of an object, you see what waves it's absorbing and what waves it's released. *That's how you determine the constitution of an object.*
Now, we know the mass of each atom precisely. As a result, a thorough analysis of the spectrogram can be used to determine what atom is in an object and to which quantity.
How does this work?
First, you make a spectrogram of an object. On this spectrogram, black bars appear at the frequencies being absorbed by the matter. Then you just have to look which frequencies were absorbed. The intensity gives you the quantity of each atom in that object, and you just have to multiply those by the masses of each individual atom.
Let's say :
- 1 Atom A absorbs waves at frequencies of 10, 20 and 50 Hz. It weights 50g.
- 1 Atom B absorbs waves at frequencies of 15, 70 and 100 Hz. It weights 100g.
In our example, let's say you see black bars at 10, 20 and 50 Hz. Then you know your object is constituted of Atom A. The intensity of this black bar helps you understand there is 50 atoms A in your object.
1 atom A weights 50g, so your object weights 2500g.
*This is how you deduce an object's mass only by looking at it.* My numbers are exaggerated of course ; this was just an explanation on the process of spectrograms.
Now is this method without error? No, of course not. But it will very often give you a proper order of magnitude. And if it doesn't, you eventually find an inconsistency by making more analysis from different perspectives.
My guess is it somehow hit the perfect midpoint of lensing around a black hole or a star. Some of the light is shifting to one side and some to the other. Tho depending on the axis, i would almost expect more "clones" appearing, or a halo depending on relative angle
this is the only logical reason.