Could aliens have been the source of some of the old gods? We could explain and/or replicate some of the "magic" using science and technology... example: chariots of fire in the sky, we call those aircrafts and spaceships...
@@anthrowolfWelcome to the ancient aliens hypothesis. There’s enough evidence for that to fill a 30 minute special, but History Channel managed to make multiple seasons about it. Obviously we can’t rule it out but so far we don’t have more than anecdotal evidence similar to people who claim aliens are visiting us now.
26:00 (we may be in a BlackHole because of Accelerations ❤🎉 if we had a Big Bang, we wouldn't have an Acceleration ❤ only an Acceleration from Evemt Horizon location... I only have a B.Sci😅❤
How do we know how much matter is in the observable universe? Or a galaxy? Like, specifically, how are we measuring it? If we know there is less than there should be and the difference is dark matter then we must be measuring the matter in some way other than with gravity
Monad in mathematics, science and technology Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
Q: when hubble was launched we thought that the UV range would lead to interesting astronomy. The last few years it has been the longer wavelengths that captured our interest. What are the biggest discoveries done specifically in the UV with hubble?
Having done a quick Google, there is a 60.2° angle between the 2, so no not really. Also Fraser made a video on it in 2015. I'll try linking it maybe RUclips will let me.
Why do galaxies have different morphologies? Do spiral arms appear in elliptical galaxies because of collisions, or do they arise gradually over time because the stars want to bunch up?
My vote is for Janus. When I was young (late preteens in early 1990s) we live on the outskirts of the city here in Australia and it was pretty dark and I would go out at night with the 10x50 binoculars that I saved 2 birthdays and a Christmas as well and chore money for the year to buy and a star wheel that I was gifted, that I had to teach myself how to use (It was hard because the star wheel was for 30dS and I was at about 15dS and we didn't have an astronomy club that I could go to regularly) and I would lay on a camp chair for hours after sunset, with an old torch with red cellophane over it, just looking at the sky for hours until I was called in to go to bed. Even in winter (I hate winter with a passion) I would rug up in every thread of warm clothing I had and a couple of quilts and lay out there with freezing hands and face, but looking up.
Edit: I just watched to question 2 and it’s a little similar, but if you still want to read the rest, thank you Here’s my question! Is there any way to use quantum mechanics, like spooky action at a distance, to make a warning system for deadly gamma ray burst? The alarm would have to only go off when burst are heading towards earth, so you would want many spread various light day, weeks, month, or years apart. Then when the light of high enough intensity goes down that chain on alarms you could look back at their corresponding alarms on earth and see “hey, 1 year ago alarm 1 went off for high gamma rays, then 6 months ago alarm 2 went off. At this rate we have _ amount of days until the rays hit so let’s prepare.” Otherwise it’ll hit us at light speed and we’ll be too late. I feel like it’s too rare to worry about, and a decades of not centuries long project, but I wonder if we could set up light speed alarms. Or gravitational wave alarms or something
All indications are "no", because it's impossible for the signal to outrun the light itself. The more interesting questions for quantum mechanics have been narrowed down to encryption, and maybe there's a way I haven't heard of to get an alternative non-FTL communications channel.
I love all your topics so much I can't pick a favorite. As each new topic if introduced, I think, "Oh THAT's my favorite!" Fraser you make all these topics fascinating. You inspire me and give me hope for mankind. Thank you, thank you!
What bothers me about rogue planets is the possibility that one will blunder through the solar system and disrupt the fine tuning of its orbital mechanics. Not to mention the scenario of When Worlds Collide, which made me nervous when I saw it in 1951.
A rogue planet would certainly add a complicating factor, but the Solar System already has enough complexity that it's inherently slightly unstable anyways. A close flyby could greatly increase the instability of at least a small portion of the Solar System, but most fly-by possibilities would have only a tiny effect.
Pluto does cross the orbit of Neptune or Uranus I forget . At some point they will interact hard. There is already ways Jupiter can sling things out mathematically , just really rare to happen
Another very interesting place to visit in my opinion would be a planet located in one of the Magellanic Clouds, so one could see the Milky Way from outside, yet comparatively detailed.
The Planetary Society has flown two solar sails on cubesats but they were both in relatively low Earth orbit. Those are the crowd funded projects I know of.
Hi Fraser! I have a question: If the moon has a limited number of (mostly) stable orbits, would this lead to a problem with space debris piling up in "junk belts" in lunar orbit? I'm thinking that ejected space dust from future landings could coalesce there and become an issue when your spacecraft only has a few orbits to choose from
18:00 Don't get a Dobsonian or a Newtonian, pay the extra and get a Schmidt Cassagrain! No collomating or cleaning of the mirror ect required. They STAY CLEAN inside and it's all one sealed enclosure. With a pretty glass lens at the front and the only opening is the eyepiece barrel. Just put something in it when no eyepiece is in it. And you have a nice neat sealed telescope! And more power at half the length of a Dob! I made up a rough barlow lens (between the eyepiece and the scope) to magnify a lot more. I made it out of a standard camera lense and a few lens elements from old binoculars (shoved inside a hand towel roll center). Cardboard! 😅 And I hade Jupiter the size of a grapefruit (like at desk viewing) and Saturn like a tennis ball size and it's rings (nearly side on) were like 8" accross! I still can't believe it, it must have been great "seeing" that night (and in Brisbane). Most times it was so bad that you can't even make out the planets identity. But that night (even at near a thousand times through a makeshift barlow). The detail was there, you could see the GRS and like an inch x 3/4" but really faint. Cream agaist white. And cos is was both fuzzy and "sharp" at once. Smoky like crazy but exquisite detail for such a home hacked barlow. And the TRACKER on that Schmidt was A-1. I left it on Saturn with the barlow and came back like an hour later and it was still (sort of) on Saturn. At that magnifacation, that is miraculous! Buy an 8"Celestron SC telescope or Mead similar scope. Well worth the extra cash cos you got a seal scope, crazy small and crazy long focal length (for planets) and that amazing tracker! And use Plossle eye pieces for planets. Cheaper, sharper and you don't need a wide apparent viewing angle for planets. 😅 I built a 17.5" mirrow Dob for the Parkes Radio Telescope. They had all the optics and I built the rest for them. I could see a hint of color in it. It was a BIG amateur telescope. I did that in the eighties, and I heard (only a few years ago) that they were still usiing it.
What could we observe when we have a Vera Rubin Telescope and a VLT at the poles of the Moon and an ALMA and SKA at all the dark radio side of the Moon?
(Zalcon.) Just fascinating stuff!! What about that new JWST image of Rho Ophiuchi with its white, puffy, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon clouds? Stunning!! Can't wait to learn more about it!
I've framed the following question a number of times previously, but here it is once more: A star such as ours is to collapse twice, once before CNO cycling, once after. But why should there not be intermediate collapses greater in count? I cannot see why relative element abundances and core heat are together packaged into precisely two positive feedback loops which lead to core collapse and outer layer expansion.
Question: Wouldn’t it make sense to do another Kepler mission? It seems like we could still learn so much from that platform, and I would imagine we could build it again for much cheaper than the first time around. This time we could pile on the reaction wheels :)
I mean there is TESS which basically continues where Kepler left off. (And many other exoplanet mission, like ESAs Plato Mission which will specifically look for and charachterize earth like planets).
I watched David Kipping video about terrascope (using earth or other planet as a gravital lens telescope). Is there any talks about trying to make it real? Isn't it wortht to try?
Fraser, the thing about a nuclear rocket is that if you're sending humans on one, then you've presumably _already_ had a successful _cargo_ flight with that same rocket, meaning that an equal or greater (which is what I think more likely) mass of cargo is already at the destination. On top of that, for anything that doesn't need e.g. life support, you can just send it on a slow trip anyways, maybe with an ion engine if you're going past Mars so that it arrives on time. For a competently designed n7clear rocket mission, the real supply constraint is the longest duration trip (which, presumably, will be a late mission abort of some sort), not what you'll need at the destination, because the supplies should be at the destination _before_ the crewed mission arrives.
Could that unusual 21 minute pulsar be a regular pulsar that precesses slowly or even flips over periodically like those zero gravity demonstrations of spinning T handles on the ISS?
Question, can you explain the surface of last screening? I struggle to understand how the cmb can be receding but at the same time not have been far away?
Hi Fraser. When a star goes supernova the neutrinos get emittee first but the light travels faster. Could we use the delay between detections to determine the distance to the supernova?
10:17 I love speculation about what kinds of large-scale structures might exist outside of the observable universe. Is the end of greatness really the end? Probably, but it’d be really cool if it wasn’t!
I've been getting really interested in astrophotography, and it's made me wonder: is there any science I could do as an amateur astronomer, or has all of the low hanging fruit been picked?
There are massive databases of scans of the night sky that has yet to be combed through. Amateur astronomers find things all the time, and can generate interest for the bigger telescopes to take a look at. Although A.I. is now starting to parse the data, the universe is absolutely massive, you can certainly find things.
Thank you for asking. I don't have a question, really, only a concept. If my simple understanding is correct, I would like you to address it, please. If the entire light spectrum represents (E) in E=MC2, and considering that all matter in the universe either emits or reflects light and within that light is all the information of that body. With virtually an infinite number of bodies in the universe all emitting light in a sphere that we can see in every square inch of that space. A sphere of light expanding outward at twice the speed of light. Hence, everything exists everywhere within the first light's sphere as energy. Converting their mass (M) into light energy (E) multiplied by the speed of light (C) squared(why not qubed). That is more information than every microchip on this planet can hold in the palm of your hand (standing outside). We only need to look. Thank you, DLH
Hi Fraser, I have learned from you channel about how most asteroids are just rubble piles that are held together by their mutual gravity, and there are a couple of asteroids that are iron balls that were once planetary cores of early planets that no longer exist. Are there asteroids that are solid chunks of rock that could be carved into giant floating space sculptures sometime in the far future when humanity has spread out across the solar system?
Hi Fraser when you spoke about how they gathered the 250g sample. You said there was a blast of air used to capture that dust. How certain an they be that the blasted air won’t contaminate the sample or interfere with the experiments
During Andoria: Is it possible the two stars can go back and forth feeding off each other "indefinitely"? Siphoning off mass from each other like a pendulum until they reach an equilibrium?
@fraisercain question? for next week: lets say we are 8~10yrs down the road. Starship is progressing well and we've already landed autonomous ships full of supplies in support of the first trip to mars. Now it is time to send humans. If we have to choose, let's say, a crew of 12 for that first 2-yr mission. What 12 would you choose. Assume 2 are dedicated NASA astronauts with over the top generalist training, like so many of them have. What other mission specialists would you choose if it was your choice? Medical Dr with ER experience or specialty? Physics / Optics / Chemistry folks? Engineers in consturction / scientists / biologists / botanists / SpaceX structures guy / SpaceX engines guy / Psychologist / etc? Such a hard question when we can send more than just 3. I'm curious to hear what you would choose given how much exposure you have to all of these topics as a science communicator.
Question! - why can’t we measure gravitational waves using time dilation instead of space dilation? If we can measure time to a resolution of 10e-18s why can’t we use 4/5 atomic clocks instead of LIGO.
My understanding of quantum physics is flawed, so I might be misunderstanding this process, but if there's this moment where a particle could be anywhere and then it's observed and its placement is defined, does that information travel faster than the speed of light to the observer? And, does this determination of the placement of the particle happen faster than the speed of light? For the first question, I know that we wouldn't be able to observe it faster than the speed of light because that's the speed we're limited by, but is it possible near a black hole for example, to tell if the determination happens faster than the speed of light? Like would the black hole observing the particle occur faster than light or something? Sorry if this question isn't clear, I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it.
Hey Fraser, sorry to ask a question regarding a relatively old Q&A, but maybe you still see this: What does "relatively close" mean in regards to your answer of the binary system, where one is stripping away the other? (depending of kind and size of each object of course). Is it a couple of AU, a lot or even less than 1 AU?
Question: If we were to plant plants in the equatorial regions of Mars enclosed in domes that would open when it is warm and then close when temperatures drop to retain/produce heat to keep the plants from dying, would having the presence of plants actually have any sort of noticeable impact on the planet?
(Vendikar) Hi Fraser, I have a question. If we can't explain how Gravity keeps Galaxies from tearing apart, how can we be sure the far off Galaxies are where we think they are? Surely Gravity affects the light we measure from the far off Galaxies.
I can't answer you well, but you will need to specify whether you already have everything else you need like an equatorial mount, eyepieces, power, and the final camera you intend to use. Does 2k need to cover all that or only the scope?
Question. Could all the anti matter be in the original black holes and this is why we are looking at a dominant matter universe as all the anti matter is in the black holes?
Question: could a galaxy formation like Hoag's Object be used as a gravitational lens telescope; where changes in the space between the center bulge and outer ring could be used to focus at different distances? And if so, what would the magnification power be? After all, it's pointed right at our sector of the Universe.
Question: I understand why neutrinos precede supernova light. What I don't understand is how they know what direction the super nova is when the Nutrino's are detected in higher numbers. Neutrino flashes wouldn't give directions . . . at least, I don't think they would. Is it triangulation from more than one neutrino detector?
I understand how we can use the relative luminosity and absolute luminosity with cepheid variables to work out the distance - but how do you know the distance to the source of gravitational waves? The detection is just a blipp!?
Can we detect dark matter accreting around high mass objects like black holes or neutron stars? Since dark matter has such limited interactions I have heard it is hard to dump orbital momentum so maybe it cannot accumulate. If it is possible for a black hole to collect dark matter are there any detectable effects we could search for?
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to be the predominant type of matter in the universe. Hypothetical is the keyword here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter If dark matter does not exist, then the next most likely explanation must be that general relativity - the prevailing theory of gravity - is incorrect and should be modified. The Bullet Cluster, the result of a recent collision of two galaxy clusters, provides a challenge for modified gravity theories because its apparent center of mass is far displaced from the baryonic center of mass.[84] Standard dark matter models can easily explain this observation, but modified gravity has a much harder time,[85][86] especially since the observational evidence is model-independent.
I think the problem there is that if the concentration of dark matter is high enough to be accreting around a black hole then it would most likely be in a very dense region in a galaxy and so very difficult to see through all of the matter, light and dust surrounding it.
I have a question, in the Foundation series, there are creatures that can fly between a plannet and its moon because they have a shared atmospher. How phesable is this, could two objects (moons or palnnets rather than sars) share enough of thier atmospher and would it be dense ehough to "fly" between the two. I know stars can have a shared ovelope when they exceed thier roche limit, but could a plannet and a moon behave similary with thier atmosphers, while not destroying one fo them due to tidal forces, and how long could this type of situation last?
QUESTION: The matter-antimatter annihilation event that happened within a few seconds of the Big Bang must have released a quantity of energy that defies all adjectives, and absolutely everywhere at once if I understand correctly. Is this thought to have played a role in early expansion? In general, what were the aftereffects of such a mind boggling event? Also, as an habitual audio listener, I'm amazed by the production quality of the video version! Wow!
Question: As an amateur astrophotographer myself I often think how much I would love to have my telescope in space like a mini Hubble. Then I was thinking about that some more and realized that even some of the largest of amateur telescopes are way smaller than a starlink satellite. So this brought me to the line of thought that it would be pretty cool to have a swarm of small space telescopes that you could launch like starlink satellites in batches. So my question then is, would there be any scientific benefit to having such a swam of small telescopes? Say something on the range of 16-20 inch reflectors. Imagine a swam of mini Hubbles that can collect huge amounts of data on one object at a time or spread out and do a sky survey but at a lower resolution than Hubble. I was thinking maybe if they were to do a sky survey they could assist in the hunt for exoplanets or something.
The supernova in the LMG had one neutrinos detector dect 11 neutrinos before the supernova was seen. If we had three such detected on the globe placed right would not 10 or 11 from each with them sync up with a price atomic clock not be able to point everyone in the right direction before the nova light arrived?
Question. If you magnetized a roll of videotape and let it unravel in zero g, what would it do? Superstructure objects in space are waiting for your answer.
Question: Fraser I live just to the south of you and I have discovered that anytime I buy a new piece of astronomy equipment it is cloudy for at least 2 weeks, Is this normal, do other amateur astronomers have this luck or am I just cursed? How would I remove such a curse? What type of sacrifice is demanded?
Question: Do hurricanes storms & and galaxies have anything in common? They both spin, have spiral arms, and the eye seems like the area of a black hole. Are the formed the same way?
24:35 Yeah, nice analogy, Frasier. And also I'd say that if people realized that the Observable Universe is not a physical boundary -- much like a border between countries -- they'd see it as even less of a significant coincidence.
Like, astronomers place the emphasis on both "Observable" and Universe. But normal folks naturally focus on Universe, not having context. I guess it could quickly be explained as the Observable Pocket of the Universe? :)
More context here is that if one looks further out, assuming the density of energy stays the same, the _event horizon 'shoots' outward even faster_ -- becoming far larger than the observation sphere. And conversely, at _shorter_ distances than the Observable Universe, the event horizon is much _smaller_ than each distance.
I was watching this presentation from NASA about Psyche mission and when was the Q&A time, it gave the impression that people are not understanding the whys . Example Osiris-Rex landed on Benu an brought samples back and now is going to a Apophysis or Dart mission, Lucy mission and others even greater like the Voyagers. Could you help us to understand and what is going to happen with that pro after it finishes this mission.? Thank you
Question: Now that we have gravity wave detectors is there any theory that might match observations indicating what the internal structure of black holes looks like? I.e. singularities vs. one dimensional spinning rings
Hi Fraser, Question: As imagined in Three Body Problem or Inhibitor series would it be possible for a hyper-advanced galactic civilization to change the laws of physics and the nature of space time? For example the ability to remove dimensions from a part of the universe or to change the force of the Higgs boson and therefore the mass of elementary particles?
Question: Do you have personal plans for the upcoming Annular and Total eclipses passing over North America soon? I think the Annular on the 14th is passing close to you, and the Total in April next year is passing over a large swath of Ontario to New Brunswick? Have you brought it up in a video yet and if not would you talk about it to let people know and get them excited for the opportunity?
What is the likelihood that Bennu is material ejected from the collision that resulted in the Earth-Moon system? Or some other circumstance that would preclude Bennu truly being primordial?
As a follow up question to Andoria. In the Expeditionary Force series by Craig Alanson, the Ancient race that inhabited the Galaxy and then "ascended" before any other life existed was able to move stars and planets and actually moved gas giants close to the star to extend the star's life span. Would this actually happen? Would the gas from the gas giant feed the star, or would it build up on the surface of the star and cause a mini Nova explosion like what happens with White Dwarves with a companion star?
Question 1: What happened to the news of chemistry likely from living things in venus’s atmosphere? Has the data been quashed definitively? It’s seems highly probably that there could be living organisms in venus’s thick organic atmosphere, what are we doing to figure whether there’s life there once and for all?
Question 2: same highly anxious question about highly probable life on moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Liquid oceans, tidal heat to power life! Why aren’t we racing to answer this question in the best way we can at warp speed?
[Q] Hi Fraser. If we use the gravitational assistance of the same large planets many many times, is it possible to achieve a speed so high that it would catch up with the Voyager 1 probe?
I have a question: When we consider the mass-energy budget of the universe, what's the energy proportion? I mean photons. What's the ratio of EM energy versus condensed particles energy like leptons and baryons. Thanks. Edit: also the ratio of other particles like neutrinos etc.
You sometimes talk about using asteroids to do gravitational manipulation/siphoning to move planets into habitable zones. Given requisite time, would it be possible to go a step further and use asteroids to move a planet to then move a star? Would it be impossible to due to three body problem calculations?
Question for ya! If you take a given star, and place a black hole right next to it, how massive would it need to be relative to the size of the star for the black hole to sustain itself and consume the star? What would happen if a cute, relatively itty-bitty black hole could encounter one of the most massive stars we know about?
The smaller a black hole is, the faster it disintegrates due to Hawking radiation and that releases a mind boggling amount of energy. So watch out for those cuddly little black holes with the adorable eyes. They can cause you WAY more trouble than the big ones!
I can only imagine the answer to my question is the ratio of space to time within spacetime but hopefully, you can explain it to me. Since the galaxies etc. we are seeing in the Hubble and JWST results are not just far away as in our first realisation of these images but actually a long time ago, the concept of this leaves me struggling with something. I have asked physics students I stumble across and they seem to figure I'm just as dumb as a box of rocks and could never grasp the intellectual rigors of the answer so please be considerate, I've tried to separate it into separate concepts for easier explaining to an idiot. 1. The further we look into these images the faster these galaxies are moving away from each other. 2. The further we look into these images the further back in time we are looking. 3. My problem comes with if the further back in time we look the faster the galaxies are moving away from each other then why do we think the expansion is accelerating? 4 In summary, if the acceleration of the expansion increases the further back in time we look then this implies to me that the acceleration of the expansion decreases as we move forward in time. This seems to show a universe that isn't moving towards a distant heat death. As I read my own work my first thought is am I confusing speed and acceleration? Like when you try to conceive multi-dimensional concepts with a brain limited to its simple 3D+t wiring.
I have a question: When did people first realize that light travelled at a certain speed and how did they come to that realization? After that, what sorts of things did they do to figure out what that speed was? Also, what did people believe before they got the idea that light moved at a certain speed? Did they think that light moved instantaneously or did the question simply not occur to them?
If Moon is getting away from Earth because of gravitional effect that one have to antother, then why every two orbiting object aren't getting away from each other (eg two stars that eventually merge). What are the required conditions for this effect?
Here is my question: From a point of view of the Earth is space stretching forever in every direction? (If yes why was it important to find out if universe is flat or not? - if its infinite in every direction on a 3d axis how can it be curved or saddle shaped) And if so are planets in our solar system on the same plane in relation to each other? So if we send a spaceship to Mars does it have to travel up or down from where Earth is ? And are all the planets travelling in the same direction around the Sun and if yes then why is it this way?
Question We cannot measure the one way speed of light. Still I wonder why the following experiment is flawed. We have two light sources let's say a and b B is also a mirror. Now we fire a bean from a to b. This triggers the light source in b to also fire. Now we have two beams side by side a reflected beam and a one way beam. In b we can measure the time difference between both. If we do the same in a we don't need to synchronize clocks all we need to do is measure if the time difference between the beams is the same in a and b. Why will this not work?
@@frasercain thanks for the response. The problem is that the red shift is uniform in all directions. That kind of observation puts the Earth at the exact center of the universe. I think we've had enough of those kinds of theories.
No matter where you go in the Universe, it would look like you're at the center. That's because every part of the universe is expanding in every direction.
@@LongDefiantActually the redshift of the CMB is slightly different in every direction due to the motion of the Earth, Sun and galaxy relative to the CMB. The original observation is of a dipole, one side is redder and the other side is bluer. And of course if you measured the CMB from another galaxy you would see the same thing, just slightly different since you are at a different location. There is no special centre, every location is bathed in this radiation that comes from every direction.
Are Rouge planets "stationary" do they move thru space in the same way the milky way does or do they move with whatever has the most gravitational influence?
I asked this again, sorry if i missed my answer (some kind fan can point me out to the right direction if i did) so, my question is: although solar flares and when in general the sun is acting up is scary dangerous, is the heliosphere protecting us from anything (for example cosmic rays)? I ask this because when i ponder the concept of a dyson sphere that comes to mind. Cheers from greece Poll: Vulcan!
Question: The gravitational effect from Earth isn't that great of a difference whether at the surface or 400km up. Orbiting Earth gives the effect of micro gravity. Is there a qualitative difference between effective micro gravity (e.g. orbit) and true micro gravity (e.g. far away from anything massive)?
Its honestly neither. Its what is known as a pseudo-force and is an apparent force due to the curvature of space-time. Its kind of like the "force" experienced inside of a rotating ring which holds you to the surface despite it not truly being a force and is just the result of your own actual acceleration in a direction you are being blocked from moving towards. Does this make sense? I know it gets fuzzy and a bit grey such most people dont fully understand the distinction just want to make sure its clear enough to envision what is going on. Picture a marble on the classic Trampoline demonstration if we roll it it would seem like a force is pulling the marble towards the large object but in reality its simply distorted surface causing it to move in a straight line on a curved path.
Hi Fraser, if 2 entities (planets, stars. Etc) go in different directions from each other in the universe with half light speed each... Does that mean that they are traveling light speed relative to each other? Greetings from Romania
zalcon. I'm glad JWST was able to find the rogue planets. I've always had the assumption there's billions of these giants and smaller just out there, tossed by galactic collisions, or supernova, or orbit disruptions of some kind.
Is a black hole a sphere that can be entered or falling into from every direction around it? Or in other words, Is there a front, back, or sides to a black hole?
Like the Earth, an oblate spheroid. The preserved quantities are gravitational mass, electric charge and angular momentum. So, although there are no surface features to see it spinning, it is still spinning. Like every other spinning sphere it has poles and an equator, and is slightly flattened. Apart from that, it has no direction.
Because dark matter has not yet been identified, many other hypotheses have emerged aiming to explain the same observational phenomena without introducing a new unknown type of matter. The most common method is to modify general relativity. General relativity is well-tested on solar system scales, but its validity on galactic or cosmological scales has not been well proven.[176] A suitable modification to general relativity can in principle conceivably eliminate the need for dark matter. The best-known theories of this class are MOND and its relativistic generalization tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS),[177] f(R) gravity,[178] negative mass, dark fluid,[179][180][181] and entropic gravity.[182] Alternative theories abound.[183][184] A problem with alternative hypotheses is that observational evidence for dark matter comes from so many independent approaches (see the "observational evidence" section above). Explaining any individual observation is possible but explaining all of them in the absence of dark matter is very difficult. Nonetheless, there have been some scattered successes for alternative hypotheses, such as a 2016 test of gravitational lensing in entropic gravity[185][186][187] and a 2020 measurement of a unique MOND effect.[188][189] The prevailing opinion among most astrophysicists is that while modifications to general relativity can conceivably explain part of the observational evidence, there is probably enough data to conclude there must be some form of dark matter present in the Universe, we assume. Untill we can explain more, we cannot rule out the existence of ' dark matter' but, it is my oppinion we cannot say ' dark matter' exist. In all these years we never found evidence for ' dark matter' . We found discrepencies between what we calculate and expect, and what we really observe. And untill we can explain all, we make hypothesis about what we cant (fully) explain. Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to be the predominant type of matter in the universe. Hypothetical is the keyword here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter If dark matter does not exist, then the next most likely explanation must be that general relativity - the prevailing theory of gravity - is incorrect and should be modified. The Bullet Cluster, the result of a recent collision of two galaxy clusters, provides a challenge for modified gravity theories because its apparent center of mass is far displaced from the baryonic center of mass.[84] Standard dark matter models can easily explain this observation, but modified gravity has a much harder time,[85][86] especially since the observational evidence is model-independent.
Hi Fraser, you mentioned that roque planets would be good stepping stones when travelling to another star system. Aren’t stepping stones in space useless since stopping and landing are a problem in themselves? I guess this is the case at least when it comes to one mission/spacecraft. Wouldn’t using stepping stones require building a whole infrastructure to that stepping stone?
QUESTION: Hello Fraser, Love your channel! What do you think is the maximum speed a manmade spacecraft can accumulate with the gravity assist method? For example: Can we program a spaceship to do gravity assists from the planets in the solar system for 9-10 years, reach a very big speed and then tell it to go to Alpha centaury ?
I accidentally said that WISE ruled out a Jupiter-mass object within 50,000 light-years of us, I meant with 50,000 AU. Big difference. :-)
Could aliens have been the source of some of the old gods? We could explain and/or replicate some of the "magic" using science and technology... example: chariots of fire in the sky, we call those aircrafts and spaceships...
@@anthrowolfWelcome to the ancient aliens hypothesis. There’s enough evidence for that to fill a 30 minute special, but History Channel managed to make multiple seasons about it. Obviously we can’t rule it out but so far we don’t have more than anecdotal evidence similar to people who claim aliens are visiting us now.
26:00 (we may be in a BlackHole because of Accelerations ❤🎉
if we had a Big Bang, we wouldn't have an Acceleration ❤ only an Acceleration from Evemt Horizon location...
I only have a B.Sci😅❤
How do we know how much matter is in the observable universe? Or a galaxy? Like, specifically, how are we measuring it? If we know there is less than there should be and the difference is dark matter then we must be measuring the matter in some way other than with gravity
Monad in mathematics, science and technology
Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism
Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory
Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation
Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex
Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
Thank you Fraser for this ongoing high quality, free, space journalism. Little folks like me wouldn't go without it!
Q: when hubble was launched we thought that the UV range would lead to interesting astronomy. The last few years it has been the longer wavelengths that captured our interest. What are the biggest discoveries done specifically in the UV with hubble?
Question: how is the plane of our solar system oriented in relation to the plane of the milky way?
Seems to be 60 degrees. i.stack.imgur.com/RgCif.jpg
I've wondered about that too!
Having done a quick Google, there is a 60.2° angle between the 2, so no not really. Also Fraser made a video on it in 2015. I'll try linking it maybe RUclips will let me.
ruclips.net/video/5TDXuoV-oQU/видео.html
they're asking what the difference is so you gave them the answer ^^
Why does the Nancy Grace Roman telescope's sensor have the shape that it does?
Zalcon. Love that you guided aspiring astrophysicists to these fascinating objects.
Why do galaxies have different morphologies? Do spiral arms appear in elliptical galaxies because of collisions, or do they arise gradually over time because the stars want to bunch up?
My vote is for Janus. When I was young (late preteens in early 1990s) we live on the outskirts of the city here in Australia and it was pretty dark and I would go out at night with the 10x50 binoculars that I saved 2 birthdays and a Christmas as well and chore money for the year to buy and a star wheel that I was gifted, that I had to teach myself how to use (It was hard because the star wheel was for 30dS and I was at about 15dS and we didn't have an astronomy club that I could go to regularly) and I would lay on a camp chair for hours after sunset, with an old torch with red cellophane over it, just looking at the sky for hours until I was called in to go to bed. Even in winter (I hate winter with a passion) I would rug up in every thread of warm clothing I had and a couple of quilts and lay out there with freezing hands and face, but looking up.
Edit:
I just watched to question 2 and it’s a little similar, but if you still want to read the rest, thank you
Here’s my question!
Is there any way to use quantum mechanics, like spooky action at a distance, to make a warning system for deadly gamma ray burst? The alarm would have to only go off when burst are heading towards earth, so you would want many spread various light day, weeks, month, or years apart. Then when the light of high enough intensity goes down that chain on alarms you could look back at their corresponding alarms on earth and see “hey, 1 year ago alarm 1 went off for high gamma rays, then 6 months ago alarm 2 went off. At this rate we have _ amount of days until the rays hit so let’s prepare.”
Otherwise it’ll hit us at light speed and we’ll be too late.
I feel like it’s too rare to worry about, and a decades of not centuries long project, but I wonder if we could set up light speed alarms. Or gravitational wave alarms or something
All indications are "no", because it's impossible for the signal to outrun the light itself. The more interesting questions for quantum mechanics have been narrowed down to encryption, and maybe there's a way I haven't heard of to get an alternative non-FTL communications channel.
I love all your topics so much I can't pick a favorite. As each new topic if introduced, I think, "Oh THAT's my favorite!" Fraser you make all these topics fascinating. You inspire me and give me hope for mankind. Thank you, thank you!
Thank you for answering my question! Sorry if my question was confusing.
What bothers me about rogue planets is the possibility that one will blunder through the solar system and disrupt the fine tuning of its orbital mechanics. Not to mention the scenario of When Worlds Collide, which made me nervous when I saw it in 1951.
A rogue planet would certainly add a complicating factor, but the Solar System already has enough complexity that it's inherently slightly unstable anyways. A close flyby could greatly increase the instability of at least a small portion of the Solar System, but most fly-by possibilities would have only a tiny effect.
Pluto does cross the orbit of Neptune or Uranus I forget . At some point they will interact hard. There is already ways Jupiter can sling things out mathematically , just really rare to happen
Another very interesting place to visit in my opinion would be a planet located in one of the Magellanic Clouds, so one could see the Milky Way from outside, yet comparatively detailed.
Are there any crowdfunded citizen interplanetary or deep space missions?
The Planetary Society has flown two solar sails on cubesats but they were both in relatively low Earth orbit. Those are the crowd funded projects I know of.
Could we use the SGL to image M87*, or Sag A*?
Hi Fraser, is it possible to see a gravitational lens with your own telescope?
Hi Fraser! I have a question:
If the moon has a limited number of (mostly) stable orbits, would this lead to a problem with space debris piling up in "junk belts" in lunar orbit? I'm thinking that ejected space dust from future landings could coalesce there and become an issue when your spacecraft only has a few orbits to choose from
18:00 Don't get a Dobsonian or a Newtonian, pay the extra and get a Schmidt Cassagrain!
No collomating or cleaning of the mirror ect required. They STAY CLEAN inside and it's all one sealed enclosure. With a pretty glass lens at the front and the only opening is the eyepiece barrel. Just put something in it when no eyepiece is in it. And you have a nice neat sealed telescope! And more power at half the length of a Dob!
I made up a rough barlow lens (between the eyepiece and the scope) to magnify a lot more. I made it out of a standard camera lense and a few lens elements from old binoculars (shoved inside a hand towel roll center). Cardboard! 😅 And I hade Jupiter the size of a grapefruit (like at desk viewing) and Saturn like a tennis ball size and it's rings (nearly side on) were like 8" accross! I still can't believe it, it must have been great "seeing" that night (and in Brisbane). Most times it was so bad that you can't even make out the planets identity. But that night (even at near a thousand times through a makeshift barlow). The detail was there, you could see the GRS and like an inch x 3/4" but really faint. Cream agaist white. And cos is was both fuzzy and "sharp" at once. Smoky like crazy but exquisite detail for such a home hacked barlow. And the TRACKER on that Schmidt was A-1. I left it on Saturn with the barlow and came back like an hour later and it was still (sort of) on Saturn. At that magnifacation, that is miraculous! Buy an 8"Celestron SC telescope or Mead similar scope. Well worth the extra cash cos you got a seal scope, crazy small and crazy long focal length (for planets) and that amazing tracker! And use Plossle eye pieces for planets. Cheaper, sharper and you don't need a wide apparent viewing angle for planets. 😅 I built a 17.5" mirrow Dob for the Parkes Radio Telescope. They had all the optics and I built the rest for them. I could see a hint of color in it. It was a BIG amateur telescope. I did that in the eighties, and I heard (only a few years ago) that they were still usiing it.
What could we observe when we have a Vera Rubin Telescope and a VLT at the poles of the Moon and an ALMA and SKA at all the dark radio side of the Moon?
(Zalcon.) Just fascinating stuff!! What about that new JWST image of Rho Ophiuchi with its white, puffy, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon clouds? Stunning!! Can't wait to learn more about it!
I've framed the following question a number of times previously, but here it is once more: A star such as ours is to collapse twice, once before CNO cycling, once after. But why should there not be intermediate collapses greater in count? I cannot see why relative element abundances and core heat are together packaged into precisely two positive feedback loops which lead to core collapse and outer layer expansion.
Question: Wouldn’t it make sense to do another Kepler mission? It seems like we could still learn so much from that platform, and I would imagine we could build it again for much cheaper than the first time around.
This time we could pile on the reaction wheels :)
And make it slightly bigger since other stars turned out to be noisier than the sun so Kepler didn't get any Earth sized planets in one year orbits.
I mean there is TESS which basically continues where Kepler left off. (And many other exoplanet mission, like ESAs Plato Mission which will specifically look for and charachterize earth like planets).
I watched David Kipping video about terrascope (using earth or other planet as a gravital lens telescope). Is there any talks about trying to make it real? Isn't it wortht to try?
Question: is mercury the remnant core of a hot Jupiter?
Fraser, the thing about a nuclear rocket is that if you're sending humans on one, then you've presumably _already_ had a successful _cargo_ flight with that same rocket, meaning that an equal or greater (which is what I think more likely) mass of cargo is already at the destination. On top of that, for anything that doesn't need e.g. life support, you can just send it on a slow trip anyways, maybe with an ion engine if you're going past Mars so that it arrives on time.
For a competently designed n7clear rocket mission, the real supply constraint is the longest duration trip (which, presumably, will be a late mission abort of some sort), not what you'll need at the destination, because the supplies should be at the destination _before_ the crewed mission arrives.
Could that unusual 21 minute pulsar be a regular pulsar that precesses slowly or even flips over periodically like those zero gravity demonstrations of spinning T handles on the ISS?
Janus. I'd love to watch you build your observatory.
Will most gas giants have an intense radiation belt? Should we expect to find any moons of gas giants that could actually be habitable?
Everything exists with so many numbers so yes
Question, can you explain the surface of last screening? I struggle to understand how the cmb can be receding but at the same time not have been far away?
Hi Fraser.
When a star goes supernova the neutrinos get emittee first but the light travels faster. Could we use the delay between detections to determine the distance to the supernova?
I think Remus was my favourite this time - conjured up images of aliens doing the housework 😂
10:17 I love speculation about what kinds of large-scale structures might exist outside of the observable universe. Is the end of greatness really the end? Probably, but it’d be really cool if it wasn’t!
I've been getting really interested in astrophotography, and it's made me wonder: is there any science I could do as an amateur astronomer, or has all of the low hanging fruit been picked?
There are massive databases of scans of the night sky that has yet to be combed through. Amateur astronomers find things all the time, and can generate interest for the bigger telescopes to take a look at. Although A.I. is now starting to parse the data, the universe is absolutely massive, you can certainly find things.
Thank you for asking. I don't have a question, really, only a concept. If my simple understanding is correct, I would like you to address it, please.
If the entire light spectrum represents (E) in E=MC2, and considering that all matter in the universe either emits or reflects light and within that light is all the information of that body. With virtually an infinite number of bodies in the universe all emitting light in a sphere that we can see in every square inch of that space. A sphere of light expanding outward at twice the speed of light. Hence, everything exists everywhere within the first light's sphere as energy. Converting their mass (M) into light energy (E) multiplied by the speed of light (C) squared(why not qubed).
That is more information than every microchip on this planet can hold in the palm of your hand (standing outside). We only need to look.
Thank you,
DLH
Hi Fraser, I have learned from you channel about how most asteroids are just rubble piles that are held together by their mutual gravity, and there are a couple of asteroids that are iron balls that were once planetary cores of early planets that no longer exist. Are there asteroids that are solid chunks of rock that could be carved into giant floating space sculptures sometime in the far future when humanity has spread out across the solar system?
Hi Fraser when you spoke about how they gathered the 250g sample. You said there was a blast of air used to capture that dust. How certain an they be that the blasted air won’t contaminate the sample or interfere with the experiments
During Andoria: Is it possible the two stars can go back and forth feeding off each other "indefinitely"? Siphoning off mass from each other like a pendulum until they reach an equilibrium?
How would both strip mass off of each other of the same time?
Can any break off to be independent?
@fraisercain question? for next week: lets say we are 8~10yrs down the road. Starship is progressing well and we've already landed autonomous ships full of supplies in support of the first trip to mars. Now it is time to send humans. If we have to choose, let's say, a crew of 12 for that first 2-yr mission. What 12 would you choose. Assume 2 are dedicated NASA astronauts with over the top generalist training, like so many of them have. What other mission specialists would you choose if it was your choice? Medical Dr with ER experience or specialty? Physics / Optics / Chemistry folks? Engineers in consturction / scientists / biologists / botanists / SpaceX structures guy / SpaceX engines guy / Psychologist / etc? Such a hard question when we can send more than just 3. I'm curious to hear what you would choose given how much exposure you have to all of these topics as a science communicator.
Question! - why can’t we measure gravitational waves using time dilation instead of space dilation? If we can measure time to a resolution of 10e-18s why can’t we use 4/5 atomic clocks instead of LIGO.
My understanding of quantum physics is flawed, so I might be misunderstanding this process, but if there's this moment where a particle could be anywhere and then it's observed and its placement is defined, does that information travel faster than the speed of light to the observer? And, does this determination of the placement of the particle happen faster than the speed of light?
For the first question, I know that we wouldn't be able to observe it faster than the speed of light because that's the speed we're limited by, but is it possible near a black hole for example, to tell if the determination happens faster than the speed of light? Like would the black hole observing the particle occur faster than light or something?
Sorry if this question isn't clear, I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it.
Hey Fraser, sorry to ask a question regarding a relatively old Q&A, but maybe you still see this: What does "relatively close" mean in regards to your answer of the binary system, where one is stripping away the other? (depending of kind and size of each object of course).
Is it a couple of AU, a lot or even less than 1 AU?
Fraser still believes there's a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus
Isn’t there? I mean, among other things, of course
@@oberonpanopticon hahaha that's funny
@@malawby If I’m missing a joke or the runaway greenhouse effect is an outdated idea please do tell me
What is your understanding of how the runaway greenhouse effect actually works
Cheron. Good question, even better answer
Question: If we were to plant plants in the equatorial regions of Mars enclosed in domes that would open when it is warm and then close when temperatures drop to retain/produce heat to keep the plants from dying, would having the presence of plants actually have any sort of noticeable impact on the planet?
(Vendikar) Hi Fraser, I have a question. If we can't explain how Gravity keeps Galaxies from tearing apart, how can we be sure the far off Galaxies are where we think they are? Surely Gravity affects the light we measure from the far off Galaxies.
Any advice for which photography-friendly telescope to buy for a $2000 budget?
I can't answer you well, but you will need to specify whether you already have everything else you need like an equatorial mount, eyepieces, power, and the final camera you intend to use. Does 2k need to cover all that or only the scope?
Question. Could all the anti matter be in the original black holes and this is why we are looking at a dominant matter universe as all the anti matter is in the black holes?
Question: could a galaxy formation like Hoag's Object be used as a gravitational lens telescope; where changes in the space between the center bulge and outer ring could be used to focus at different distances? And if so, what would the magnification power be? After all, it's pointed right at our sector of the Universe.
Question: I understand why neutrinos precede supernova light. What I don't understand is how they know what direction the super nova is when the Nutrino's are detected in higher numbers. Neutrino flashes wouldn't give directions . . . at least, I don't think they would. Is it triangulation from more than one neutrino detector?
I understand how we can use the relative luminosity and absolute luminosity with cepheid variables to work out the distance - but how do you know the distance to the source of gravitational waves? The detection is just a blipp!?
Can we detect dark matter accreting around high mass objects like black holes or neutron stars? Since dark matter has such limited interactions I have heard it is hard to dump orbital momentum so maybe it cannot accumulate. If it is possible for a black hole to collect dark matter are there any detectable effects we could search for?
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to be the predominant type of matter in the universe.
Hypothetical is the keyword here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
If dark matter does not exist, then the next most likely explanation must be that general relativity - the prevailing theory of gravity - is incorrect and should be modified. The Bullet Cluster, the result of a recent collision of two galaxy clusters, provides a challenge for modified gravity theories because its apparent center of mass is far displaced from the baryonic center of mass.[84] Standard dark matter models can easily explain this observation, but modified gravity has a much harder time,[85][86] especially since the observational evidence is model-independent.
I think the problem there is that if the concentration of dark matter is high enough to be accreting around a black hole then it would most likely be in a very dense region in a galaxy and so very difficult to see through all of the matter, light and dust surrounding it.
Does a gravitational lens have any affect on matter other than magnify its image when we observe it?
No, it's potentially billions of light years away from the lens.
About you last segment in this video, Cheron, why not turn the ship around part way through the trip and use that to slow down?
I have a question, in the Foundation series, there are creatures that can fly between a plannet and its moon because they have a shared atmospher. How phesable is this, could two objects (moons or palnnets rather than sars) share enough of thier atmospher and would it be dense ehough to "fly" between the two. I know stars can have a shared ovelope when they exceed thier roche limit, but could a plannet and a moon behave similary with thier atmosphers, while not destroying one fo them due to tidal forces, and how long could this type of situation last?
QUESTION: The matter-antimatter annihilation event that happened within a few seconds of the Big Bang must have released a quantity of energy that defies all adjectives, and absolutely everywhere at once if I understand correctly. Is this thought to have played a role in early expansion? In general, what were the aftereffects of such a mind boggling event?
Also, as an habitual audio listener, I'm amazed by the production quality of the video version! Wow!
Question: As an amateur astrophotographer myself I often think how much I would love to have my telescope in space like a mini Hubble. Then I was thinking about that some more and realized that even some of the largest of amateur telescopes are way smaller than a starlink satellite. So this brought me to the line of thought that it would be pretty cool to have a swarm of small space telescopes that you could launch like starlink satellites in batches. So my question then is, would there be any scientific benefit to having such a swam of small telescopes? Say something on the range of 16-20 inch reflectors. Imagine a swam of mini Hubbles that can collect huge amounts of data on one object at a time or spread out and do a sky survey but at a lower resolution than Hubble. I was thinking maybe if they were to do a sky survey they could assist in the hunt for exoplanets or something.
The supernova in the LMG had one neutrinos detector dect 11 neutrinos before the supernova was seen. If we had three such detected on the globe placed right would not 10 or 11 from each with them sync up with a price atomic clock not be able to point everyone in the right direction before the nova light arrived?
Question. If you magnetized a roll of videotape and let it unravel in zero g, what would it do? Superstructure objects in space are waiting for your answer.
Question: Fraser I live just to the south of you and I have discovered that anytime I buy a new piece of astronomy equipment it is cloudy for at least 2 weeks, Is this normal, do other amateur astronomers have this luck or am I just cursed? How would I remove such a curse? What type of sacrifice is demanded?
Question: Do hurricanes storms & and galaxies have anything in common? They both spin, have spiral arms, and the eye seems like the area of a black hole. Are the formed the same way?
24:35 Yeah, nice analogy, Frasier. And also I'd say that if people realized that the Observable Universe is not a physical boundary -- much like a border between countries -- they'd see it as even less of a significant coincidence.
Like, astronomers place the emphasis on both "Observable" and Universe. But normal folks naturally focus on Universe, not having context.
I guess it could quickly be explained as the Observable Pocket of the Universe? :)
More context here is that if one looks further out, assuming the density of energy stays the same, the _event horizon 'shoots' outward even faster_ -- becoming far larger than the observation sphere.
And conversely, at _shorter_ distances than the Observable Universe, the event horizon is much _smaller_ than each distance.
3:30 How close??
I was watching this presentation from NASA about Psyche mission and when was the Q&A time, it gave the impression that people are not understanding the whys . Example Osiris-Rex landed on Benu an brought samples back and now is going to a Apophysis or Dart mission, Lucy mission and others even greater like the Voyagers. Could you help us to understand and what is going to happen with that pro after it finishes this mission.? Thank you
Question: Now that we have gravity wave detectors is there any theory that might match observations indicating what the internal structure of black holes looks like? I.e. singularities vs. one dimensional spinning rings
Hi Fraser, Question: As imagined in Three Body Problem or Inhibitor series would it be possible for a hyper-advanced galactic civilization to change the laws of physics and the nature of space time? For example the ability to remove dimensions from a part of the universe or to change the force of the Higgs boson and therefore the mass of elementary particles?
We don't know, but it's one of the coolest ideas in the book. Environmental destruction at a cosmic scale.
Question: Do you have personal plans for the upcoming Annular and Total eclipses passing over North America soon? I think the Annular on the 14th is passing close to you, and the Total in April next year is passing over a large swath of Ontario to New Brunswick? Have you brought it up in a video yet and if not would you talk about it to let people know and get them excited for the opportunity?
I'm not going to travel to see the annular, but I am going to Texas next year for the total
Thanks for the quick reply@@frasercain!
Question: why do some telescopes have wide vs narrow fovs? (E.g. hubble vs NGR)
What is the likelihood that Bennu is material ejected from the collision that resulted in the Earth-Moon system? Or some other circumstance that would preclude Bennu truly being primordial?
As a follow up question to Andoria. In the Expeditionary Force series by Craig Alanson, the Ancient race that inhabited the Galaxy and then "ascended" before any other life existed was able to move stars and planets and actually moved gas giants close to the star to extend the star's life span. Would this actually happen? Would the gas from the gas giant feed the star, or would it build up on the surface of the star and cause a mini Nova explosion like what happens with White Dwarves with a companion star?
Question 1: What happened to the news of chemistry likely from living things in venus’s atmosphere? Has the data been quashed definitively? It’s seems highly probably that there could be living organisms in venus’s thick organic atmosphere, what are we doing to figure whether there’s life there once and for all?
Question 2: same highly anxious question about highly probable life on moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Liquid oceans, tidal heat to power life! Why aren’t we racing to answer this question in the best way we can at warp speed?
[Q] Hi Fraser. If we use the gravitational assistance of the same large planets many many times, is it possible to achieve a speed so high that it would catch up with the Voyager 1 probe?
That gravitational lense looks happy Hubble and JWST are working together 😅
Hi Fraser.
You spoke about holeman transfer which is the most fuel efficient way to travel to mars. What are the other methods to travel to mars?
Just less efficient and more direct. If you're willing to use more fuel, you can take a shorter path.
I have a question: When we consider the mass-energy budget of the universe, what's the energy proportion? I mean photons. What's the ratio of EM energy versus condensed particles energy like leptons and baryons. Thanks.
Edit: also the ratio of other particles like neutrinos etc.
You sometimes talk about using asteroids to do gravitational manipulation/siphoning to move planets into habitable zones.
Given requisite time, would it be possible to go a step further and use asteroids to move a planet to then move a star? Would it be impossible to due to three body problem calculations?
Question for ya! If you take a given star, and place a black hole right next to it, how massive would it need to be relative to the size of the star for the black hole to sustain itself and consume the star? What would happen if a cute, relatively itty-bitty black hole could encounter one of the most massive stars we know about?
The smaller a black hole is, the faster it disintegrates due to Hawking radiation and that releases a mind boggling amount of energy.
So watch out for those cuddly little black holes with the adorable eyes. They can cause you WAY more trouble than the big ones!
I can only imagine the answer to my question is the ratio of space to time within spacetime but hopefully, you can explain it to me.
Since the galaxies etc. we are seeing in the Hubble and JWST results are not just far away as in our first realisation of these images but actually a long time ago, the concept of this leaves me struggling with something. I have asked physics students I stumble across and they seem to figure I'm just as dumb as a box of rocks and could never grasp the intellectual rigors of the answer so please be considerate, I've tried to separate it into separate concepts for easier explaining to an idiot.
1. The further we look into these images the faster these galaxies are moving away from each other.
2. The further we look into these images the further back in time we are looking.
3. My problem comes with if the further back in time we look the faster the galaxies are moving away from each other then why do we think the expansion is accelerating?
4 In summary, if the acceleration of the expansion increases the further back in time we look then this implies to me that the acceleration of the expansion decreases as we move forward in time. This seems to show a universe that isn't moving towards a distant heat death.
As I read my own work my first thought is am I confusing speed and acceleration? Like when you try to conceive multi-dimensional concepts with a brain limited to its simple 3D+t wiring.
I have a question:
When did people first realize that light travelled at a certain speed and how did they come to that realization? After that, what sorts of things did they do to figure out what that speed was?
Also, what did people believe before they got the idea that light moved at a certain speed? Did they think that light moved instantaneously or did the question simply not occur to them?
If Moon is getting away from Earth because of gravitional effect that one have to antother, then why every two orbiting object aren't getting away from each other (eg two stars that eventually merge). What are the required conditions for this effect?
Here is my question: From a point of view of the Earth is space stretching forever in every direction? (If yes why was it important to find out if universe is flat or not? - if its infinite in every direction on a 3d axis how can it be curved or saddle shaped) And if so are planets in our solar system on the same plane in relation to each other? So if we send a spaceship to Mars does it have to travel up or down from where Earth is ? And are all the planets travelling in the same direction around the Sun and if yes then why is it this way?
Ok ive got a ? Its a lil esoteric but has stuck with me . Is Itzhak bentovs theory on the nature of the cosmos plausible?
Is it possible that there are universes smaller than the Plank length and we are smaller than the Plank length of a larger universe?
Question
We cannot measure the one way speed of light. Still I wonder why the following experiment is flawed.
We have two light sources let's say a and b
B is also a mirror.
Now we fire a bean from a to b. This triggers the light source in b to also fire.
Now we have two beams side by side a reflected beam and a one way beam. In b we can measure the time difference between both. If we do the same in a we don't need to synchronize clocks all we need to do is measure if the time difference between the beams is the same in a and b.
Why will this not work?
Is there enough mass within our galactic halo to cause a lensing effect, or distortion, when we look into deep space?
Are there new space telescopes being designed to use the starship payload capacity?
I have a question. Why is there no redshift in the cosmic microwave background?
There is. The light used to look like the surface of a red star. Now it's red-shifted to microwaves.
The redshift of the CMB is actually about 1100.
@@frasercain thanks for the response.
The problem is that the red shift is uniform in all directions. That kind of observation puts the Earth at the exact center of the universe. I think we've had enough of those kinds of theories.
No matter where you go in the Universe, it would look like you're at the center. That's because every part of the universe is expanding in every direction.
@@LongDefiantActually the redshift of the CMB is slightly different in every direction due to the motion of the Earth, Sun and galaxy relative to the CMB. The original observation is of a dipole, one side is redder and the other side is bluer. And of course if you measured the CMB from another galaxy you would see the same thing, just slightly different since you are at a different location. There is no special centre, every location is bathed in this radiation that comes from every direction.
Are Rouge planets "stationary" do they move thru space in the same way the milky way does or do they move with whatever has the most gravitational influence?
They are ejected in energetic gravitational interactions so can move very fast, maybe a few hundred miles per second.
I asked this again, sorry if i missed my answer (some kind fan can point me out to the right direction if i did) so, my question is:
although solar flares and when in general the sun is acting up is scary dangerous, is the heliosphere protecting us from anything (for example cosmic rays)? I ask this because when i ponder the concept of a dyson sphere that comes to mind.
Cheers from greece
Poll: Vulcan!
Question: The gravitational effect from Earth isn't that great of a difference whether at the surface or 400km up. Orbiting Earth gives the effect of micro gravity. Is there a qualitative difference between effective micro gravity (e.g. orbit) and true micro gravity (e.g. far away from anything massive)?
Is it possible gravity is an external force? Or is it pretty certain it's internal
Its honestly neither. Its what is known as a pseudo-force and is an apparent force due to the curvature of space-time. Its kind of like the "force" experienced inside of a rotating ring which holds you to the surface despite it not truly being a force and is just the result of your own actual acceleration in a direction you are being blocked from moving towards. Does this make sense? I know it gets fuzzy and a bit grey such most people dont fully understand the distinction just want to make sure its clear enough to envision what is going on. Picture a marble on the classic Trampoline demonstration if we roll it it would seem like a force is pulling the marble towards the large object but in reality its simply distorted surface causing it to move in a straight line on a curved path.
If a spaceship travels at the speed of light and turns on its headlights, does anything happen??
Hi Fraser, if 2 entities (planets, stars. Etc) go in different directions from each other in the universe with half light speed each... Does that mean that they are traveling light speed relative to each other? Greetings from Romania
zalcon.
I'm glad JWST was able to find the rogue planets. I've always had the assumption there's billions of these giants and smaller just out there, tossed by galactic collisions, or supernova, or orbit disruptions of some kind.
Is a black hole a sphere that can be entered or falling into from every direction around it? Or in other words, Is there a front, back, or sides to a black hole?
Like the Earth, an oblate spheroid. The preserved quantities are gravitational mass, electric charge and angular momentum. So, although there are no surface features to see it spinning, it is still spinning. Like every other spinning sphere it has poles and an equator, and is slightly flattened. Apart from that, it has no direction.
Hi Fraser, do you think it is possible that dark matter is an effect from a parallel universe?
Because dark matter has not yet been identified, many other hypotheses have emerged aiming to explain the same observational phenomena without introducing a new unknown type of matter. The most common method is to modify general relativity. General relativity is well-tested on solar system scales, but its validity on galactic or cosmological scales has not been well proven.[176] A suitable modification to general relativity can in principle conceivably eliminate the need for dark matter. The best-known theories of this class are MOND and its relativistic generalization tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS),[177] f(R) gravity,[178] negative mass, dark fluid,[179][180][181] and entropic gravity.[182] Alternative theories abound.[183][184]
A problem with alternative hypotheses is that observational evidence for dark matter comes from so many independent approaches (see the "observational evidence" section above). Explaining any individual observation is possible but explaining all of them in the absence of dark matter is very difficult. Nonetheless, there have been some scattered successes for alternative hypotheses, such as a 2016 test of gravitational lensing in entropic gravity[185][186][187] and a 2020 measurement of a unique MOND effect.[188][189]
The prevailing opinion among most astrophysicists is that while modifications to general relativity can conceivably explain part of the observational evidence, there is probably enough data to conclude there must be some form of dark matter present in the Universe, we assume. Untill we can explain more, we cannot rule out the existence of ' dark matter' but, it is my oppinion we cannot say ' dark matter' exist. In all these years we never found evidence for ' dark matter' . We found discrepencies between what we calculate and expect, and what we really observe. And untill we can explain all, we make hypothesis about what we cant (fully) explain.
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to be the predominant type of matter in the universe.
Hypothetical is the keyword here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
If dark matter does not exist, then the next most likely explanation must be that general relativity - the prevailing theory of gravity - is incorrect and should be modified. The Bullet Cluster, the result of a recent collision of two galaxy clusters, provides a challenge for modified gravity theories because its apparent center of mass is far displaced from the baryonic center of mass.[84] Standard dark matter models can easily explain this observation, but modified gravity has a much harder time,[85][86] especially since the observational evidence is model-independent.
Hi Fraser, you mentioned that roque planets would be good stepping stones when travelling to another star system. Aren’t stepping stones in space useless since stopping and landing are a problem in themselves? I guess this is the case at least when it comes to one mission/spacecraft. Wouldn’t using stepping stones require building a whole infrastructure to that stepping stone?
What do we know about the biggest stars?
Vendikar: I would want to see the event that formed Saturn's rings. Whatever it was, that must have been a hell of a thing.
I'm finishing Kim Stanley Robinson's "Aurora" and loving it, thank you very much for mentioning it months ago. But what do I read next?
QUESTION:
Hello Fraser, Love your channel! What do you think is the maximum speed a manmade spacecraft can accumulate with the gravity assist method? For example: Can we program a spaceship to do gravity assists from the planets in the solar system for 9-10 years, reach a very big speed and then tell it to go to Alpha centaury ?