JWST & the BIG DEBATE on GN-z11: one of the most distant galaxies in the Universe
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2024
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/drbecky - the first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant's annual premium subscription.
One of the most distant galaxies known GN-z11 has been observed many times by JWST in it’s first few years of observations but that data isn’t as clear cut as we hoped. There’s a debate going on (led by two camps; one in Cambridge and one in Oxford) over whether GN-z11 has a growing supermassive black hole or not. Either way it has big implications for our understanding of how galaxies and black holes evolve together in the early Universe.
Maiolino et al. (2023) - arxiv.org/pdf/2305.12492.pdf
Cameron et al. (2023) - arxiv.org/pdf/2302.10142.pdf
JWST MIRI proposal 2926: www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-pub...
00:00 Introduction
01:46 The data we have from JWST: what is a spectrum?
04:34 The argument for GN-z11 having a growing SMBH (Cambridge group)
06:28 The argument against GN-z11 having a growing SMBH (Oxford group)
10:34 How can we tell? More observations with MIRI planned
12:49 Brilliant
14:02 Bloopers
Video filmed on a Sony ⍺7 IV
---
🎧 Royal Astronomical Society Podcast that I co-host: podfollow.com/supermassive
---
📚 My new book, "A Brief History of Black Holes", out NOW in paperback, e-book and audiobook (which I narrated myself!): lnk.to/DrBecky
---
📚 "The Year In Space" celebrating all things space in 2022 from me and the rest of the Supermassive Podcast team: geni.us/jNcrw
---
👕 My new merch, including JWST designs, are available here (with worldwide shipping!): dr-becky.teemill.com/
---
🔔 Don't forget to subscribe and click the little bell icon to be notified when I post a new video!
---
👩🏽💻 I'm Dr. Becky Smethurst, an astrophysicist at the University of Oxford (Christ Church). I love making videos about science with an unnatural level of enthusiasm. I like to focus on how we know things, not just what we know. And especially, the things we still don't know. If you've ever wondered about something in space and couldn't find an answer online - you can ask me! My day job is to do research into how supermassive black holes can affect the galaxies that they live in. In particular, I look at whether the energy output from the disk of material orbiting around a growing supermassive black hole can stop a galaxy from forming stars.
drbecky.uk.com
rebeccasmethurst.co.uk - Věda a technologie
Nice to see our Dr. Becky getting namechecked TWICE in the latest PBS Space Time video! A future collaboration in the works at some time, maybe?😁
That's would be fun!
Or, in the famous words... This is where the fun begins!
I know roght, it would ba AMAZING ❤
IKR? When Galaxies Collide or what?!
I'm here to cast my vote for the Matt & Becky Black Hole Bonanza special!
that was quite interesting
It would be awesome to combine our two favourite channels in a collaboration. ❤❤❤
I am really impressed that Dr. Becky did not belittle the Cambridge paper/writers. She stuck with the two theories and each interpretation in a very balanced way. She does offer her OPINION that the Oxford theory might be closer to the better interpretation than Cambridge, but she then gives you links to BOTH papers and asks for your OPINIONS. She also clearly says more data is needed to resolve the differences between the two papers. Kudos Dr. Smethurst!
Why surprised? Yes they do set up dichotomies and have loads of fun with them, but astrophysics research isn’t a zero sum game like football and it’s not like anyone is racing to patent black holes.
You imply that you think there is a "Cambridge" view and an "Oxford" view. Between their colleges, there are probably 29 astrophysicists at Oxbridge and 23 at Camford, representing 43 different opinions between them. There is no Cambriford or Oxdge opinion.
(I am crediting astrophysics with a bit more cohesion than geology, where few geologists have less than three simultaneous opinions on any one question.)
Well, she was also educated at one and works at the other, so criticizing either of them could be a bit awkward professionally.
They shouldn't be little but correct way is to present your view backed with evidence
Wait, where did she say she favors the Oxford paper? Did I miss that?
This video needs to be shown to everyone who doesn't "trust" science. I feel like the narrative of just this one observation perfectly describes how modern science operates. It's not "made up" as some people are lead to believe.
Thank you, Dr. Becky for all your videos :)
I don't trust all $cience. I can trust this as it's far from anything political. But once politics gets involved and money, $cience is spelt just like that.
What also makes this so interesting is when I watch the other side of science discussions, like flat earthers, they want to claim that science is this tight knit group that agrees on everything or you are tossed out of the group! To see how science actually has these "fights" and that the final outcome will not be based on who can yell the loudest!
Flat earth isn't science though.
@@bgsmember3650 I'm pretty sure that's what they meant by "the other side of science discussions"; the people who go around denying science and misrepresenting it.
On both sides (eg "the science is settled" is the most political, non-science statement ever). Even Einstein's theories get challenged at times. Hawking debunked one of his own theories. Nothing is ever settled in real science. As Dr Becky keeps saying "our best model" or our best working theory is... leaves room for changes and for new data that may toss out our best models.
I keep seeing flat-earthers used over and over again, my take? They are yanking your chain and love the attention. Earth isn't absolutely round, but you can see its general shape against the Moon every four weeks. But technically, Earth's shape keeps changing (Rockies getting taller parts of the Pacific seem to be getting deeper and that can add a tiny bit more wobble to our orbit) and the north star won't point the way to our north forever, the magnetic poles have flipped before and may be getting ready to do so again, even the definition of a meter has changed within my lifetime. The DEBATE is never entirely settled. It really helps when the data is un-adjusted and publicly available. False color is noted in photos. Everything is open for inspection. For example: Archaeology is stuck with dates that cannot be changed even after the other earth sciences such as geology point out things are older or newer than the "accepted" dates.
"outcome will not be based on who can yell the loudest"
Not primarily, anyway, which is still more than most other forums of discourse can say!
I noticed you managed to dig out a rare clip of an Oxford win @1:44 🙂
Love all of your work. Thank you so much for all of the effort and engagement, and bringing these wonderful concepts to the masses of non-astrophysicists :)
Thank you Dr Becky for another fascinating video. I find it all totally absorbing even though I am no scientist and certainly no astrophysicist. SMBH's are such an incredible concept.
JWST is certainly challenging astrophysicists and cosmologists! And this is why we science 🙂
Thank you for presenting what is a very leading edge of scientific discovery so those of us who enjoy learning about these subjects but aren't scientists!
My non academic self has concluded based on Dr. Becky and Anton that the whole expansion of the universe theory is bogus. It happened all at once and pulling in many different directions is my theory now
@@Posting-Maharashtra At this point there’s nothing that explains what we have observed better. There was a time when this was true of Newtonian gravity. There were things that couldn’t be explained, like the precession of Mercury’s orbit. It took Einstein and General Relativity to explain.
Quantum mechanics has had challenges and passed them all.
General relativity is being challenged on cosmology as well. But MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) is out.
That we might be around when new physics comes to be is a great time. This is just getting started.
Acollierastro did an amazing video on crackpots. Worth checking out.
@@Posting-Maharashtra All of the observational evidence supports an expanding universe in a spacetime described by general relativity.
Thank you so much for your content and efforts Dr. Becky. I look forward to hearing the subsequent news in March.
thanks dr becky. late to the video but loved it
thanks for the information and anxious for the updates
Dr. B !!! I always look forward to every video you make on this channel! You are one of my favorite science communicators... my favorite astrophysics communicator! I know it is a lot of work... so thank you! It is great that you leave your mistakes in the videos (corrected when they happen).... shows how important it is to be humble and of course honest!!!! .... and the bloopers.... got to watch all the bloopers.
Love the fact that the more we learn the more questions develop from the process of answering previous questions. Having fun with the courses from Brilliant. 💙
Fascinating! Thanks, dr. Becky!!! 😃
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Your videos are accessible, informative, fun, and very pleasant. Absolutely fantastic.
I dunno, I have to type something to help with the algorithm.
2:12 - What a fantastic comment - I totally get this!
Thanks for all the videos which take a subject at the limits of my understanding and break it down a bit so I get it.
Stephen Hawking found Homer Simpson's thoughts of a donut-shaped universe intriguing.
Your emission spectra animation was very clear! Nice job.
Great video once again, Dr. Becky. I think it's has a SBH that's one of a kind. Thanks for sharing.
It just gets more and more interesting. Bring on the data - as much as we can get and asap. Thankyou Dr. Becky! I love the way you appeal to the measurements - every time.
This is fascinating! And once again, I am so grateful for a presentation that enables me to follow what the salient questions are and how they might be answered. In the back of my mind is another, probably very naive question: if the light being analyzed in these studies actually left its source billions of years ago, what is GN-z11 probably like today? Is that question even meaningful?
Love your content Dr. B!
Hi Dr Becky, great to see your interesting videos as ever! I would be very interested to see your take on the photon sphere of black holes and the effects we can see such as M87's apparently one sided jet as covered in David Butler's recent video (also a fantastic space science youtuber!).
Thanks for these videos dr becky!
Great video, love watching your posts! I think this is much more likely to be the signature of an AGN. There is so much space between stars, even in dense regions of space, and no quick mechanism to get collisions to occur, that it is very unlikely to be runaway collisions of stars.
I have to say I love these video and together with Urknall, Weltall und das Leben (which is a german astrophysics and science channel) this is my favorite channel on youtube!!! 💕 Thanks for all the work you put into these videos!!!❣
can these runaway star collisions due to the higher density of matter in the early universe be an alternative mechanism to producing black holes? You start with something below the mass limit but then you have a bunch of mergers and suddenly you cross the threshhold for a star able to supernova and form a black hole at its center.
p.s. Happy New Year! Its certainly started off with some interesting science. Looking forward to more!
The minimum mass to go direct from star core to black hole is several times the mass of the minimum supernova-forming system. There are several different supernova-forming mechanisms.
That is, to a considerable degree, covered in the "Initial mass function" question that Dr.Becky covered a few presentations ago.
@@a.karley4672 a blackhole once formed can eat other stars at some rate and grow. But what i was asking is this: Can blackholes form by mergers of several stars to create a star with sufficient mass so that when it supernovas, a blackhole is formed? And more to the point. is this a mechanism that could create large numbers of early blackholes which could eventually grow to the massive ones discovered in these very early galaxies.
@@FredPlanatia Yes. It is most likely with a binary star system with at least one neutron star. We don't have enough data on how very early stars terminate, as first generation stars would not have elements heavier than helium until quite late in the star's active lifetime, so late stages might be significantly different for first and early generation stars. But even a white dwarf can accrete mass from a nearby larger star at a quite remarkable rate. Kip Thorne's team have recorded some 50 star collisions, much more than general expectations. And smaller star collisions at z > 10 are expected to be detectable only if a black hole is created or grows. Insufficient data. Same with Oxford/Cambridge competing explanations. MIRI may favor either explanation.
@@FredPlanatiayes and galaxy mergers can create even larger black hole and larger galaxies overall
thank you again Dr. Becky
I'm a bit confused by bigger atoms having "more tightly bound electrons" - I thought they were less tightly bound, because they were further away, which is why group metals get more reactive down the periodic table because they are less bothered about losing their outer electron and halogens get less reactive because they get less bothered about grabbing an electron. What have I got wrong ?
Think of it in terms of the so-called “shielded charge” that the valence electrons experience: the number of protons in the nucleus, minus the number of electrons in lower levels. Within a period, the number of lower-level electrons remains constant as the atomic number increases, so each valance electron is bound by an increasing net positive charge.
Or to put it simply: more protons, same shell, bigger charge holds valence electrons tighter. Whereas going down a group, the valence shell is getting higher for the same shielded nuclear charge (for the alkali metals, that value is just 1), hence the valence electrons are more loosely bound.
There’s a simple rule for electronegativity (how much the atom attracts electrons): increases to the right, decreases down. Similarly, but opposite sign, for atomic radius: decreases right, increases down. Fluorine is a pint-sized thief; cesium is a bloated sugar daddy.
I think dr b made an error.
Neon has more tightly bound electrons than Carbon since it has a higher nuclear charge which attracts the electrons more. The graphs show ionised atoms, eg. Neon IV means triple charged (lost 3 electrons), and the ionisation energy of Neon IV (63 eV) is higher than Carbon IV (47 eV) since the electrons are more tightly bound so you need more energy to ionise it. Did she actually say 'bigger atoms', I thought she described 'heavier atoms'.
It’s both. It’s both a lot of early collisions and a quick move towards a bigger black hole. I think we keep underestimating the early universe’s violence.
Hi Dr. Becky, do you have any thoughts on the shape of the universe? I haven't seen a video of yours regarding the topic. The other day, I went down a rabbit hole of how universe might be hyperbolic space, so I just wanted to hear what you have to say. E³ vs S³ vs H³ ?
Fascinating stuff! My head is on the fence between the two, but my heart supports Cambridge since that is where I took my natural sciences degree.
We know so much, but we know nothing. Thanks for keeping us up to date on the newest findings & ideas
enlightening video, thank you for all your work.
I see what you did there. 😁 🌈
Always nice to see a Dr. B video! I know she has gone over accretion disks before but do we know how much mass is lost to creating this energy release we see in the accretion disks before the matter is gobbled up? As in is it a standard rate of loss regardless of the size of the disk and the age of the black hole like the difference between our current black hole in our galaxy vs the claimed black hole that formed so long ago from the paper in this video?
As a mathematician and an astrophysics masters student. And PhD candidate. I think that it's always possible the there are more older galaxies out there. I think the universe is way older than most believe to be. I mean we barely know much about the tiny rock we live on but we for some reason say we know enough about the universe to have definitive rules and classifications. Unless there's another piece to the universal puzzle we are missing...which we are.
what about galaxy mergers? early universe there was surely more mergers and therefore some actual ages could be mixed. the oldest galaxies are likely to be mixed with some newer galaxies several times, overall making the age hard to tell right?
@vkdeen7570 exactly. I mean even withing the milky way we can see the remnants of past collisions. So even eventually after Andromeda mashes with us. The scars will remain. Thus also leads us to wonder why are some galaxies moving away while others are moving closer. Doesn't make much sense. So that means space has to be infinite. And as to if it's expanding or shinking....why can't it be more like a bubble effect. What we see from the I side is a wrapping of what is really out there.
Love getting the latest astro news from Dr Becky
I love your channel. Gotta comment every video for Algo.
A brilliant and fascinating analysis. I realize that I've thought that about many of your videos and didn't say so. Count me as owing you back-accolades.
Off subject for this video but, I was wondering what we’ve learned from the comet Bennu samples. Has NASA released any information and if not, when can we expect to get some? Thanks.
Best channel ever, thanks!
363 views in 3 minutes.. this makes me happy for some reason.
Dr. Becky, thanks for sharing a great video and for not taking sides! This just proves the scientific method, and I'm sure both the Oxford and Cambridge teams, are delighted that they don't "agree" and will learn so much more from each other's papers, and will probably collaborate to debate and learn even more! 🙂😎🤓❤
I finally figured out why I like your videos so much. It's not just your mind, you could be the sister of the actress who played my favorite Doctor Who compatriot, Sarah Jane Smith 🙂
Elizabeth Sladen 💖💖
She was the best! She played off Tom Baker perfectly.
@@OboeCanAm RIP Liz
She was the best companion!
@@mikotagayuna8494
First time I've seen notation like NIII] or NIV], i.e. with only one trailing square bracket. I'm familiar with the [NeIV] type of notation with both leading and trailing square brackets, denoting a forbidden line; turns out that the use of the single trailing square bracket denotes a semi-forbidden line, which kinda makes sense. Thanks, Becky, as always for the great coverage!
I support Oxford because it just makes more sense, and semms more reslistic. How many people here are 13 years or below. I just want to say that your videos have inspired me to become an astrophysicist. Thank you for your effort and time put into these videos Dr Becky.
Thats an Awesome Goal I truly hope you keep up the Pursuit and get there
I hope you succeed, girl!!! 😊
Go for it!
Best of luck
😂🎉❤🎉❤🎉😂😂
I’m 23
Love your work.
Science growing in real time - thank you for keeping us up to date with the newest discoveries with information and discussion that is CORRECT.
I learned alot from Mel Acheson's recent video on charge separation. Thank you for your effort to bring people up to speed.
Ah, the audacious astronomers, those celestial maestros who, in their cosmic symphony, have now composed a sonata of avoidance for the electric and plasma models of the universe. Their fear of these alternatives has grown so profound that they've resorted to verbal contortions, performing linguistic ballets to divert attention from the cosmic outcast - plasma.
Enter the grand illusion: once-humble plasma filaments, those wisps of ionized matter, have now ascended to the lofty title of "objects." Yes, you heard it right - objects. Because, naturally, uttering the P-word might provoke a cosmic uprising, shaking the very foundations of astronomical dogma.
It's as if astronomers are participants in a cosmic charades game, tactfully replacing "plasma" with the ambiguous "objects," hoping that the cosmic audience won't catch on. "Look over here at these mysterious objects," they declare, with a conspiratorial wink, trying desperately to divert attention from the heretical idea that perhaps, just perhaps, electricity plays a starring role in the cosmic drama.
But why the cosmic shyness, esteemed astronomers? Is it the terror of challenging established doctrines, the apprehension of acknowledging that the universe might be a bit more electrically charged than the textbooks dictate? Or is it simply easier to conjure cosmic charlatanry, renaming plasma currents as elusive "objects" and hoping no one will notice?
And now, a cosmic twist in this grand performance: astronomers, driven by an apparent disdain for scientific credibility, have birthed a menagerie of mythical entities from the cosmic void - dark photons, dark ions, dark sectors, dark voids, and the newly discovered ultra-diffuse galaxies. It's as if they're pulling these cosmic rabbits out of a hat, or perhaps from a location less glamorous.
In this cosmic masquerade, astronomers, once heralded as seekers of truth, now perform linguistic acrobatics to sidestep inconvenient words. It's like discussing the solar system without whispering the word "Sun," an act of linguistic gymnastics that distorts the very essence of scientific inquiry.
So here's a cosmic encore for these linguistic illusionists, seamlessly conjuring "dark" entities and ultra-diffuse galaxies from the cosmic shadows. The theater of astronomy may be dimming, but the spectacle of linguistic escapades continues, skillfully performed under the watchful eyes of the old guard. Bravo, for turning the pursuit of knowledge into a cosmic vaudeville act, complete with dark photons, fantastical wordplay, and galaxies that seem to exist in the celestial realm between substance and sheer imagination.
Acheson is a clueless mythologist. He hasn't got a clue about any physics.
@@esecallum Word salad. Learn physics.
@@ianw7898 Yes he does, and Andrew Hall makes most geologists look like 3rd graders. The indoctrination is strong in you. Carry on.
_"I learned alot from Mel Acheson's recent video on charge separation"_
And here is how the unqualified Velikovskian Acheson's video is described;
"An electric star wouldn’t begin with a molecular cloud. It would begin with charge separation. "
Lol. Stars are OBSERVED to form in molecular clouds, and nowhere else. Added to the fact that there are no such things as 'electric stars'. And what is the ionisation fraction in molecular clouds? Somewhere from 1 part in millions to 1 part in billions.
The description of this mythologist's video continues thusly;
"Everything we see in the universe, with the possible exception of a few specks of planets and reflection nebulas, is ionized to some degree. It’s a PLASMA, the fourth and dominant state of matter."_
And, as every plasma physicist knows, plasmas are, by definition, quasi-neutral.
It goes on;
"Positive ions and negative electrons move, and because protons are a few thousand times more massive than electrons, any force-electrical, magnetic, gravitational, even mechanical-can cause some separation of charges."_
And as every plasma physicist will tell you, any separation will be addressed by the setting up of an ambipolar electric field, which will act to restore quasi-neutrality in the plasma. Which is precisely what happens with the solar wind. The ions feel the Sun's gravity far more than the lighter electrons. So, when both are heated as they are in the corona, the electrons have no trouble attaining escape velocity. The ions mostly won't. If Acheson knew what he was talking about (he doesn't) he is therefore predicting that the solar wind should be composed solely of electrons. It isn't. It is, and has to be, a quasi-neutral mixture of ~ equal numbers of ions and electrons. As it must be. Zero net current. As Alfven explained over 80 years ago.
More gibberish;
"An immeasurably small surplus of one electron or proton in a volume of cubic meters is what's necessary for a weak electric field to exist in deep space."
And it is the electric field that restores quasi-neutrality. Any charge imbalance is restricted to the Debye length. And that depends on the temperature and density of the plasma. In the solar wind, at 1 AU, it is about 10 metres.
"That electric field drives an electric current, which generates a magnetic field that interacts with the fields of other currents."
Gibberish. The electric field prevents large-scale currents from arising. As explained. He's got that bass-ackwards. Due to not understanding the subject.
So, if I were you, and I wanted to learn about astrophysical plasmas, I would consult the literature, or ask someone who is actually qualified in the subject. Happy to help. Just ask :)
Thanks!
Fascinating! It's always intriguing when you find 2 groups arguing completely opposite conclusions from exactly the same evidence. I feel Oxford's assumption that the early, much smaller, universe behaved very differently from today's _probably_ has the edge - but how should I know? I wasn't there!
A great video, and so intriguing. I like the idea of runaway stellar collisions. Doesn't mean I think it is true but it is very interesting. I always imagined that in the initial formation of the galaxies, the collapsing cloud may have been more turbulent than we see in local galaxies due to higher hydrogen densities and less evolution of gas flows. The turbulence could produce a lot of strange orbits for forming stars with orbits that take them close to the centre and possible collision with other stars. Should be interesting to see what new observations suggest.
Happy New Year!
Dr, Becky, just a curious question, I did my undergraduate major in Mathematics (some years ago). It's done me well in reading some of the more advanced texts in Astrophysics and understanding the various equations, but at the same time, some of the classes I took like Advanced Calculus and Modern Algebra, for example, I just don't use those various studies enough to feel I've maintained competence. So, understanding that most scientists in advanced astrophysics tend to focus eventually on particular rather specialized aspects of the universe, first, do most of PhD's try to maintain understandings in areas out of their basic studies and research areas, and second, are you finding that covering all the different aspects like you do on your channel that you are able to maintain up to date understandings on non-related areas to your dissertation and now area of research. Just curious. Thanks, love your channel.
Two words: interdisciplinary collaboration. One of the best qualities you can look for in an academic community is a healthy relationship and communication between researchers in different areas. I work in solar physics, and we try to have the space weather people talk with the flare people talk with the MHD models people talk with the spectropolarimetry people … you get the picture. And even beyond solar physics, a lot of what we do relates to exoplanets, other stars, black hole accretion and planet formation… I’m only a grad student, but from what I’ve seen and heard, one of the worst things you can do as a scientist is shut yourself away in your own little microcosm.
So, I guess what I’m trying to say is, more to your point: whatever science you end up doing, make sure you first have a firm foundation in understanding the relevant physical principles, both mathematically and intuitively. If you understand the basic Navier-Stokes equations, the induction equation, and their physical meanings, you can readily apply that knowledge to any MHD system you encounter, even if only at the very broad-strokes level.
I can try and answer this from the perspective of an engineer that went master's-level, which many people don't bother with. I learned a lot of math and theory in under- and post-grad, and besides for the plainly useful information, like how to design a concrete beam or how to make sure a bolt doesn't rip out of a hole, much of it slowly fizzles away. I can confirm that most engineers remember very little from their college days, and don't care at all to try and relive that experience or to relearn calculus or whatever; they learn daily on the job, doing engineering. However, I love learning and math and physics, so I do still know, remember, and can use calculus and linear algebra. Now, I don't often find uses for any of this higher level math, but it can help me understand a problem at a fundamental level, and I can still derive many of the common equations from first principles when I need to because I still have the mathematical background chugging along.
An astrophysicist probably has reasons to use calculus and other higher maths a little more than the very practically inclined engineers, but I can't imagine that's really something she really digs into very often, or really ever. You have your math friends to chat with if you need some deep math discussions. She probably mostly deals with data analysis, coding, and writing reports and emails etc.
EDIT: As I start off immediately with a typo rofl
Happy new year Professor 😁😎😊🎉
This is quite intriguing, thank you Doctor.
I just realized that if I was head of casting for Doctor Who, I would definitely cast Dr Becky as the next Doctor.
@@thezood If that happens, they should definitely include her bloopers at the end of every episode.
@@thezood It might be watchable then!
Well, Cambridge had me convinced but then when Oxford made its case I started to change my mind.
The whole business of a denser universe in the early days when there were lots of stellar collisions that we don’t see today has me intrigued.
Personally would need all the Hyperfine transitions of photon absorption and emission.
Thank you for saying zed (z) the proper way always!
Dr Beck I'm doing Chemistry , I cannot tell you how much your videos have inspired me, now I want to be an astrochemist if ever there's something like that.
Do black holes slow down with the "drag" they cause on spacetime? Or is it a somewhat "frictionless" interaction?
Dense GNZ11. I was thinking that the universe back then was dense twice over. First off without 13.2 billion years of expansion the volume within the universe was smaller however held the same mass. So mass per unit volume was higher. Second, since the gas clouds were newer a steady state of star formation and supernova wouldn’t have been achieved and may still not be there yet so more gas is just that, gas and there are 13.2 billion years of less brown dwarfs floating around not being recycled. Given that the mass was also not bound into as many large masses the actual physical amount of matter was still available as gas.
So given that it could be presumed that the chances of rapid star formation on a much wider scale would be certainly possible with more mass available as gas and that gas being confined to a far less voluminous universe.
The early universe was an interesting place. Both teams have some interesting interpretations, it will be interesting to see what further observation hols. And I'd like to suggest that some of us find the presentation of scientific papers much more interesting that some flimsy boats floating over the water.
loving your book, just received it.
Hi Dr Becky Happy New year. I was wondering if it isn't all possible for a black call to eat not only matter in energy but the fabric of space time itself thus stretching the universe towards it and producing all the effects that we see from expansion I'm not saying there isn't any expense i'm just saying is it possible that this could add to that effect.
According to General Relativity (you know, the standard theory which we actually use to describe black holes and the expansion of the universe): no, that is not possible.
Black holes do not eat spacetime. Black holes ARE regions of spacetime.
Can fusion happen in SMBH accretion disks? Could that turbo-charge element production and explain that nitrogen overabundance?
Is it possible to look at various parts of gnz11, instead of as a whole light source. You may see confirmation of one theory or the other in different parts of the galaxy.
Maybe it's too late at night for me to watch a video like this, but really two pieces stuck out for me:
1. How funny is it that the two interpretations were for Cambridge and Oxford??
2. How soon is March? I'm going to have to wait longer than that for some of the TV shows I want to see! I can't believe that we're going to get more results so soon!
Lots of Sunspots today! Thanks for the constant awesome videos/knowledge. We love your brain in that beautiful noggin! 🤓😁
I think both Theory`s are correct.
The closer Mass would create bigger stars closer together, that would ultimatly form a super massive black hole.
Has there been anything that JWST pointed at that the data was "exactly what we expected"? Great video, cheers!
Probably in at least 95% of experiments and observations in modern physics, the data is _not_ "exactly what we expected". ;)
To be fair people don’t report as much about when everything is perfectly nominal, even though it’s arguably even more important/strange
You make "Brilliant" sound SO cool, but I've already signed up to keep my brain exercised. Anomalous is a word I will go out of my way to not have to say. These days, I couldn't speak intelligibly about ANYthing for 15 minutes straight. You're doing a fantastic job explaining the complexities in a way that we non-astrophysicists can *enjoy,* not just understand.
The word I hate having to pronounce is "specific".
@@DonDueed I'm not sure I've ever heard someone have trouble with specific, is that a common word to mess up? It's Pacific, just with a little spe- instead of a pa-, you could even just add an s to pacific and be pretty close.
Question - Can galaxies exist where there light traveled away from us then got caught in gravitational field that caused it to do a 180 back at us and therefore appear to much farther away but in reality there light is just traveling In an out-and-back fashion?
How do they know what the distribution of dark matter in the universe looks like (not just now, but in the early universe too)? If its distribution differs from normal matter, you'd think that that could explain some of the anomalies found with distant galaxies and black holes.
Dr Becky can u discus all these super-structures that are being found and what it could the latest ring super-structure that sientests reported finding in the Sloan data pls
I understand how more observations of the galaxy in question may help settle the question of which scenario is correct, BUT wouldn't it be more instructive to repeat our current observation methods on other galaxies that are around the same age? One galaxy doesn't necessarily give us a representative sample of the early universe. Whichever scenario proves to be correct for this galaxy could turn out to be the statistical outlier.
Disclaimer: I am a science enthusiast, not a trained scientist, so I may be way off base here.
I just watched something on the jwst and saw Dr Beckys reaction to the launch or first photo i cant recall what one it was. But i was soooo excited she made it on the show as i realy didnt know the other science folks from the interweb they were showing.
Dr. Becky's videos are the best scientific videos I know and from all the videos I am watching (science, politics, human rights, feminism, religions, languages, architecture...) they are those I look forward to the most.
Do you know of any original research papers that consider relationships between dark matter and super massive black holes that are somewhat revolutionary in that field? I have to find papers on it and I am struggling to tell which ones are important. Thanks
what does the discovery of all the new galaxyies mean for the change in the ratio of mater to dark matter and dark energy ratios of the universe?
Shouldn't have all black holes the same mass independent of the size?
Similar to neutron stars?
Or, could someone explain to me why black holes have different masses when there is always the same singularity at the center?? What's the point in that?
I also have to ask, concerning blackholes.....are quantum states considered?
Quantum wave function for instance.....when a particle interacts with the other particle, it breaks the wave state.....however, the singularity, if crushed down to a point of energy, no particle could actually interact with it, and thus, the singularity would be in a quantum superposition, would it not?
Could you comment on some of the projects being proposed in the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program? A couple seem up your alley. Scott Manley just did a video on the latest batch.
Hi dr. Becky! Is there a black hole in the middle of every galaxy? If so would the power of this black hole not be enough to account for holding galaxys
Together without the necessity of dark energy assisting
Thnx don
I almost skipped this video because I thought it was one of the "crisis in cosmology" videos I had already seen. Thankfully I looked at the upload day and I saw it was 13 minutes ago 🤦🏻♀️
Great video, had no idea gases had multiple different spectra based off different electron orbit levels
Is it possible to get some polarization information of that super distant galaxy?
3:54 is just awesome 😅
Today in The Guardian there is a story about a Big Ring and a Giant Arc that seemly upend models of cosmic evolution - Newly discovered cosmic megastructure challenges theories of the universe (Jan 11, 2024). It links to a earlier BBC story about the Giant Arc and other large structures - The giant arcs that may dwarf everything in the cosmos (March 3, 2023). Perhaps you could do a video about these and the issues they raise. Thanks.
Its from a super massive white hole, signed a Somali space pirate from Mogadishu University( And our row team wins from both Oxford and Cambridge too, mostly no AK's involved)
Elements get made as time progresses, so certain Elements appear before others, so there will be specific ratios based on the history of star evolution, cloud density and constituents.
Thanks Becky, happy new year.
I prefer Cambridge because it doesnt have an X.
I’m in the Oxford camp!
400MY is too short to make a SMB.
Dr. Becky could you please help me visualize the shape of black holes? Are black holes like a funnel or a sphere? Also, could you please give your thoughts on the possible existence of white holes?
Well, to clear this up, maybe put each team in a boat and have them row it out?
You may even make a decent cut from selling tickets and beer. 😉
Charming presentation.
And for those keeping score, Dr. Becky is at Oxford.
Let's see what paper she validates most!
Whichever school paddles the skinny rowboats the fastest is probably correct.
@@deltalima6703😂
@@deltalima6703 You just stumbled upon the true conspiracy in science and how conflicting studies are actually resolved.
Well if space and time , then is not in a rough way in the same area or say planet , could another place with its solar time be considered just another dimension of another space and time but then just further but mostly only in the future , so is referencing that, a different time zone like mountain vs eastern , just kinda a different dimensions ? I think yea dimensions of first order and more distant or future dimensions of 2nd and 3 orders etc
So mountain standard time zone is just a different dimension than eastern time zone relatively
And if you had the massive energy likely needed to generate a worm hole or star gate or transporter beam , between a different place and different though same time from eastern zone to mountain zone and then just step thru and walla you’re there in the other zone on other side and time grade
Now though to go to a future would require maybe 20 times more energy and it wouldn’t maybe be real actual future cause future isn’t till it’s present so it’s , future , is just a probability of a probability
Could you please comment on the compelling arguments for a condensed matter Sun made by Robitaille, Pierre-Marie?
I find it hard to believe the sun is all a plasma with no surface, but the claim that a liquid sun would preclude the formation of black holes send far-fetched, too. Thank you.
Heck yes for more JWST data
An amateur question regarding the age and size of space. When the entire appreciation and analysis of space is based on light, and everything is a form of energy, then the light from these objects should also be affected by the same law (energy loss) as they travel through space for 13.4 billion years and cause a redshift itself or is it already taken into account and if so, what is the counter energy that causes the redshift besides the expansion of space?
When electromagnetic energy such as light is emitted into space, it spreads out into space as it travels and gets weaker as it does so. This reduces the amplitude of the light by the inverse square law. It does not change the frequency of the light. As the space the light travels through expands over time, the wavelength of the light gets stretched. The frequency goes down, but it doesn't affect the amplitude. We call that redshift. The only reason we know the light has been travelling for 13.4 billion years is because we can measure exactly how much that light has been redshifted because we happen to know the original frequency of the light when it left the galaxy and we can measure the frequency of it now. They are two different effects.
I'm sure the scarves have been designed but it won't replace that boat racing thing.
I wonder how it'll turn out.
Anomolo . . . weirdly.
JWST certainly has sparked a fascinating controversy which may lead to - dare we say - new physics? The elephant in the room is still how it was possible that galaxies like GN-z11 could form in just 400 million years after the BB. Any comments about the proposal that light speed might be a variable instead of a constant?