Secrets of the Cosmic Microwave Background

The cosmic microwave background is the fossil remnant of the fireball of the Big Bang. Aside from demonstrating that the Big Bang happened, it can tell us how big the universe is and how much dark matter and energy the universe contains. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln guides you through this interesting topic.
Where did the Big Bang happen?
• Where did the Big Bang...
What happened before the Big Bang?
• What happened before t...
What really happened at the Big Bang?
• What really happened a...
How far is the edge of the universe?
• How far is the edge of...
Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang?
• Have astronomers dispr...
Cosmic inflation
• Cosmic Inflation
The Big Bang Theory
• The Big Bang Theory
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/p...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov

[@airmakay1961]

I love it when a distinguished physicist uses expressions like "blows my mind." Regardless of how much we know there remains so much more to discover! Our universe endlessly fascinating.

[@kpdubbs7117]

Exactly! To use the numbers he gave here, even if we knew with 100% certainty, everything about everything in the 'visible' universe, we would at best know everything about only 1/125,000,000th of the entire Universe. How does that NOT blow every mind ever???

[@btbingo]

Some physicist are humans don't you know.

[@abdullatheef9273]

PEACE... ATLEAST..FROM NOW ON LET US THANK THE CREATOR..AS THIS SCIENTIST SAYS " IT BLOWS HIS MIND.."" EVERYTHING IN UNIVERSE RUNNING AWAY FROM ONE ANOTHER..AND THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE VERSES UN VISIBLE IS ONE IN 125 MILLIONS.. MY GOD IF ONE UNIVERSE IS SOOOO HUGE..WHAT ABOUT MULTIVERSES..AND WHAT IS THE SIZE OF SPACE..AS SAID ALL THE MATTER OF MULTIVERSES JUST FITS IN..5 % OF SPACE..AND 95 % OF SPACE IS UNSEEN DARK MATTER...OR GOD'S PARTICLE.... HIGH AND MIGHTY IS HE WHO CREATED..ALL OF THIS AND GOVERNS......YES HE IS HONEST IN SAYING "" MIND BLOWING..".. PEACE...

[@umairm.5662]

Everyone says that when they try to interpret everything from scratch in mind. In forms of mathematical statement everything is simple.

[@adamjbond]

This is the best explanation of the CMB I have ever seen! Science communication just keeps getting better and better with each passing year.

[@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368]

I've watched countless CMB videos, but this one actually makes me understand it on a more fundamental level. The time you take to explain simple things that astrophysicists and cosmologists take for granted is what helped with my understanding.

[@harshchauhan1789]

Don Lincoln supremacy 🛐🛐

[@chrismuratore4451]

Its great that a lot of the content here from Fermilab is easy to understand for the average person. It would be wonderful if more people tuned in to learn more about the universe we live in.

[@priceringo1756]

It is the effort of Dr. Lincoln and the willingness of Fermi Lab to fund science outreach efforts that give us a glimpse of these science wonders.

[@plexiglasscorn]

Spread the jam!

[@classica1fungus]

Wait so you actually understood this

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

@@classica1fungus yeap!

[@plexiglasscorn]

@@classica1fungus its like taking a 360deg view photo and than finding out our galaxys relative speed via blue/red shift compared to cwb then editing that out to find if space is flat closed or open. I cant wait for first results from jwt

[@royceparkjr5559]

Wow, finally, a concise explanation of how to calculate the size of the entire universe, as opposed to the visible universe. Of course, it is still an estimate only because there will be no way to verify the actual size of the entire nonvisible universe. The explanation of how the estimate is determined with respect to the CMB is awesome. Fantastic presentation Dr. Don Lincoln!

[@laurenth7187]

We don't know the size of the universe, only of the visible part.

[@BigNewGames]

The universe will get a whole lot bigger after the JWST becomes operational.

[@elizabethtana8862]

How do we know we aren't seeing the heleopause?

[@edwardlittle9362]

Since I'm a classical music geek I gotta ask. In linear distance, what was the wavelength of those early sound waves and, if such a comparison is valid, what frequency would that work out to under earth's atmospheric conditions? I guess what I'm asking is this: what note was the Big Bang playing? 🙂

[@AB-qx3pf]

Your question is like asking , "What temperature is middle C?" Even better - " What temperature is middle C today if it was played 13.5 billion years ago on a piano moving away from us at (some silly fast speed I can't begin to figure out .)

[@peterkelley6344]

@@AB-qx3pf Valid point. @Edward Little Makes a very interesting hypothetical question which I also wondered about too. The only answer I can express is (being half series) it made the sound of Creation.

[@Merilix2]

Quite simple. We know the peak is at about 1° of a 360° circle. We can calculate the angular size distance to CMB source was about 42. Mega light years (which was also our distance to it at that time). So we have a circle with perimeter of 264 Mega light years, divided by 360° we get a wave length of approx. 730'000 light years... Im not a musican so i dont know exactly which note this is. PS: From what I read, the source of density fluctuations is a bit older than the CMB. So the wavelength was estimated around 500'000 lightyears but stretched by the expansion of the universe at that time...

[@TimeLapseRich]

I love listening to Dr. Don Lincoln talk, I feel some sort of nostalgia from one of my favorite shows. Dr. Don Lincoln realy reminds me of Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers.

[@nisarabro5585]

Dr. Don Lincoln is my favorite Scientist . I like his Style of explaining any Topic of the Astrophysics , Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics .

[@michaelblacktree]

It's amazing how much information can be inferred from that data set. BTW I hope everyone at Fermilab has a wonderful Christmas!

[@davesutherland1864]

Great video, but I was a bit confused by how dark matter affects the spacing between the spots. By changing the angle does it not also affect the derived minimum size of the universe? How is the effect of dark matter figured into that calculation?

[@astronomianova797]

Yes, the amount of dark matter does affect the minimum size calculation and the curvature measurement. This should make sense as increasing or decreasing the amount of matter density in your model will change the spatial curvature (more stuff curves space more) along with the age of the universe (less time to expand). This does create ambiguity in the curvature result but that can be resolved by the more complicated things more or less dark matter does to the subsequent peaks in the graph shown. So you can determine the amount of dark matter with the relative heights of the first three peaks then look at the first peak for your curvature measurement. The first peak still ends up at about one degree-flat space. Note: there are still more variables that contribute to the location of that first peak but dark matter density is the primary one.

[@ikiruyamamoto1050]

Interesting video. But, I'm not a fan of the "certain" tone overall. The "best" science of a generation or two ago had the age of the universe at like 3 billion years, then 5, then 7, etc. I'm pretty sure the scientists of the time were equally sure of their calculations as this guy. As far as the "secrets", it would be fairer to say "If a, b, c, through Y ASSUMPTIONS we make in our mathematical and physics THEORIES/MODELS is correct, THEN we THINK 1, 2, 3, is true." Too bad we can't time travel 500-1000 years into the future and hear those scientists laughing at how wrong our scientists are. But, that's the nature of science, especially stuff as speculative and unproveable as the origins of the universe. It's just our best informed speculation, until further info is added.

[@johnbennett1465]

This is by far the best explanation of the CMB and the flatness measurements I have ever seen. Not only is it clearer, it answered several questions that the other explanations left me with.

[@misterphmpg8106]

Hi Don you and your Team are sooo good! Keep going and have a wonderful christmas and a happy and healthy new year! Thank you so much. We have good cosmology channels here but many a time your videos give me that last brain nudge to really get the point even thou its been a long way to learn all the scientific words... But your excellent clear pronounciation and language help a lot too. Matt from Germany

[@protocol6]

Aren't both Euclidean and Minkowski spaces (which are algebraically equivalent in their respective 3,1 space-times) flat by that definition? Light follows both a straight line through the bulk and along the expanding surface simultaneously so the angle won't differ regardless of curvature unless there's a separate overall gravitational curvature. If you could measure along the surface for a fixed moment in time, things would be different, but our measurements are limited by the speed of light. I also don't see any reason to believe gravity would cause curvature at large scales though it should retard the inherent geometric expansion somewhat. The surface of the hypersphere in Euclidean space-time would be finite unbounded with a radius of the age of the universe (times the speed of light if you aren't working in natural units) and a "surface area" of about 17 hubble volumes, though the distances involved are different from the usual definition. The equivalent straight line in Minkowski space appears at first blush to go on forever but for it to map to the same time like the hypersphere, it's actually a tesseract. That's gives you 56 hubble volumes with one of the more usual definitions of distance. Either way, it's still well shy of 500x the size of the observable universe whether you do that in comoving distances or not. I suppose it matters exactly what you consider to lie on the straight line in Minkowski space. You could expand those figures the same way you go from a 13.8 gly radius to a proper/comoving 46.5 gly for the observable universe but that seems like it's converting twice as both the hypersphere and tesseract already define all points equidistant (in time) from the big bang. If you do that coversion, you jump to infinite volume in Minkowski space as now you are mapping things to the infinite hyperbolic surfaces. Interestingly, I believe that it's still finite in Euclidean space and now maps to the 56 hubble volume tesseract. Again, though, that's using an unconventional definition of distance in terms of coordinate time instead of proper time. If that kind of distance measurement were to be what we actually measure, then there should be an anomaly in the angular size of objects over large distances which we do in fact see, though it's usually explained in a different way in terms of dark energy. So, I suppose the question should be, can we tell whether we are measuring ds²=c²dt² or ds²=c²d𝜏²? It would seem to matter rather a lot. Given that we are usually measuring redshift and equating that to intensity based measurements at shorter distances where those two definitions of distance are essentially the same to achievable precision, I'm really not certain.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

To me CMB its light, matter-plasma reffracting back from electromagnetism that all matter or system must have as to me is seen in quasars s light that is one or one of the most powerfull light in our visible universe.

[@daddyelon4577]

Great content

[@braddixon3338]

Wow, great description of how the CMB was measured and refined, along with the amount of info coming out of it. I've seen the same "photo" of it several times, but now understanding the minute variations and the information that is being determined by it is amazing!! I look forward to the next videos on this!!

[@Tehom1]

Don, you give the fractions of ordinary and dark matter as c. 4.86% and c. 25.89%. To what degree do those figures take into account other factors? Because it was my understanding that those or similar numbers were a compromise between fitting the CMB data proper and fitting the implied Hubble rate of expansion.

[@Games_and_Music]

Good question, i assume that some liberties were taken.

[@lorddorker3703]

I need a tee shirt that has the quote 'Theres a lot of science in dem dare spots'! Best Dan Lincoln ever!

[@janpietercornet9364]

It's a golden combination: the history of the various discoveries, and the scientific implications of those. It describes in a few minutes the things that scientists were taught about the CMB over the last 60 years., and it makes it very clear for us viewers. Thanks, this is the best explanation of the CMB that's I've seen!

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

just *a m a z i n g* how much information is hidden in that picture. *Physics Is Everything!!*

[@sapelesteve]

Awesome & totally mind numbing video Dr. Don! Looking forward to the final installment! Happy Holidays to you & your family! Be well and stay safe! 👍👍🎄🎄🎄🎄👍👍

[@subramaniamchandrasekar1397]

Just pull out some fancy theory from the sky. Who can argue or verify those information . Like2 billion light years away. It is fun to watch. Now they tell you this is like that. Few years later they would say..scientists imagined or believed etc. Now it is established and later becomes 'believed'

[@guliakhan5054]

These fake scientists are like actors/celebrities fooling and entertaining people.They have no proof of what they are saying.No one can measure speed of light, mass of electron. It is only a matter of time when people realize science is nothing but a drama to fool and control people

[@Altrue]

Amazing video! But I'm a bit lost as to how you went from the curvature of space, to the size of the universe. Is that because if space is curved by a non zero number, even very small, at some point it wraps around itself? But I feel like there's a lot of assumptions there: That there would be stuff everywhere, that the experimental measurement would be accurate.. And all of that because the variations in the CMB are interpreted as sound waves? That sure seems far fetched from my perspective but eh, I'm not a physicist ^^

[@Tubluer]

Merry Christmas to Dr Don and his feline overlords!

[@petemchardy3605]

Do you think the W map could be an optical allusion

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

Thank you.

[@mysteryhombre81]

I like how you are starting to go more into mechanistic detail than previous videos, yet keeping it relative easy to understand. Great content Doc, can't wait for the next one!

[@TerranIV]

Wow, this is so cool. I didn't know that scientists have used the CMB data to make so many interesting measurements of the maximum curvature and dark matter ratio of the modern universe!

[@maxbomo]

Amazing, thanks for all this information. Also, very funny Science is everything, because is almost true!!!

[@ProgRiot]

is it only me? i just feel smarter by watching these videos :D

[@ExternusArmy]

Do these local differences within the CMB vanish over time as space expands, or does it grow linearly with space?

[@teashea1]

wonderful presentation

[@nmgreg11]

I actually got to see the launch of the COBE satellite at VAFB as a young Mechanical Engineer with my Vintner buddy. Been hooked on Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, etc. ever since.

[@andreasoberg2021]

Another brilliant video!

[@abdonecbishop]

5:19 ....appears to be a geometry triangulation curvature problem..... where?.....the assumption that the curvature of the edge of the CMB surface is a flat '0' curved surface at the boundary surface of a smaller universe with a very large non-Euclidean non zero curved edge

[@METALSCAVENGER78]

For a certain point of view, it's a little ironic that the matter called ordinary is only 4.9%

[@criticalpoint7672]

Wonderful and fascinating content as usual.

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!! " Physics is everything"...!!!

[@FirefoxBlueVR]

If our galaxy causes a band of IR radiation to show up on the CMB, how do we know that the other variances in the CMB aren't just from other galaxies and other inter galactic phenomena? Like how do we know the variations are reflective of the early universe rather than just EM emissions from other objects in the universe?

[@bazzathegreat3517]

Nice to hear a physicist say that the universe is much bigger than we can see. I feel like this point gets lost at times.

[@gregfelice1969]

Amazing lecture

[@philipp7156]

Thx Fermilab & Dr. Don. Have a merry Christmas and a science video rich new year 🙂

[@stephandiehl3893]

"we" have no clue about gravity or being able resolve the quantum mechanics/ cosmology bit... but hey we KNOW exactly how old and how big the universe is i dont buy any of it for a second

[@carolprice1389]

I have a theory and a lot of people would not even think about it logically but I will write it and I would like your opinion the good and the bad.We have assumed that the microwave background is a echo of a big bang but glitches keep on coming up when people try to apply it to reality it just doesn't work but instead because we want it to be right we say that things are not disproving it.We have a couple of ideas for how the universe will die as well so my theory is this what would happen if the foundation of the universe was destroyed???How would we know that the foundation of the universe has been destroyed???One of the ideas is that the universe will stop expanding and do the opposite to it's beginning the grate crunch well what would happen if the foundation of the universe has been destroyed would be fined scientific evidence that says the universe doesn't exist???This is why they are now saying that the universe and everything in it doesn't exist.Becuse if the foundation of the universe has been destroyed what would the end look like? Easy the entire universe would slowly start to cave in on itself we would find evidence that proves that the universe doesn't exist because that is what is slowly happening right now!!!All matter in the universe would be converted into energy and where would all that energy go seeing as it was all the matter in the universe??? It would travel back in time to before time existed and a lot of that energy would become matter and we get the microwave background that is not the Eco of the beginning but the end.

[@andyiswonderful]

Really excellent video. Are you still taking questions? At 6:00, you showed the CMB's temperature fluctuations as a function of angular scale has a maximum at about 1 degree. But, what do those other maxima at 0.5 degree, 0.25 degree, 0.18 degree, 0.15 degree, etc, represent?

[@jkinkamo]

Dr Lincoln told there were soundwave w/ fundamental wavelength of 1 deg. I assume those weaker amplitudes are harmonic wavelengths.

[@detoxvirusuno3397]

I was not clear till today that the cosmic background is sphere and what presented is opened view like earth. Thanks for this enlightenment. I am sure plenty like me will get that clear now.👍🙏

[@starsreflectingsky]

I feel like I've heard that the more distant an object is away from us the faster it is moving away from us. I feel like I've heard that space could be expanding faster than the speed of light. I was thinking about how we can even see cosmet background radiation. I mean everything that was the universe when it was much younger is the same material that were made out of now. We are cause it background radiation in a different form. It doesn't make any sense how we can see cosmic background radiation because we're made of the same material that made it. Anyway, perhaps we're looking at background radiation from a different part of the universe relative to the one that we would have been located in relative to where we are now and time and space compared to where we would have been then as the universe would have been shrinking. It's wild to think that the very material that we are made out of was in a particular spot in a much smaller universe and that that location is relative to where we are now and we're still made of that same material that was in that same spot relatively speaking That's crazy But anyway, it doesn't seem like space can be expanding faster than the speed of light at least between us and wherever this background radiation light is coming from because the light would have never reached us in that case. Oh but then that means that perhaps the speed of expansion has maybe been increasing over time. So when the background radiation event was actually occurring, space was expanding at a much slower speed compared to how it is expanding now? It's almost like trying to visualize salmon swimming upstream. The speed of the current negates to a degree the speed of the salmon. When the river is flowing at a faster speed the salmon can't get upstream just like that light couldn't reach us ever. So there may very well be information that we will never be able to see because of the distance involved and the increased speed of expansion between us and that place The very fact that there's humans on this planet that can wrap their minds conceptually around this is absolutely astonishing. I feel like I'm trying to describe a shape I've never seen. Lol

[@zack_120]

6:32 - gold mine about the size of the universe; Error: the total volume of the universe is >500M times bigger if the radius is 500 times bigger (v=4/3*r^3*π).

[@chrisheath2637]

Galileo would have loved being alive today. Being pardoned was a special bonus from the Church. Just 350 years too late....They almost accept that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe...(sigh)

[@Togidubnus]

It's a relief that the CMB validates the existence of dark matter. Because all this dark matter that's being observed all the time, there needs to be a firm explanation for it. Has any of this been thought through? Cosmology really is a dog's breakfast, isn't it?

[@NeedNoThoughtControl]

Wait a minute! In another video (exactly here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2OWp42pf8eloKc) you say that, if the universe is closed, then it's "no smaller than 250 times bigger than the visible universe". But in this video at 6'34'' the figure you give is "a radius at least 500 times bigger than the visible universe". What's the reason for that? More refined measurements? New analyses of the same data? Also, you say that this would mean the volume of the universe may be over 125 million times that of the visible universe. But the volume of a sphere is the radius cubed times 4π/3. Well, 500 cubed is 125,000,000. That times 4π/3 gives more than 500 million times the volume of the visible universe, not "just" 125 million times... Ok, I know you're a particle physicist, not a cosmologist, but I'd like to know what the best current calculations or estimates are. Thanks to Dr. Lincoln or anyone who replies to this!

[@KonekoEalain]

Great video, thanks Don!

[@jimba6486]

Thank you Dr.Don, I feel privileged to know this information. What an exciting time to be alive and have knowledge of the universe. Thanks for breaking it down in an understandable way

[@johnbould7544]

Why isn’t the cmb “sphere, as he put it, at the “edge” of the universe so then not visible? What’s on the “other” side of the sphere, so on the other side of the cmb? I don’t get it…

[@HawthorneHillNaturePreserve]

Don’t forget Uli’s goodbye cake! 2:30 PM Guess even brilliant physicists need reminders. Even if it is on your research blackboard.

[@ckdigitaltheqof6th210]

If you define the Universe, as bundle infastructures of many cosmos, sure, you can then say, the universe has a set "size," however, the deep space is infinate, and at eternal distance, light as micro version of mass also has mass polarity in ratio even more micro, but never nell. Example, If 2 element particle, which would conjure from the anti side to existance, and scrammed parallel in oppist adjacent direction, they will set course in polarity to parabolic back falling into each other in a shape, as infinaty-Icon/race-track maneuver. To repeat the cycle, at a time scale, just under, forever. Thus, is why the universe appears "small-wotld" in a form called, the Cosmos. At longest attempt in vision, as everything that lives, ascends eternally to the new. There was No End To The Beginning, that Big Bang'ed Up lack of logic theory is historical perception of the fast foward distance, image lights, from those heavenly size entities, traveling in space, appearing so play forward fast of the light ommited life. Which is why, BBT, is ambiguies, as it has NO particular Origin, Right-side Up, Edge of, nor Center of All, MOCKERY of space, science & logic, like a *big bang'ed up* religion.

[@c-bass413]

I can't make the Milky Way go any faster.....got the pedal to the floor already. Don't make me pull this thing over.

[@shawn0fitz]

Ok so the curvature of the universe could be sightly open, making it infinite; flat, making it infinite; or slightly closed, making it super ridiculously huge. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how the universe could go from a singularity to that size in only 14 billion years.

[@David-uf7qz]

Thanks for the insight Don. Your findings confirm what the Bible says about the universe. I'm happy to share this with you if interested.

[@zy9662]

Doesn't the CMB we are receiving now was produced in a, let's say, particular region of the SLS, a kind of surface of a "3-sphere" whose center was the correspondent part of space of the SLS that with the expansion "became where we are now", and millions of years ago, planet earth received a CMB coming from the surface of a smaller "3-sphere" in the SLS, that is, a sphere whose surface was closer to its correspondent center and in million years from now, Earth will get a CMB from the surface of a larger 3-sphere of the SLS. The point being that, if the above is the case, then we are seeing in the CMB ONLY that part of the SLS (the surface of a particular 3-sphere) and no more, maybe other parts of the SLS were different but they were too far or too close to have their radiation reaching us at this time?

[@fatalinsomn1a182]

Curvature is a pretty good way of calculating the size, as best as we can. I had heard 1% was visible, but if the 0.2% number is accurate, then the universe is truly massive, you can’t even fathom a solar system, yet one galaxy contains hundreds of billions, or trillions of stars. It’s amazing to think that it could be 500 times bigger then what we see. That just makes me feel like a neutrino. It’s crazy that we exist and we see no real signs of life, yet the universe is so incredibly massive. Fucking life is so weird. The universe really trips me out.

[@NeanderthalNatty]

I don't understand why we can still detect the afterglow. Wouldn't the process that emits the microwaves cease at some point and all waves propagate past the earth where we wouldn't see them anymore?

[@psmoyer63]

Throughout its existence the universe has been the most efficient at making (choose 1) a) dark matter b) photons c) quarks d) space e) my lawn

[@dustyfloor1896]

How did the Galaxy light milky join Andy while we have an expanding universe? Are not both galaxies speeding away from each other? If all matter is expanding, how is it that the milky way will join Andromeda? Please explain?

[@mcmoose64]

Why are we still seeing the CMB ? Shouldn't it be beyond the horizon of the observable universe by now ?

[@khaliffoster3777]

It would be nice ya go deeper that it is not just globe earth, so it is dome and flat, and series of bigger dome, so look at nos confunden, so the background star as stationary, to higher background star that's bigger, when you say visual universe to bigger universe, so the universe is same all around and it moves, so within that universe doesn't move, except the sun, so there is higher non-motion relative to smaller size, so the bigger is non-motion to smaller size that is motion relative to bigger size. So, ya see higher smooth motion than higher chaos motion? Well, it would be good how long you radio that universe so to tell a whole picture so to keep radioing for a while so can see motion or not.

[@herbertberger7711]

New. Is it conceivable, that the m a t e r i a l universe, observed from any position is in a quasi "Mandelbrot-fractal" way endless, analog to the omnipresence of the Creator? Even if in the deep silence of a transcendental, spiritual dimension a "mystical egg" could seem fathomable. Then there was no big bang and "dark" matter and such energy were transparent or transcendent.

[@nisheethrastogi]

Just wow! I wouldn't mind if this was s bit longer with little bit of more details to chew on though...

[@jimyguitar3177]

If a spacecraft moved away from earth at 370 KM per second away from the constellation Leo would their clocks run faster.

[@johnhorton720]

What about all the OTHER universes. They are coming and going all the time. You certainly don't believe ours is the only one hanging in the middle of nothing.?

[@YossiSirote]

Explained very well. I really enjoyed it.

[@ryanhegseth8720]

You don’t. Nobody does. But you go right ahead and circularly talk your way through this farce.

[@TheTruth1sPower]

If we understood the universe we would be able to harness unlimited power. The true heights of technology

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

I enjoy this channel so very much! Here's a like and comment for the Almighty Algorithm, which is the best I have to offer, sadly. Someday, maybe, I can get one of those cool shirts or donate to the channel.

[@alexjohnsonjustme]

There’s no way the universe is only 14.8 billion years there wouldn’t of been enough time for a star to grow old and explode and then all the gas form into the solar system we know today, it’s way older I’m thinking 68 billion y.o

[@karloballa6476]

Is it possible that the accelerated expansion of the Universe is of a local character? What if the visible Universe is a bubble of less dense matter surrounded on all sides by much denser matter that is pulling matter out of the bubble? Slowly, all matter would be pulled from the bubble and the bubble would remain empty like a hole in a sponge. Eventually, gravity would become dominant and bring the whole Universe together into one point.

[@01010100b]

The universe can be both flat and small, for example if it is a 3-torus. The flatness measured from the CMB does not necessarily imply that the universe is much larger than the visible universe, it only does if you assume a spherical geometry with a curvature at the limit of experimental uncertainty, but this isn't the only possibility.

[@Oldschool-Prada]

Nobody nows about the Universe or this Fantasy - Big Bang 😂 NOBODY !!!

[@ckfnpku]

If there is pollution from current microwave sources within the milky way in the raw data for the CMB, why should there also not be pollution from current extra-galactic micro wave sources in the raw data? Such pollution should be far more minute but does it not also need to be considered and could it not account for the minute temperature variations observed?

[@marconmaurizio1]

It's not clear to me how to derivate that the universe is at least 500 times bigget than the visible universe, starting with the potential uncertainty of 0,2% of the "flatness" of the universe. Just as an example, how if it is really flat and finish after 1 lighy year beyond the visible universe?

[@TheGreatTimSheridan]

The Hubble constant has been measured with CMB that comes in at about 67… This suggests or someone told her universe.

[@sitaramar13]

I have a doubt sir. In wave propagation water or sound , how individual particle vibrations are transmitted from particle to particle in the direction of wave propagation? There are gaps between particles in solids, liquids and gases. Is this not against principle of locality?

[@apocraphontripp4728]

Im a lay person, somethings just dont make any sense to me ok if the microwave radiation is the remnate of the big bang, then if a alien on the edge of the universe looked at us, what would they see? The same thing, right. This leads me to believe that the big bang maybe misleading, as the universe came into existance every where at once. Could the big bang be the moment our universe became a 4 diamensional object and was birthed from the subatomic. People also talk about the 4 forces that hold everything together, yet always forget to mention TIME as one of them. What can really exist without time?

[@tsangvictor5147]

It may be right while you are in the Earth's spacetime. It must be different when you are in different spacetime zone, other galaxy; close to our universe; or at the edge of the universe. Since the universe has different spacetime zones, how can there be a certain point of time or space.

[@steveyoo1035]

Question: Why is it that if dark matter is 5x the amount of normal matter, we do not need to consider it for planetary motion within the solar system? Is dark matter only necessary to explain gravitational effects of far away objects? Does that mean dark matter is localized to only interstellar or intergalactic space?

[@TheyCallMeNewb]

Unequivocally the most inspired opening as well as closing cards in the game. !

[@danrazART]

1 degree just means that the cmb is too far away. Since there's no straight line, then there can not be any flat areas. Biggest flat area would be always a part of a bigger sphere. Universe is a ball! Or an 🥚 egg!

[@amyers2141]

Thank you for a brief but superb explanation of the cosmic microwave background.

[@captainzappbrannagan]

What is beyond that edge of the true universe now we know its true size? What is total size? Since we know exactly the rate of expansion of the universe and how it changed over time this number seems much smaller than how big the universe actually is, how do we account for this?

[@theodorei.4278]

Please do something with the sound. Configuration is so "sensitive" that you here him when he swallows or when his lips open or close or when he breaths it sounds so heavy. It's a bit irritating. Otherwise good content

[@jonathanjollimore4794]

Most of the dark matter would have created early as black holes formed from mass mass of stars that died quickly and then that would have created galaxys. Is the massive gravity from those massive black hole To draw a matter to them to create galaxys

[@navinsingh1730]

How do we know where and how much Microwave does the objects in space emit. Do we analyse the wavelength spectra?

[@mohitsoni3275]

Can we please start another series like subatomic stories? Maybe for universe and the discoveries around bigger things in life.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

The system s equator to me is the disk that divide north from south, its say the neutral part to me but here neutral means: the one that connects to all and all components connect to it. - Hannes electric circitry applied to a galaxie is fine to me with the exeption that mine is bipolar as it has north and south faces that are 2 main blocks that make a pair that atract in cross section from north to south and JUST unite or touches each other at the center in the wite sphere as seen in our galaxie. - the place central part where they all meet produces a disk as they all pairs meet, imagine it flat and is an asterisk surrounded by a circle geting or forming six parts, the 2 axis that form the X form the north and south sides while the horizontal axis is the disc neutral part to where all reffracted light, matter, plasma comes back to each respective side of the disk (north and south) so to redue the cicle ones more, over and over, in this case the light-matter- plasma returned becomes a bit colder than the one going up or out of the star or system so we could say that some goes out and some comes in so this produces turbulance as hot and cold light-matter-plasma meet.

[@mostlymessingabout]

If we know the direction of the Milky way, doesn't that mean we can guess the centre of the universe?

[@elenalabrecque]

Dr. Lincoln, what caused the sound waves within plasma? Thank you!

[@Wstarlights]

How are the CMB and vacuum energy correlated ?? In any way ??