I stopped reading the news because I found it makes me less informed than I was before reading it. I get almost all of my info from people like you who share your expertise with us. Thanks for this content :)

@jackmaher2011

Жыл бұрын

I know right! Its just frustrating and seems like the writers havent taken any physics course. Dr. Becky - best astronomy journalist!

@jamescollier3

Жыл бұрын

The Left called and wants you back lol

@iamthecondor

Жыл бұрын

@@jamescollier3 get out, there's enough politics on social media.

@Agnemons

Жыл бұрын

If you don't read the news you are un-informed. If you do read the news you are mis-informed.

@kelvinpell4571

Жыл бұрын

It's becoming more and more like this......getting information on complex topics in simplified terms fromexperts like Becky keeps you informed and educated........the mainstream media is an absolute disgrace; from politics to the arts , from sports to the sciences.....nothing but sensationalism and agenda pushing. People want information; not biases and facile opinions

Yeah, I essentially stopped clicking on any astronomy or physics headline that has the word "impossible" in it. I really appreciate how deeply you go into the assumptions behind these measurements (which is, it seems to me, the important bit whenever there's an unpredicted result), and you went the extra mile for this one. Thanks.

@jarirepo1172

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, it's silly how many videos make extraordinary claims on headline and then it's just the already known stuff with nothing surprising. "This changes everything!" etc.. with nothing new. Or at best some new data that we don't have explanation yet, but nothing like "time to throw all old theories out".

@bradgregory6995

Жыл бұрын

Pretty much any hyperbole is a warning sign. It's usually not just a clickbait headline, but a sensationalized version of some experimental or observational finding. "None of the researchers would say with absolute certainty that it _wasn't_ aliens."

@pull_my_finger1614

Жыл бұрын

I stay away from anything with the word, "baffled" 🤣🤣🤣 better to do our own research than take the word of ppl who , every other day , are having their minds boggled 💪

@roberthogue5138

Жыл бұрын

I also avoid clicking on channels that have words, such as, insane, incredible, and surprising: they are just click bait!

@markstuckless5039

Жыл бұрын

Some of the most popular physics related channels on youtube are complete garbage. Also people think NDGT is smart. Nobody in the field of physics has ever gotten that far while still being a complete moron. The reason it happens is because their core audience is morons and morons make up most people. Sorry for offending any morons that might read this, but I use the word in a purely medical fashion.

Thank you for the clear information. There’s been so much speculation recently about these six distant galaxies. It’s nice to have some measured and balanced explanation for a change and not just get carried away.

it is something that I absolutely love about astrophysicists - most people would be annoyed if the results came back not as expected. Whereas you people get all excited, practically bouncing around the room, "Look! A new puzzle!"

Thank you for the approachable explanation of the Lyman and Balmer breaks! That was very useful for understanding what kind of observations and inferences they're making here.

@trevorhart545

Жыл бұрын

Also for us oldies that need updating

@bradgregory6995

Жыл бұрын

She does a good job of showing what data is gathered and how it is analyzed, even for us who don't math very well. Even when I don't understand the procedures and math processes very well, she at least lets me know what they're doing. Makes it much more interesting.

You're one of the reasons I'm going back to school for physics and astronomy 🥰🖤

@DrBecky

Жыл бұрын

Amazing! All the best with your studies

@max410bery

Жыл бұрын

@@DrBecky thank you! I'm so hyped 🖤

@thesuncollective1475

Жыл бұрын

They need you buddy..'cause they don't know nothin!🤣🤣🤣

@charlesbrightman4237

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget to utilize critical thinking skills.

@max410bery

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesbrightman4237 of course!

Bravo 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽. What detailed coverage. Perhaps the best I've seen covering astrophysics. Well done. I loved all the detailed explanations including the visual examples. I'd love to see more coverage like this. So great !

Hey new time viewer here ! I just want to say you are so amazing at what you do ! I learned so much today and it was so well explained:) ! Thank you so much !

It's good to see you happy and in good health. Physics Girl is suffering from long Covid. Take care of yourself everyone.

@DrBecky

Жыл бұрын

Sending all the love to Dianna ❤️

i find this a lot in videos on here. some random "science" channels give details like a "news outlet " infers a lot of the information, than actually giving facts. I'm thankful for you and your channel !

@hereticsunited4628

Жыл бұрын

I have watched ALL the video presentations on this subject since the JWST deep field images came out (and yes, some of them give me a headache). One of the best presentations - and I have snipped it for brevity . is below: kzread.info/dash/bejne/lmp7mKuRoq-5l5M.html

You do a very good job explaining complex issues. I think I understand a little of it. The part about stars, their size & distance was especially good. Thank you! :)

Thank you for the detailed and understandable explanation dr. Becky! 😘

“How did they grow so fast?” Parents have been asking that forever and it’s a beautiful question. Same for science. Really- this is a fun time for astronomy. 😊🔭

@juzoli

Жыл бұрын

The answer is obvious. We have to throw out the “mother gives birth to baby” theory, and the child development model. Obviously they were created to be this big in first place.

@JoeDeglman

Жыл бұрын

Halton Arp has the answer in his books. Tired light is bogus. Young galaxies have a higher redshift. These are not distance and old galaxies, there are closer younger galaxies that have yet to form stars. Galaxies decrease redshift with age and form stars with age. Redshift is mostly an intrinsic function, due to an atomic or magnetic flux density. Very little of the redshift is from recessional velocity.

@Argosh

Жыл бұрын

​@@JoeDeglman I could feel brain cells committing suicide while I was sifting through that garbage patch of words you left. Not a single part of those mad ramblings makes the slightest bit of sense. You just caused the total knowledge of humanity to degrade by writing it.

@Argosh

Жыл бұрын

@@JoeDeglman the "doppler redshift model", as you so eloquently put it, is simply a result of special relativity. It has exactly nothing to do with the age of an object and can, as a matter of fact, be observed and reliably reproduced within the Earth Luna space. It can even be used just from earth orbit. It's part of the velocity component calculated by modern GPS. For some weird reason the shift experienced there doesn't change with the age of the satellite but with its orbital position and relative motion to the measuring point. In other words, you're full of something, and it ain't knowledge plus it's sorta stinky, if you catch my drift.

@JoeDeglman

Жыл бұрын

@@Argosh actually while experiments tend to verify Relativity in general such as Lorentz Relativity and Maxwell Relativity there is no verification to Einstein's SRT postulates that differ from Lorentz or Maxwell.. In fact, GNSS and GPS satellites-to-satellite or satellite- to-ground signals do debunk Einstein's Invariance postulate, which is the basis for time dilation and Relativistic redshift. And Doppler redshift is not SRT or Relativistic redshift, it is Galilean in nature.

At 75 my first glimpse of cosmology was the universe contracting/steady state/expanding debate and ever since then we have learned more and more about the universe. Almost every month something significant is learned and published. It would be ludicrous to think we had suddenly come to the end of the story with no more questions to answer! Your job is secure Dr Becky and long may you continue to explain discoveries as clearly as you did today .(and with the same enthusiasm!) Thank you.

@josephjohnson3738

Жыл бұрын

The debate wasn't solved, it was consensus-ed.

@Bryan-Hensley

Жыл бұрын

Kinda reminds me of the story about the tower of babel. The harder we try the further it moves away.

@ThomasLee123

Жыл бұрын

THERE IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE BIG-BANG THEORY. AND, YES, IT IS STILL A "THEORY". IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THIS LACK OF "DARK MATTER" IS GLOWING EVIDENCE OF THE PROBLEMS. IF MORE THAN HALF OF THE MASS IT TAKES TO PROVE A THEORY IS JUST NOT THERE, IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE ENTIRE BASIS FOR THE THEORY IS SEVERELY FLAWED. LET US KNOW WHEN YOU FIND THE DARK MATTER AND WE CAN TALK.

@Dev-In-Denver123

Жыл бұрын

Wow they actually thought it was contracting not too long ago. Contracting from what? I grew up in the 90's when the Big Bang theory was already pretty much the consensus and status quo.

@Bryan-Hensley

Жыл бұрын

@@Dev-In-Denver123 with the big bang original theory, the universe should have started contracting. But it's not, it's speeding up instead, so they had to come up with something to avoid being wrong, in comes DARK ENERGY. It's kinda like when scientists use constants to make their math work.

Great work Dr. Becky. I love it that you cite the actual sources and tell us what was actually measured instead of just giving us hype and artists' impressions of distant galaxies no one has truly seen. You are a superb scientific educator.

UGHHHHHHH I WAS WAITING FOR THIS VIDEO QUEEEEEEEN!!! love you Dr Becky!

Thank you for throwing some calm into the sensationalist news cycle. Sadly some scientists themselves aren't all that precise with their language when speaking to the public and/or through media, and this lack of precision and caveats can be rather misleading particularly when then filtered through writers trying to dramatize for clicks and attention-grabbing, rather than to simply inform. Something being statistically rare/unlikely in some model becomes IMPOSSIBLE, and data that fits poorly or lies at tail ends of distributions becomes COMPLETELY UNEXPLAINED etc.

@motherofallemails

Жыл бұрын

How do you know that we aren't ina state of perpetual confirmation bias to back a big bang theory that we have got too seduced by? I think the steady state universe of Hoyle is looking increasingly more probable, I'm not totally eliminating the big bang theory but I have MAJOR doubts. It just seems to me that every time new evidence comes out against the big bang, physicists rush out to do another bit of patchwork to keep it all going, and it's starting to look like the observations are screaming to us that something ain't right with our theories. Paradigms get rocked sometimes, physics has had many upsets before, egos get bruised every time, don't think it's over..

@gammaraygem

Жыл бұрын

Ever since the invention of "Dark Matter" nothing is impossible anymore. By now, roughly 90% of the universe is governed by forces nobody has ever seen or discovered despite billions of dollars thrown at it, and that can be applied anywhere where the universe does not comply with theory. Alternate theories are scoffed at, dismissed with a handwave. And, research has found, that a succesful career in science demands that you stay close to the standard model of whatever field you work in. Which does not help progress at all,because nobody any longer funds research into alternative theories, no matter how outlandish the standard model has become. It is sad. Surveys in established science journals show that 50% of scientists in all disciplines no longer believe that peer review works. A vast number of papers are rejected because manipulation of data (fraud), and even so It is only the editor of those magazines who eventually decides what gets published and what not. Sounds like a vast industry is run by a few men who are dependent on what their readership wants. They need to sell copies. Not necessarily truth.

@Utubearchy

Жыл бұрын

@@gammaraygemWhat you mention is not confined to only the sciences, although cosmology and theoretical astrophysics is particularly ripe for that, but to virtually all the domains of human society. Our societies are one huge Petri dish of hierarchies. Hierarchies maintain themselves via the status quo and fiercely limit free space for anything other than the allowable orthodoxy. An orthodoxy that's self-protective on some levels while being destructive for the big picture. Not hard to realize why the Doomsday Clock is down to counting just seconds. Puzzling, considering the endowments we as a cooperative species inherent at birth from nature and evolution would expect to paint a much brighter reality.

Every time I see an astronomical headline I automatically think: "What's Dr. Becky going to say about this?" Much the same way Scott Manley is my "go-to" about space flight. Keep up the great work, and watch out for those hot beverages! ☕️

@a11oge

Жыл бұрын

"What's @DrBecky going to say about this?" my thoughts exactly

@owensmith7530

Жыл бұрын

And MarsGuy for Mars rover results.

Love this - it's basically explaining how science works - and why the money was spent on developing JWST - if it only showed us stuff that agreed with the models we already had it would be really disappointing, because it's not we get to learn stuff from the new data!

@junacebedo888

Жыл бұрын

Their (typical cosmologists) human brains is now having a conundrum. Their belief or faith in 13 billion years old universe is under attack by facts. Young universe (6,000 years old) proponents don't have such difficulty with JSWT truth.

@RWin-fp5jn

Жыл бұрын

Well actually, Tom and Becky, this is not how science works. Science is about postulating a theory, test it, and next reject it if the data don’t concur. It is not about postulating a theory, test it, and tweak if inconsistent, test again, tweak again of inconsistent..etcetc..So then, we might just as well accept after 100 years we made a mistake to interpret the meaning of observed redshift of galaxies. Just as the fabric of our galactic plane distorts our view of the centre (redshifted) so does it cause a redshift of our outward view. In QP we call this inversion of the arrow of time (quantum eraser effect). And to complete; what we call the CMB is actually the background radiation leftover from the birth of our own galaxy, not the cosmos. It marks the moment 13,7 billion year ago when light from outside started to get redshifted accordingly. So we need to accept that we made a mistake to simply assume what you see is what you get, when observing redshifted galaxies 100 years ago. They are further, but not older per se…

@CaptZdq1

Жыл бұрын

Orthodox science is Stubbornness Inc., n stubbornness means persistence in being unreasonable. It can't let go of bizarre fantasies such as the Big Bang, Einsteinian relativity, the planetisimal hypothesis, black holes, plate tectonics, the Oort cloud, extra dimensions, etc., etc., which have been debunked, disproven, n discredited every which way possible, just look it up.

@Johncornwell103

Жыл бұрын

It wouldn't be disappointing because a confirmation of current models is still teaches us about universe. It would mean that the outliers that doesn't fit the models, are wrong and we need to figure out why.

@RWin-fp5jn

Жыл бұрын

@@Johncornwell103 If only 'outliers'. Sure. But these are not outliers. JWST debunks ALL of what was predicted for 100 years by our 'cosmic model'. ALL of it. We don't have a correct prediction at all. What you need to distinguish is the order of theory and observation. If I have a goofy theory why each 6th planet from a star should be a ringed planet, and only AFTER that we observe Saturn (our sixth planet) indeed having rings, then you should be interested in my theory. If however, we FIRST observe our sixth planet to have rings and only then I come up with my goofy theory why that is, then naturally you dismiss my theory. Same goes for dark energy and dark matter, the 2 pillars of our cosmic model. We first made the observation of a redshift of furthest galaxies. Only LATER we theorized that could be caused by hypothetical Dark Energy. This means we have ZERO evidence for it. Just like we have ZERO evidence for actual Dark Matter. Zero, Zilch, nothing nada. Again , you can't first make an observation, then postulate a theory that could cause it, and next claim the observation is evidence in reverse. This is NOT how science works. We need to make clear predictions. We did and JWST totally destroyed EVERY one of them. Not a single observation matches our cosmic model. I don't like it either. But we need to accept reality if we wish to progress.

Very clear explanation of how preliminary reporting works. My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed your audiobook. An easy and relaxed presentation of a complex subject.

I was waiting for this! Looking forward to more great discoveries from JWST. Please keep up the good work!

You are consistently interesting, useful and clear. Thank you

OMG NEW SHOOTING LOCATION!!! lighting and everything is amazing, I love it!!

Another excellent video. You are such an excellent teacher of some of the key concepts driving the data and conclusions of these studies and how they will inspire further study.

Sometimes someone explains something to you and you are just entertained by the sheer cleverness of something - hearing about the Lyman Break was one of those moments :D.

@glenchapman3899

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I am kinda the same. The discovery is interesting, but what the person did to think of a process to make the discovery is often way more interesting.

Thanks doctor! As a jazz musician, I have to constantly revise my approach to music as I absorb new data and concepts. That process is unsettling but exciting to the extreme. Thanks for sharing your journey at the edge of astrophysics knowledge! What exciting times we live in! Astrophysics should be mandatory in school, as it would teach perseverance, intellectual honesty and humility!

Thank you so much for all your content and insight! I looked forward to the JWST for years, but as an astronomy layman, I have to rely on professional scientists to make it more meaningful than pretty pictures. You have been a wonderful tour guide over the last 9 months!

I loves your work, you gives us all the actual activities happening right now in astronomical community, rather than filtering out best one only! It's so great to look how scientists working, not magically but by step by step!😃

Thank you for the various qualifiers for what the data might mean or might be influenced by. I love the opportunity to factor in possibilities as it's great food for thought.

Always love your videos Becky!

Thank you for taking the time to look into all of these interesting space stories and outputting such well-thought-out content! I am always excited when I see that a new Dr. Becky video is out!

@hanrockabrand95

Жыл бұрын

Well, there's evidence to suggest that our original models were wrong, and it didn't actually take Dr. Becky very long at all to look into all of these things. So you may want to thank her a bit less than you were originally inclined to do. 🤷‍ (Edit: In case you didn't get it, this was a joke. In case you didn't like it, electromagnetic fields made me do it.)

@dannygelbart6827

Жыл бұрын

@@hanrockabrand95 The models can only apply things we put into them. Current models do not account for magnetic forces for one thing and scientists still aren't sure how to incorporate them or how much effect they would play on the models themselves.

@hanrockabrand95

Жыл бұрын

@@dannygelbart6827 it was a joke

"I don't know.." is the most honest thing any human being has ever said.

A thought that popped into my head was: comparing the modern universe to the young universe would be like someone who has NEVER left their small town describing a city. They can make guesses based on the data, but how it is is really quite different from what they could probably think up.

I’m very thankful for you sharing this information in a consumable way for us Lehman. I have always had an interest in all things science. Your videos are a joy to watch and learn from. 🙇‍♂️ 🙏

This was a very interesting and thorough description, thank you for adding the details about the Lyman and Balmer breaks. Really interesting to see how they can derive so much from the spectrum.

@Ridethebomb777

Жыл бұрын

What they are assuming is that testing done on earth works the same out in deep space ..... and here you are reading a story about something they "thought", couldn't happen. Its all just a best guess, and will always be just that. They say time works differently in deep space ...... but the light spectrum gets analysed the same. They make it up as they go.

@zaphodrahja

Жыл бұрын

@@arielatomhc Theres a bigger gap to fit God in now

Exactly what I was hoping to learn about this topic. Seems unsurprising that highly energetic early galaxies of supermassive stars (full of supernova remnants?) would behave differently. Maybe heavier elements were created at a much faster rate than we would expect from observing galaxies in the much more evolved universe. Thank you. I'm hoping for an update when they get those spectra!

@cosmictreason2242

Жыл бұрын

One more nickel in the “YEC is scientifically robust and deep time is not” jar

@paganaye

Жыл бұрын

@@cosmictreason2242 I had to google YEC. Seriously if you believe this what are you doing in this channel? I don't go spoil your illuminati videos.

@runs_through_the_forest

Жыл бұрын

"the big bang never happened" (author: Eric Lerner) is the best book iv'e read on the topic, maybe these "mature" galaxies that long ago simply where already there for who knows how long.. cosmology, that is the study of the universe and the larger scale part of astrophysics, is in a far deeper crisis than people like dr Becky would want us to believe, the lambda cdm model of universe is based on pillars of assumptions, build by tweaking parameters to fit observation going from theoretical concepts.. dark matter is bs, dark energy is bs, cosmic inflation and the big bang is more or less bs, cosmic microwave background might also be less of a thing according to some, to me at least, very credible radiologists and spectroscopists..

@BodhiPolitic

Жыл бұрын

@@runs_through_the_forest It's not bs, they're all good models for the data. Same as everything else scientific understanding evolves constantly but not uniformly. A crisis leads to new ways of looking at things, new models, new questions. If anything, what may be fundamentally missing is an understanding of the mind and how consciousness interacts with/creates the things it studies.

@cosmictreason2242

Жыл бұрын

@@paganaye you’re more likely to believe in that tripe than me. Christianity is the anti-superstition. Those without it are caught up in all kinds of crackpot theories

It's so refreshing to get real JWST info that isn't just click baited bullshit.

Love your videos. Thanks for giving the details, facts and explaining to people how science works. It's not wrong it needs to be updated with studying the new data.

You ma’am are freaking awesome. I am comfortable with the Universe not being under any obligation to explain itself. You make this stuff so easy to understand. Thank you! ❤️🌺🌷🌼💐🌻

My husband and I both enjoy your videos, Dr. Becky! Thank you for consistently interesting content! We love that REAL science can say "we don't know what this means - yet" or "nope, that wasn't right - data says otherwise; let's start over again," etc. I'm a self-admitted nerd and I find science fascinating - archaeology, paleontology and astronomy are my favorite topics!!

Brilliantly explained. Thank you Dr Becky, please keep up the good work 👍👍

Boopers - An insight into your brain! Sounds like a scary but fun place to be; keep the video's coming I'll take the risk of following that trail. Your videos are generally awesome, I don't know if you teach in addition to research but your youtube 'classes' are entertaining.

This kind of reminds me of when quantum physics was discovered due to classical physics being unable to answer experimental results. Classical physics still exists and does a pretty good job of explaining things with relatively high accuracy, but quantum physics answers the questions classical physics can't. The same exact principle mentioned above is going to occur here in explaining the images captured by JWST. It's unfortunate I'll be out of school by the time its taught in schools, but I'm excited to try learning some of the new theories developed due to the JWST.

I love your videos. Entertaining and educational..

Explaining the logic behind scientific observational measurements is useful and interesting for lay people and aspiring scientists. Great program! 👍🏼🙏🏽

I like how you present the information, Dr. Becky! Unlike so many others out there, you take the time to accurately explain not only why the data shouldn't be coming back the way it is, but why it COULD as well. And if you're not sure, you do your homework and scan through research papers, rather than jumping to conclusions. This subject had even major, reputable sources claiming the "impossible" or something like that from this data. You just said for them to hold their horses on that conclusion.

I watch a lot of your videos and I do my best to keep up with what you're saying. You do a fabulous job making it understandable for people who have a hard time understanding science. I still get lost sometimes. Lol But I have a ton of admiration for those with this level of intelligence in science. Thank you for putting things into plain language for those of us trying to understand. I'm really interested in what the JWST is accomplishing and I can't thank you enough for helping it make sense to me.

Once we have the spectra, will it be possible to distinguish the standard model of galactic light emission from other models like the one you mentioned of emissions from black hole accretion disks or quasar-like jets?

Now that's a great explanation, very comprehensive. Super interesting topic! Thank you!

Thank you for the clarification. Just kinda saw a blurb about this and was interested, stumbled on your video and it made a lot of sense! I'm excited to see what new data will tell us about those galaxies and if we need to take our current models and edit them, or toss the lot out the window and start over. :P :D :P

Whaaat?!?!? Social Media/Mainstream Media trotting out something that is shameless clickbate and/or without context??? I've never heard of such a thing!!! 🙂

Thank you for this. I feel that one of the hardest things in science is to realize that all models are wrong, but some are useful. If all our models were right, we'd never need to do research! Thank you, JWST for pointing us in the right direction to make our models more useful!

@EnglishMike

Жыл бұрын

Be careful how you say it though. When you say "all models are wrong" some people will think you mean that all models are completely wrong, leading them to believe (as you can see in this comment section) that they can throw out the entire model as soon as any part of it doesn't match the data perfectly. It's better to say that no model is perfect, and that there is always room for improvement as new data comes in.

@justinn8410

Жыл бұрын

@@EnglishMikeplus the analogy is wrong. Even if all models are right we would still do research. We model things correctly but still do research and experiments based on the models.

@baTonkaTruck

Жыл бұрын

The problem here is, the models appear to be very seriously wrong. This is a huge departure from the fundamental tenets of the evolution of the early universe. And it’s just one of a long list: There’s dark matter and dark energy (aka we have no idea what 96% of the mass of the universe IS), the cosmology crisis (different measurement techniques yield very different expansion rates of the universe), serious problems with the standard model of particle physics… All of this I find exciting because there’s obviously so much more to discover. What scares me though is scientists appear to be becoming political and economics (grant/money) focused, and this can create some serious credibility problems. Particle physicists especially are finding deep flaws in their data and just inventing new invisible particles they haven’t found yet to explain why their predictions don’t match experiments. Then they use that to ask for billions of dollars to build another, larger, particle accelerator that “surely” will find these phantom particles that will validate the predictions upon which their grant money is based. Ever since dark matter/energy, our model of the universe has honestly been laughably wrong imo.

@marklowry4431

Жыл бұрын

I'll point everyone to the words of George Box, who said it much better than I ever could: "all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind"

@EnglishMike

Жыл бұрын

@@marklowry4431 Again, I don't disagree with the statement, but as we have seen with the assertion that evolution is "only a theory" is used by creationists to argue that it's all guesswork, and puts their bat-shit insane creationist claims on an equal footing. In Box's quote, the anti-science crowd would read no further than "all models are wrong" and reach the same conclusion. I know there isn't much we can do to stop it, but it would be better not to exacerbate the problem, especially for the sake of those who have not yet fallen down the rabbit hole.

Thank you for providing balance and perspective.

Only reliable source of information that is actually in touch with the audience.

I want to see a JWST long exposure of the Boötes Void to see if it is really as empty as believed. Who knows, we may see Galaxies even further away.

@tonytaskforce3465

Жыл бұрын

✅

Sensible analysis instead of sensationalism! Thank you! P.S. No idea how much that doggy costs 🙂

WE LOVE YOU! Thanks for continuing to educate us on all things space! You’re stellar! 🪐🖤

Great content. Thank you! Subscribed!

Thank you Dr Becky. Great video as always.

Becky, can you do a video and make a deeper dive into how "red shift" values are measured and how to convert the values into time?

@daddy7860

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I'd also love to know how people are determining which redshift is caused by "moving away" vs some other cause.

@X3MgamePlays

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget to add the time dilation effect as well. A lot of redshift explanations forget to add this part.

Six galaxies is also an extremely small sample size to build anything off of. If JWST finds more of these types of galaxies and gets the numbers, than there would be enough information for serious discussion of the models. I do like the change of location and outfit for the filming. Changing things up can be a good thing.

@EnglishMike

Жыл бұрын

There's plenty more to choose from, and plenty of time to study more. Every deep field frame likely contains more than one candidate.

@ThomasLee123

Жыл бұрын

I HAVE TO SAY, AFTER THE MESS THAT THE UN'S IPCC HAS DONE WITH GLOBAL WARMING, MATH MODELS BECOME INCREASINGLY DUBIOUS TO ANYONE WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN. IF YOU EVER LOOK THROUGH THE CODE FOR ONE OF THESE THINGS YOU WILL FIND THE PROGRAMMER PLACED CONSTANTS THROUGHOUT THE CODE TO "FIX" THINGS THAT HE COULD NOT GET TO WORK. CLIMATE MODELS ARE OBVIOUSLY MUCH SIMPLER THAN GALACTIC THEORY, BUT ARE HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE FOR THE TASK. IMAGINE MODELING THE PROGRESSION OF THE UNIVERSE!

@aniketmore8236

Жыл бұрын

Why?? Even if there is one galaxy, SCIENCE should be able to answer it's existence.

@glenchapman3899

Жыл бұрын

@@aniketmore8236 Not really. If we find one, then we have to worry about the quality of the data, find 10,000 then you know the explanation is wrong and the data is good. A great example is the star Era Carinie in theory and per millions of observations of stars should not exist. So was our theory of stella evolution wrong or was the data wrong. After nearly 70 years they figured out the data was incomplete, and an explanation was found that fit within the theory of stella evolution.

i like the different backdrop to this video, a lot more visual interest than your usual one

Wonderful presentation Becky. Thank you.

Reminded of another science youtuber (sadly can't remember who) commenting on how news stories like this kept talking about how scientists were having to "go back to the drawing board" because of whatever new data or discovery. As if we weren't ALWAYS at the drawing board, as if we thought every model and conjecture were perfect and done. That's why new tech like JWST is so exciting, not to be able to get the data we already expect, but to find places where it's NOT what we expect.

@murraymadness4674

Жыл бұрын

Sure, but the theories are presented like they are truth facts, not just theories. The big bang theory has been accepted dogma for decades and is presented as fact.

@alexnahan969

Жыл бұрын

What’s the alternative lmfaoooo you have none

@murraymadness4674

Жыл бұрын

@@alexnahan969 lmfao since you have no clue what other options there are. are you 10 years old, or 12?

I always thought political ignorance being the most common element in the universe

I've been seeing those clickbait articles on my news. I mostly ignore the headlines, although many of the articles have useful and interesting content. Butt of course, the best space news always comes from Dr. Becky. Thank you!

Love your explanations of the Lyman and Balmer breaks! Brilliant!

Weathermen : We're the only profession that can be wrong 85% of the time and still not get fired Politicians : *snicker* Astrophysicists : Hold my beer.

@juskahusk2247

Жыл бұрын

Quantum physicists: Hold my pan-galactic gargle blaster.

I hope new discoveries are not just molded to fit our current models, but in the long term challenge and even rewrite them

Thank you for covering this story, it does seem to have spread everywhere, and I've been asked about it seemingly everywhere I go. I appreciate you also including the links to our CEERS survey and the data information. We DO actually have spectra from CEERS for several of the sources in this paper that were obtained in December 2022. Our collaboration has also already published measurements on the spectroscopic distances to these sources in a few papers, which differ from the estimates based on the imaging, all of which were not cited or referenced in this paper. The galaxy models used here also don't include any recent updates for JWST sources, which include potential strong emission lines that could mimic Balmer breaks in the photometry, or ones that have higher initial stellar mass functions, as could be expected in the early Universe. I agree that we haven't 'broken the Universe', and these headlines are incredibly problematic, but it is very important to focus on the proper takeaways from papers like these.

I too saw the fantastical claims in popular media about the study. You neatly slice through the clutter and hype. Thank you!

Good to hear you being logical about this information. Too many times, in the past, and currently, people get upset because new data means they have to change their ideas, which they have believed in, and get all upset. Thank you.

Brilliant! Thank you, Dr Becky.

Exceptional explanation at 3 mins of how red shifting can be used to calculate distance of far off galaxies! Before this vid, I always confused on how to differentiate between Cosmo redshift and spectroscopy. Thank you!

Very analytic! Congrats!!

Thank you for a great explanation. Exciting times😊

I greatly appreciate your videos. Thank you.

You and Anton are the best. Thank you

Thank you for not glossing over all the details of how research is conducted and techniques used to estimate details of these far distant objects. Most channels stop at "red shift innit" as far as explanation goes. I learnt a lot from this video, very enlightening and an interesting topic

Great video... on a side note, your plant looks like it is very happy!

One of the best scientists on youtube, I have already learned so much from just the videos on this one topic.

I just watch these videos for the bloopers ;) OK, jokes aside, thanks for sharing your scientific knowledge and I look forward to more science explainers!

Thanks. I understand the desire you expressed to keep existing theories in place, with future modifications rather than reject theories which are inconsistent with data. When overdone it results in the idea that “science progresses one funeral at a time.”

Very well explained for uz Plebs! Thanks Dr. Becky! 🙏

Excellent summary thanks!

Love the clarity and the passion, this is worth an hour long TV documentary and I'm being conservative with my estimate.

Great video by the way.

Very well explained thank you

Yet another excellent video.

Finally a video that explains everything in a way that I can understand without my head hurting at the end of it

Fascinating developments. About time.

Wow, excellent description of how we can determine how far away something is. Humans working together are much smarter than individuals.

Awesome video, and brilliantly explained - was waiting for this from the moment I heard the news. BTW - the link to purchasing your book in the description is broken for me 🤔

I so like this emotional great a space development explanation...Thanks!

Thanks for the great explanation 👍

Great information thank you!

Really enjoyed this episode. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

I just bought your latest book Dr Becky! Cant wait to start reading it.

Very nice explanation of the way redshift is interpreted to determine distance of galaxies.

Exciting to become a would-be landlocked earthling, exploring the universe through your comprehensive tutorials in astrophysics. Re your brain, it is working as a gift to people like myself. Thanks for your effort.