Fascinating! I had no idea there was a CNB. I'm glad to hear that Fred Hoyle changed his steady state tune once the CMB was discovered. I also particularly liked the explanation of how the neutrino's wave functions get stretched and thus become lower energy. Thank you!!!

Neutrinos are my absolute favorite particle/wave. i have pictured them as responsible for lighting up matter - since they continuously fly through matter/me and you, and everything else, allowing photons a path to follow to create our visual reality. Why not? So neutrinos are our reality here on Earth and in our Universe. Without them no Universe no me no you.

Miss Duffy is my new favourite KZread presenter

Would have liked an in-depth explanation of how you distinguish the neutrino-induced tritium beta decay from background tritium beta decay.

@amalieemmynoether992

Жыл бұрын

I would assume that the energy of the emitted electron would be different to standard beta electrons of tritium decay. Regular tritium decay produces helium-3, an electron and an anti neutrino. The Ptolemy experiment will have tritium absorb a neutrino to produce helium-3 plus an electron...no neutrino produced (if Dr Kirsty showed the full reaction in this episode). That would mean that the electron in the Ptolemy experiment would carry all the excess energy rather than sharing it with an antineutrino in regular tritium decay. A nuclear physicist will have to confirm if I'm correct in my assumptions as well as answer how the energies are measured.

@Lucius_Chiaraviglio

Жыл бұрын

@@amalieemmynoether992 That's my thinking as well, but I would have liked to have seen/heard it in the video.

The most interesting thing about early universe is that if we were able to see light from the very beginning of the big bang, anywhere we look deep into the cosmos we would see the same point in space & time.

1. Are the slower CNB easier to catch since they spend much more time in a nucleus compared to a fast neutrino? 2. When an atom meets its anti particle atom, what is left over? Photons? Neutrinos? The mass is converted to energy, but does the gravity survive?

Súper interesante e intrigante... Excelente

What is the energy of neutrinos decoupling after one sec vs photon energy released in cmb at 378000 yr?

Great video.

Sounds interesting. I always thought that one of the most sensitive electron detectors was a photo-multiplier tube (after it converts a photon into an electron). Some solid tritium compound sensitive to neutrinos, instead of the usual photon sensitive material at the first stage?

Emitted 1 second after the Big Bang is a brand new concept for me. Thanks!

Another excellent, intelligible and fascinating video from Fermilab. Kudos and thanks to you guys for sharing your amazing expertise for we non-scientists. Very much appreciated

This video literally reminded me that I needed to pick up bananas 🍌 at the store. My mind is everywhere right now 😆😜

Beautiful show, go Freddie! Awesome stuff about Big Bang neutrinos and Tritium based detectors! Thanks!

I know that neutrinos have been rules out as a dark matter candidate as they are "hot" and the dark matter we see between galaxies is "cold". Well, these neutrinos sound like they would be cold. Could they be a dark matter candidate after all?

@fluffysheap

Жыл бұрын

Well, they *are* dark matter. But they aren't the main component of dark matter. Galaxies in the early universe seem to have about the same amount of dark matter as galaxies today. But in the early universe, before the expansion of space drained away their energy, these neutrinos would still have too much energy to become gravitationally bound to galaxies. So they can't be a solution to the dark matter problem.

@dekumarademosater2762

Жыл бұрын

@@fluffysheap - at least not to old galaxy dark matter

Thanks!

I think the most fascinating thing about primordial cosmic background neutrinos is the prediction that their electron, muon, and tau phases may have decohered far enough from each other as to appear almost like three separate particles. It would be truly insightful to be able to measure this decoherence and to discover how these meta-particles act in comparison with familiar particles.

@drdca8263

Жыл бұрын

Would it be the flavor parts that get separated, or the mass parts? I would have thought the mass parts, because they would have different velocities? Or, is the idea that interactions with things would separate out by flavor, effectively measuring what flavor it is (and forcing it into a particular flavor)? Though... I thought the processes that create neutrinos generally create them in a flavor eigenstate, not a mass eigenstate?

@TheReaverOfDarkness

Жыл бұрын

@@drdca8263 The three "flavors" (electron, muon, and tau) all have a different mass, causing them to move at a different speed.

@drdca8263

Жыл бұрын

@@TheReaverOfDarkness I’m pretty sure the flavor basis and the mass basis are different, so each state in the flavor basis is a superposition of states from the mass basis, and each state in the mass basis is a superposition of states from the flavor basis.

@TheReaverOfDarkness

Жыл бұрын

@@drdca8263 Interesting, I have no idea. I want to see more videos on the subject, though!

Excellent. A couple of questions from my very limited knowledge if you could spare some minutes to answer: To my knowledge Why is it Neutrinos seem not fitting in the Standard Model, and if so, why?...the other is I guess if this CNB, and super low energy neutrino could led into a new kind of astronomy , similar to that of Gravitational waves did some years ago, and if so when do you think could happen. And maybe the facilities and apparatus for this neutrino astronomy could be monumentally big?...thanks

@nagualdesign

Жыл бұрын

I can answer the first question. According to the Standard Model, neutrinos were predicted to be massless. However, experiments have shown that they have a non-zero mass. Therefore the Standard Model is incomplete.

Thanks

does any specific flavor of the neutrinos become more probable when they move towards such lower energy states as those in the CNB ?

Is there an approximate value for the amount of energy of the CNB vs the CMB? I feel the urge to know the ergs! 🤗

These particles from one second after the big bang should be called Oldtrinos. I love this channel and these videos. Like bananas, you peel back the layers of the universe in a way that is easy to digest.

@nagualdesign

Жыл бұрын

🤭 Thanks for giving me a giggle.

@kpdubbs7117

Жыл бұрын

@@nagualdesign Any time.

The question is, since they are so weakly interacting with normal matter, can you ever be sure what you are detecting are these elusive neutrinos, and not just background noise?

@MaxBrix

Жыл бұрын

Some evidence - The calculation of how many neutrinos are produced in the sun and how many would interact with atomic nuclei preceded the detection and was confirmed many times. We now have detectors that can confirm the direction that they come from all over the world agreeing with each other. - We can detect the production of neutrinos from accelerators and reactors. Turn on the accelerator and detection goes up.Turn it off and you see it in the detector. It's measured to an accuracy of lots of zeros.

@riderpaul

Жыл бұрын

@@MaxBrix but do slow, low energy neutrinos fly through matter as easily as high energy ones do? IOW does the fact that they spend more time moving through each nucleus they pass through make them more likely to get captured?

👍Thanks!

"Spin" - most interesting thing about the early neutrinos. Did they have one to begin with while exiting the "plasma" or acquire one later while travelling the universe?

Nice piece! The CNB concept was new to me, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. My world is richer.

What percentage of the matter of the universe should be made up of CNB neutrinos?

Most interesting things about neutrinos (from my view): - They could enable us to look into the core of stars, of supernovae and possibly even into the big bang. - They are shapeshifters, constantly changing between the electron, muon and tau flavour, apparently without losing or gaining energy in the process (imagine quarks doing that). - Those little introvert critters do in fact make a difference when they appear in insane quantities, e. g. On supernovae or, of course, in the big bang. They carry away enormous energy and exert neutrino pressure. Or, as the renowned physicists team Depeche Mode put it, "Everything counts in large amounts".

@amalieemmynoether992

Жыл бұрын

Ahh! I never knew the song was actually about supernova and BB mechanics. It all makes sense to me now. 😆

I wonder if the CNB would be uniform, or patchy like the CMB?

Wnat *I* find most interesting about these early universe neutrinos is that some people speculate (so I read) that, until up to one second after the big bang, they would, by interecting with dark matter, prevent the formation of permanent universal structural patterns. So this one-second-after-the-big-bang time would be the moment when permanent universal structural patterns and shapes would first appear. And patterns from then would still be reflected in present day universal patterns of galaxies distribution all over the cosmos. Don't know how much of this is possibly correct, though.

Your presentation has exciting prospects! What caused the near light speed neutrinos to drop down to 1/1000 of their original speed? 🚧⚠

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

She explains the cause at 3:50 namely cosmological redshift.

@photon434

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice I appreciate the response. It is clear that neutrinos lose their energy through stretched wavelength, but the only thing I see that may be specifically referencing the reason for losing velocity is at 5:22 “CMB neutrinos are the exception; they have such low energies that they are non-relativistic.” I am not sure what she means by that.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

@@photon434 good question. In this context I’d say it means their energy portfolio has more in rest mass and less in kinetic energy. Or they have a small Lorentz factor, if you’re familiar with special relativity.

@photon434

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice Good answer! A preserved rest mass vs diminished kinetic energy ratio. Observing redshifted objects with mass is very interesting. Thank you!

Detecting the microwave background was by accident, so hopefully our being deliberate about the neutrino background will help. Detecting them would be a landmark achievement.

@misterphmpg8106

Жыл бұрын

yes by accident but sooner or later someone would have found them for sure, because detectors already existed. that won't happen with those neutrinos because there is no detector to detect them unless you build one exactly for this purpose.

Would we be able to verify the rings from the cyclic universe theory?

how do those cmb netrinos manage to live so long when they don't have the speed of light ? (or their lifespan is so great anyway)?

Sounds important. I'll let you know if I see any.

You said that every neutrino physicist goes through this stage and all I can think is "of course, why wouldn't you?"

Can neutrinos be diffracted if they encounter something sufficiently dense? Would a neutron star diffract neutrinos?

@chriszachtian

Жыл бұрын

Is there a kind of Neutrino-Neutrino-scattering?

@MaxBrix

Жыл бұрын

Gravity affects neutrinos.

If we can calculate and estimate the energy and speed of ancient neutrinos... then just how to detect their DIRECTION?... If they are supposedly arriving to us in our timeframe, from the past... how to measure direction of time?... perhaps why time itself as a relativistic reference construct is being questioned and is becoming a topic of much discussion and debate recently.

On this very channel, Dr. Lincoln has pointed out that the phrase "big bang" is usually used to refer to the material/events that emitted the photons that were able to travel freely, i.e. the CMB. This may seem pedantic but I think it important: words like "beginning" need to be used carefully when discussing the universe as we don't know, and cannot know if we depend upon light as our source of information, what happened before nucleons could form. We can work backwards from what we know of the rest of physics, but that is projection and not something that we know how to test (currently.) So for now we should not say the universe had a beginning. We know not the physical extent (distance) of the universe (it could be infinite) nor do we know the temporal extent.

@rwarren58

Жыл бұрын

The Universe has a beginning. Everything does.

@justinpyle3415

Жыл бұрын

The line between religion and science becomes very blurred here. Gotta have faith for either or both to work. Scientific and religious foundations are built on islands of assumption surrounded by oceans of uncertainty. For all we know, we could all just be on the back of a giant turtle carrying the entire universe, observable and otherwise, through some extra-multiversal ocean.

Oh, you have a crowd already. Thanks for the presentation, and I have a question from early in your lecture . Not about neutrinos though (sorry ?) and that was about photons interacting with electro magnetic field. How powerful does a magnetic field have to be to deflect photons (a beam of light perhaps ). I know it doesn't take much to deflect an electron beam or we wouldn't have CRT/TV Tubes but light itself ? Take it easy please, I'm a mailman not a scientist, Thanks anyone ?

@johnwalczak9202

Жыл бұрын

it does not! electron has charge and spin, therefore interact with electromagnetic field. Photon has no charge, being an electromagnetic wave itself.

@causewaykayak

Жыл бұрын

@@johnwalczak9202 Thank You. Simple straightforward explanation. Much appreciated !

So, the universe is expanding somewhat like a sonic boom. The oldest stuff is being caught up by the new stuff because the old stuff is being slowed by the stretch. Will the "stuff" just pile up at the edge?

@0neIntangible

Жыл бұрын

All the stuff piling up at the edge creating an eggshell... obligatory lol.

Cool

Could you please explain more detailed how and why neutrinos get redshifted AND slower? Light loses energy only by redshift so why cant neutrinos? is it because they have mass and photons don't?

@riderpaul

Жыл бұрын

As far as I know neutrinos never traveled at the speed of light in the first place, so they can slow down. Photons are an oscillation between electric and magnetic fields and can only travel at the speed of light. When a photon travels through matter it interacts with the matter which makes it appear as if it is moving slower, but that is just a characteristic of how photons interact with that particular material.

Do BB neutrinos come in different flavors?

The 85 km per second for big bang neutrinos sounds fast, but the Parker solar probe can clock 110km per second. Earth I think fact is moving at 400-800kmps relative the the CMB, with milky way at 600kmps ?

Some people want to become ungovernable, real neutrino people want to become undetectable

Guys, I am looking for an older video of yours, where you explain that unlike popular belief, particle do not literally gain mass as they accelerate, and that this is only a work-around to explain things to students at an early level. Can you please help me out with a link, or confirm here that this is really true? Cheers!

@drdon5205

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/foh-w9ealcm6irA.html

Could you explain how neutrino are created

I've been eagerly awaiting this talk. Puzzled by the red shift calculations. Spit balling for a photon starting at 960nm and red shifting to 1.9mm, that's a ratio of 5e-4 but the neutrino red shift ratio is 1e-11. Why the orders of magnitude of difference. Another question is geometric. Neutrinos don't interact much so I pictured them as being in a halo at the very edge of the universe, very far beyond where even the James Webb telescope could observe. On what path (non-interacting) could they have taken to reach us?

@chestercurtis7548

Жыл бұрын

@@Jay-cf6dz Ok, neither agree nor disagree with that assertion, untestable. So I'll put it another way. CNB is approaching us at 85,000km/sec and CMB is travelling at nearly 300,00,000km/sec. So again, to the geometry question, how can CNB reach us since the universe is guesstimated to be expanding at 73,000km/sec which leaves a paultry approach rate of 12,000km/sec?

@chestercurtis7548

Жыл бұрын

@@Jay-cf6dz Okay, it has been stated that the universe did not start as a singularity thus creating a big sphere. I completely agree since in that scenario it would have started as a black hole and remained so FOREVER. Given the uniformity of the CMB, it sure seems like the least that we could say is that it was one event that started it. So, we just pick some starting geometry with a large enough Schwarzchild radius or any other geometric shape (radius implies sphere and need not be). The wave particle duality is not apples to apples between the CNB and CMB since photons have no choice but to travel at the speed of light. Ther neutrino, a massive particle, gets the velocity reduction due to the universe expansion. V^2/C^2 (I think) resolves the question I had about CNB neutrinos having such low energy compared to CMB photons.

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

Redshift and the expansion rate was much higher at 1 second compared to 380,000 years. The CNB neutrinos we observe today would have actually have been created very close to us (10's of light years away from our location), and have been travelling towards us since the first second. Compare that with the photons that we observe from the CMB that were around 45 million light years from us when they were emitted.

@chestercurtis7548

Жыл бұрын

@@Jay-cf6dz Black body radiation is local and global. The definition is a region with non-reflective walls (your "no edge" definition). When you peer into it from any angle you will see the same black body temperature. In our case, all of the primordial hydrogen, helium, and subatomic particles in our neighborhood are excited to the global black body temperature. We see a local temperature in all directions. That is how I interpret your point about every point looks like the center of the universe (like a Ptolemy model).

@chestercurtis7548

Жыл бұрын

@@tonywells6990 Inflation! Yes, for those who buy into the inflation model. I agree it is best fit so far. But taking a backwards look on the timeline to 380,000 years after the birth, CMB would initially have been 22,500 light years away and CNB would have been .005 light years away from the mass that eventually accreted into our little region of the Milky Way. Not sure I can make sense of that. Note, used factor of 0.0005, 3000deg K versus 1.9 deg K)

Just sitting here at my desk eatin' a peanut butter and banana sandwich while watching some Even Bananas. Physics is so awesome!

@AwakeInAnacortes

Жыл бұрын

PB/B is good, but you should really try PB/P (pickle). Adams old fashioned PB and a good crunchy dill is the best! Physics is everything as Don Lincoln always says, but everything goes better with a good PB/P sandwich!

Do we have an expectation of how many neutrinos are in the cnb? Could we be off by so much that thebcnb is actually dark energy? I mean weve never been able to measure either. And the cnb has been around long enough.

@shawn0fitz

Жыл бұрын

Yes they do. Because we know how both photons and neutrinos decouple. You can see an analogous example in the fusion reaction in the Sun--exact quantities of photons vs. neutrinos are known.

@dave4882

Жыл бұрын

@@shawn0fitz i guess my question was how much matter was created? We know how much was left over after annihilation ie, if 11 universes of matter were created and 10 antimatter you still get 1 universe left. With x number of neutrinos. But what about 1,000,000,000,001 of matter and 1,000,000,000,000 antimatter. Same 1 left over universe. But a lot more neutrinos

@dave4882

Жыл бұрын

Re read your awnser. So photons also came from the m/am annihilation but 90k years later?

@shawn0fitz

Жыл бұрын

@@dave4882 The Universe was so dense less than one second after the BB that neutrinos and photons were entirely coupled with matter. One second later, the Universe had expanded and cooled enough so that neutrinos could decouple (the Cosmic Neutrino Background). 360,000 years after that, the Universe had expanded and cooled enough that photons could decouple (the Cosmic Microwave Background).

What about Tachyon particles?

I wonder if weak force interactions would be more likely with slow neutrinos from the Big Bang vs normal neutrinos traveling at almost the speed of light.

@ika5666

Жыл бұрын

you need a low energy limit of the cross-section of the interaction between say electrons and electronic neutrinos.

@edweinb

Жыл бұрын

@@ika5666 So wouldn't a lower momentum neutrino have a larger cross section?

@ika5666

Жыл бұрын

@@edweinb i don't know the result. it is a doable exercise.

How would the expansion of the Universe afect the neutrinos? Especially because they move so slowly. We have limitations on the visible universe, and photons move much faster, so maybe that same limitation applies here as well.

@riderpaul

Жыл бұрын

The CNB started out moving pretty "fast", but the speed of light is relative so from the perspective of the neutrino light was still moving 300 km/s faster than it was. Photons move at the speed of light and can never slow down. It is a property of the photon's electromagnetic wave.

So these old slow low energy neutrinos would be light, individually, but how many are there? So how heavy are they in total? Like, dark-matter-candidate heavy? And this red-shift bizzo - neutrinos slow and everything's wavelength increases, so everything has less energy, but where does that energy go to?

So how do you describe a particle that has a flat line?

@dlevi67

Жыл бұрын

A flatlino?

@kunjukunjunil1481

Жыл бұрын

Zero, nothing,null ,nada..

Shouldn't slower moving particles interact more than fast moving particles?

@michaelsommers2356

Жыл бұрын

Not necessarily. They might, for instance, not have enough energy to interact.

The half-life of tritium is 12.3 years, I don't think anybody knows how much of that figure comes from the cosmic neutrino background and how much of it is due to the natural instability of tritium itself , so that would severely complicate using tritium to detect very low energy neutrinos. John K Clark

@garyc1384

Жыл бұрын

Same basic issue as many modern experiments - statistics is needed to filter the 'noise'. You then have 'probabilities' that you have found a particle, with error becoming decreasingly likely as more and more data comes in. Eventually, random error has decreased to the point where it is no longer at all reasonable to allow it as a factor in the data - you can announce a 'discovery. The discovery of the Higgs is a fascinating case to read about here.

@johnclark8359

Жыл бұрын

@@garyc1384 The trouble is how do you filter out the noise if the noise is caused by neutrinos?

With very slow Neutrinos, do you think there's been enough time for them to arrive on Earth to paint a complete picture of the CNB?

2Even Bananas: It is will be very intersting hear some thing about Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering

1. I assume detecting CNB neutrinos won't be nearly as difficult as precisely measuring their energies, which would be needed to construct a detailed map analogous to the CMB map of the sky. 2. The acronym CNB looks and sounds too much like CMB, so it seems an unwise choice. Please send me a nickel each time someone mishears or misreads it. Perhaps it could be rearranged to NCB?

@michaelsommers2356

Жыл бұрын

Astronomers are clever enough to tell the difference between 'N' and 'M'.

I wonder which neutrinos were the first - election, muon, or tau?

How could we possibly detect Neutrinos from the CNB? They are slower than light, so they had not enough time to reach us in the first place. What's wrong with this idea?

You asked for a comment regarding neutrinos within the scope of this presentation (which I might add was quite lucid and very interesting). Here it is. The fact that neutrinos existed one second after the Big Bang sure lends a lot of weight to their being truly fundamental particles when one considers the pretty much unimaginable temperature and density of the Universe at that moment. Now, for a question: If these neutrinos started out at near relativistic velocities in an expanding spacetime, I get the red-shifting of their frequencies and the incredible decrease in their energy due to their escape before the inflationary period and 380,000 years ahead of the photons, but why the loss in velocity too? Is it because spacetime itself was expanding at what could arguably be said as superluminal velocities during the inflationary period?

@riderpaul

Жыл бұрын

My attempt at an analogy: If you were driving a car on a rubber road and something started stretching the road your front and rear wheels would start spinning slower relative to one another. This would cause both a slowing and a loss of energy. Photons are a property of electromagnetism and can't slow down. Neutrinos can not reach c and do not have such a restriction.

@RME76048

Жыл бұрын

@@riderpaul Then I would expect that the near-C but not-quite-C original velocities of the primordial neutrinos would have decreased to a tiny fraction of their original speed due to cosmic inflation. Does that hold true for primordial neutrinos? Or, are they just so incredibly slow now that they are outside the interaction bands required in our detectors? And, if that is true, what might their collective mass be and could that be a significant fraction of dark matter?

A question that's plagued me, as photons and neutrino wavelengths stretch, they lose energy...so where is the energy going? Is it contributing the the universe expansion in some way?

That we are here.

How big would a telescope have to be to obtain the same resolution as Planck?

Another question: How will a CNB detector acquire large quantities of Tritium? It's a very rare thing. And when it is collected in a tank (e.g. in tritiated water), wouldn't the radition from the decay of the Tritium swamp any other events in the tank?

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

Tritium half-life is about 12 years. Tritium has been chosen among other target candidates because of its availability, lifetime, high neutrino capture cross section and low Q value (energy released).

@eckligt

Жыл бұрын

@@tonywells6990 12 years is pretty short, and the activity is enough to make those keychains containing Tritium (you've probably seen them) glow visibly in the dark. So I'm still curious how they'll detect any signal in so much noise. Also, the problem of sourcing it in large quantities seems on the surface to be a difficult one. I know from reading about fusion research, which as you may know is mostly focused on Deuterium-Tritium fusion, that the Tritium has to be bred on-site since it's difficult to obtain in bulk. I believe current supplies of Tritium are from Canadian CANDU fission reactors, since they are moderated using heavy water, and thus some Tritium is always created.

@ika5666

Жыл бұрын

use Jupiter's tritium as a detector.

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

@@eckligt The beta decay of tritium has a well understood energy so they can distinguish this from the detection of the much smaller energy non-beta-decay events.

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

From the paper: 'The smoking gun signature of a relic neutrino capture is a peak in the electron spectrum above the β decay endpoint.'

Well then, instead of back in time... at some point in the future big bang neutrino's will have slown down so much they'd be adrift at the same speed as galaxies. Could be interesting. Perhaps slowing them down could make them easier to catch, too.

@fluffysheap

Жыл бұрын

This has already happened. The Milky Way has an escape velocity of 550 km/s, six times the speed of these neutrinos. So they will no longer be traveling in a straight line from wherever they originated, but instead will have a trajectory mostly shaped by gravity. Many will end up orbiting galaxies. It won't make them easier to see, though! Current neutrino detectors can only see high energy neutrinos.

thanks to that squeek, i can no longer hear my baby crying. i would say thank you but the funeral is next week.

Called "Even Bananas" Displays uneven amount of bananas in logo (3) The betrayal sits deep

Do they say that Anti matter behaves like ordinary matter with a negative time component? Maybe the antimatter is still out there but in a 'different time direction'

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

No, the energy from antimatter/matter annihilation added to the energy in radiation sometime in the first fraction of a second.

Would the energy of a CNB neutrino be low enough to be captured in orbit around a galaxy?

@sandramiller7972

Жыл бұрын

Maybe focused or captured by the black hole. F. Miller

1) Why does this video not show in the regular Fermilab video list? 2) Why have you reduced from one Even Banana per month to one every three months?

Being a neutrino means never having to say you're sorry

This is cool, thanks! Was everything degenerate state gas until 370 000 years after spacetime start? Can't neutrinos travel at all in degenerate state gas?

thank you for the presented material! to be honest, I don't understand why the universe chose this way, first everything turned into matter and antimatter, then to annihilate and the small part left to form the remains of everything that was. why this complicated path.

@0neIntangible

Жыл бұрын

Maybe binary logic... zeros & ones.

@justinpyle3415

Жыл бұрын

Its the principle of least action at work

Quite extraordinary. Now are these first-generation neutrinos slow enough today to elicit a phenomenon analogous to photons' Cherenkov radiation at a neutron star's heart?

Okay, so neutrinos had headstart over photons. But they got terribly slowed down since then. How did they already got here? They had to cross the same distance as photons but very slowly. I definitely miss something.

@HitoPrl

Жыл бұрын

I'm no physicist, but this is what I think: the big bang happened everywhere, not somewhere far away. Even here too. The photons we see in the CMB are from a region that was 370000 years old when said photons were released. Likewise, the CNB neutrinos would be from a region of space that was 1 second old when those neutrinos were released but, since neutrinos travel slower than light, that region is not at the same distance as the CMB. I don't know how to make the calculations, but I guess that region could be even closer than the CMB even though it was emitted earlier.

@TheMCCraftingTable

Жыл бұрын

They'll be here since the beginning already, since the Big Bang occured everywhere at once. There are excellent videos that explain this better than I ever will but basically the isotropic nature of CMB (It looks the same in every direction) proves that the Big Bang occured everywhere at once. But who knows, maybe the CNB is anisotropic, maybe it isn't.

@justinpyle3415

Жыл бұрын

There was litterally less space at that point in time, and thus all points in space were relatively closer together. The emission of a nutrino at an earlier date means it was closer to where a future observer would eventually see it.

@Sabonius1

Жыл бұрын

@@HitoPrl yeah, the notion of Big Bang happening not somewhere far, but everywhere evaded me I guess.

@nagualdesign

Жыл бұрын

@@HitoPrl Spot on.

Couple of questions: 1. How do you know that these neutrinos would be non-relativistic? That seems to imply that we have a lower bound estimate on neutrino rest mass. 2. Do you consider these relic neutrinos as a plausible dark matter candidate? It astounds me that you even have ideas on how to detect rarely occurring nuclear interactions with particles in the μeV range. Y'all clever.

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

Fantastic questions! 1. We can calculate the speed of a neutrino from its estimated energy, as well as the loss that occurs over the course of billions of years. We explain that in a bit more detail in this video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/apujzpZvgJXdoaQ.html 2. This question about whether dark matter is just the CNB is one we love to ponder, and we discussed it in more detail in this video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKKJsbRqoJmfk7w.html

Because, after all, fizzix... ... ... ..., *nod* ... ... ..., *nod* ... ..., ...is everything. 😎

Can you make a different twin paradox example using A, B, and C experiencing different gravity? Maybe all three are stationary to all observers. Then a black hole moves through the single frame of reference, with A, B, and C at different distances from the black hole. The gravity of the black hole attracts the three observers A, B, and C. Normally this would make the observers closest to the black hole appear to move faster, relative to a fourth observer. But remember in this example all three appear stationary to all observers. So for example, if A is closest to the black hole, A must accelerate away from the black just enough to have no apparent motion relative to itself or any other observers. The same for B and C, although they will require less acceleration to appear stationary because they are farther away from the black hole. After the black hole passes, all observers agree to have observed no motion. However, observer A will have experienced less time than B and C.

when i think about the big bang i think about a tv show. as to the universe, be only know it was big, but a bang? we have no idea.

❤️❤️❤️

I simply can’t watch the video. What I hear on my right headset and on my left headset are out of sync and it’s making my head hurt

Very interesting stuff, this Doctor Duffy. I hope you get to make that measurement in the future. I think the most fascinatinf thinf with these neutrinos is that we know so little of this early era, they have so much potential for future knowledge. Keep up the good work.

It used to be that gravitational waves could not be detected. Go for the CNB! I hope to see some substantial progress in my lifetime.

Awesome content!! Also, I'm 100% confident you are the voice of Peppa Pig's mother.

👍

Where did the energy of the particles go when space went through inflation and expansion?

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

It is spread out through spacetime. Energy is conserved, but not necessarily in an expanding universe.

So regardless of the cause (acceleration) time slows down in a gravitational well. Gravity is everywhere except between gravitational wells. In deep outer space it is between gravitational wells so there is no acceleration to slow down time. That means time goes by very fast where there is no acceleration. 🙂 Instead of invoking dark matter and dark energy, do some thought experiments in general relativity and you will understand that rate of time and the measure of distance are relative to the amount of matter and mass there is in the vicinity. The speed of light literally depends on these two variables of time and distance. As you observe a galaxy you are actually seeing differing rates of time and differing measures of distance. The result is that you are seeing differing speeds of light (because of the rate of the passing of time and measures of distance) relative to where we are since the measures of time and distance are both dependent on the amount of matter and gravity there is in the vicinity. (The speed of light isn’t actually changing, the measures of time and distance are changing *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over GREAT distances.)* The result is that distance is greatly expanded (not expanding) where there is no matter between us and distant galaxies (causing redshift) eliminating the need for dark energy and the movement of the outer spiral arms of galaxies is at a faster rate of time causing them to move faster as we observe them eliminating the need for dark matter. This also means that plasma jets shooting out from the center of galaxies isn’t seven times the speed of light. It’s that the distance is expanded and the rate of time is faster the less matter there is in the vicinity. There is no such thing as a nonsensical infinitely expanding universe or an imaginary inflaton and there is no such thing as imaginary invisible dark matter. Distance is *merely* greatly expanded between the black holes in galaxies (causing the redshift) so the universe is not infinitely expanding as is claimed. An infinitely expanding universe is nonsensical. Not only is distance greatly expanded where there is no matter between galaxies, time runs at a much faster rate where there is no matter. Distances within the galaxies are vast so when we observe another galaxy, we are literally observing differing rates of time and differing measures of distance still within the limits of other galaxies, not to mention the *extreme* distances *between* galaxies where there is no matter to dilate time and distance. That means the distances between the galaxies are greatly expanded, (not expanding) and time between the galaxies is running at a much faster rate *which allows for us to see fully formed distant galaxies in the first place.*

@phunkydroid

Жыл бұрын

I encourage you to do the math on how much gravitational time dilation there is in various places in the universe before you say it's "much faster" between galaxies. The difference is insignificant anywhere other than very close to very dense objects.

I am so confused by the Big Bang and expanding universe. What about conservation of momentum? Does neutrino (and photon) momentum just leak away? If it happens to neutrinos, why doesn't it happen to protons?

@riderpaul

Жыл бұрын

Photons do redshift, but they can't slow down since c is a property of the electromagnetic waves they are made of. I can one guess at your main question, but one thought is that the road they traveled expanded while they were on it. Did that extra distance take energy? One analogy could be: imagine driving down a road while it is being stretched. Now your front and back wheels would be spinning at slightly different rates. I could see how that could eat up some momentum as well as some energy.

@Demobius

Жыл бұрын

@@riderpaul The momentum of a photon depends on the frequency. Lower frequency = lower momentum. Where did it go?

@riderpaul

Жыл бұрын

@@Demobius I believe it is related to the Doppler effect. The photons we are seeing now are from a source that is moving away from us. It's very counter intuitive to think of a source that was only a few hundred thousand light-years old but its photons have traveled over 13 billion light years to reach us.

What blows my mind is this: the further back you look, the smaller the universe was...

This video answered questions that have plagued me for years! Thank you!

@ika5666

Жыл бұрын

decades here.

That they came into existence before anything else.

Why low energy Nuetrinos formed before high energy photons ?

@eckligt

Жыл бұрын

There were photons before the CMB radiation we can measure today was emitted, but the universe was opaque and therefore they would not have been able to travel very far. The CMD is the light from the instant when the universe became transparent to light, when the fog lifted (so to speak). Neutrinos in the CNB are from earlier, because the universe was transparent to neutrinos much earlier than it was transparent to photons.

If they arent fast enough to detect, then try moving faster? Maybe accelerating a particle or detectpr near the speed of light?

The experiment detection of CNB is groundbreaking, As non-relativistic neutrinos can prove to be dark matter.

Any comment on massive number of undetectable low energy neutrinos contributing to dark matter?

Neutrinos are believed to not interact with light. However, neutrinos have mass, thus should bend space time and enable us to see light changing its path in vicinity of neutrinos. Is this the right conclusion?

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

It would be extraordinarily difficult to detect the bending of light through a flux of neutrinos.

@dinnoel3147

Жыл бұрын

@@tonywells6990 there should be quite some neutrinos just outside of a given star. Perhaps “neutrino” is the culprit of the observable light bending (above what would be explained by Newtonian gravity)

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

@@dinnoel3147 What I meant was that neutrinos would make up such an insignificant amount of mass/energy density and therefore bending that it would be undetectable.

@dinnoel3147

Жыл бұрын

@@tonywells6990 got it. Any clue what’s the density of neutrinos right “outside” of a given star?

@tonywells6990

Жыл бұрын

@@dinnoel3147 There would be something like 10^19 neutrinos per cubic metre at the Sun's surface. Each solar neutrino has an energy of a few mega electron volts so the mass equivalence per cubic metre at the Sun's surface is on the order of less than a microgramme.