Hi Andrew, it’s Gianni here from our PhD days. Just massive congratulations on your videos, I’m happy you stayed in contact with all this fascinating stuff. I’m watching all of them and steal some ideas and explanations here and there for my students, hope you don’t mind. Hope all is well, best.
Hey Gianni! It is so good to hear from you :-) Thank you for your very kind words, they mean a lot. Seeing your message brought a massive smile to my face and transported me back in time - we had some wonderful conversations. Are you still in Argentina? Would love to catch up
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos I got a permanent position in Santiago, Chile, where I’ve been living with my wife, a dog and 3 cats for 7 years now. How about a zoom call one of these days? I speak of you often with my wife, just a fantastic, incredibly bright and interesting human being. Some real happy memories of you in a tough moment of my life. Would love a chat again.
He will be flattered your sharing his ideas.your students also benefit.As long as it’s not plagiarism the point of ideas is to share. Hope all is well.
It's Andrew? I could have sworn you were Brian Cox! You sound just like him and explain things just as well. Best physics videos on RU-vid! I watch and rewatch them all.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos I think it would be nice if you emphasized why the background microwave can be detected in any direction -- of course, the reason is that the point where we were was INSIDE the universe then and we are still inside the universe now, but this explanation could be hard for most viewers to figure out by themselves.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos Um, forgive me this naively stupid question but I rly don't know who to ask about it. So if one does learn about Rindler horizons and Unruh radiation one may come up with the probably stupid question that how their effects (if they are present at all) are seperated from the CMB ? Let me explain a bit, and you correct me where I went wrong, so our reference frame can be thought as an accelerating one relative to certain distant parts of the universe due to the expansion. If that is true then this would mean that from our point of view the empty space in those regions would have black body radiation which should look like smooth thermal equilibrium. Now the question is that could this be really similar to the CMB itself ? I mean ofc the CMB has tiny temperature fluctuations, but is it possible that the Unruh effect modfies somehow the data ?
As a retired EE (30+ years of RF/MW engineering, in both military and commercial electronics arenas) I've found your physics videos to be very delightful to watch. I've covered a lot of material over the decades and appreciate your illustrative depth of the derivations and meticulous treatment of the physics principles. This is technical pleasure-reading at its best. I particularly enjoyed your eight-part series on the maths of general relativity, the Bohr model of the atom, and of course this microwave background study. I very much look forward to seeing more.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideosMany articles say that the microwave radiation distribution corresponds to ~3K temperature because universe expansion has caused the temperature to “cool down” from 3000K at the recombination time. I think “cool down” is very misleading, 3K is not actual temperature, it is the apparent temperature due to Doppler shift effect. 3K implied by the microwave radiation distribution we detect today actually corresponds to the 3000K universe temperature 14 billion years ago. Can you kindly confirm this? Thanks
Your videos are exactly what I need as I prepare to make the transition from being a lifelong chemistry and physics teacher to a second career as an actual physicist. I watch once all the way through for conceptual flow, then again stopping them until I can do the maths shown at each step. The single fastest improvement in my rigorous understanding.
Another masterpiece. What I love about your videos is that anyone with A level maths can follow the working. For me though, this will require a second viewing. Thanks man.
Brilliant work. I will add that as a child I lived in New Jersey within a bike ride of the Penzias/Wilson antenna and I rode past it many times. I had no clue what it was, and neither did my parents. It was only much later when I got into university that I learned what it was, and how Penzias won the Nobel Prize using it. Penzias gave the speech at my graduation and I was a rabid physics fan, so it was an experience I will always remember.
i forget if ive commented before, but just want to give a little encouragement along with the rest of the commenters here. I'm reading up on JWST and am trying to grasp the general consensus about the LCDM model and obviously the CMB is a huge part of what any model of the universe must fit into. So I just want to say thanks for making such articulate and precise explanations in easily digestible video form. (your graphics are amazing too btw) Your channel is one of the few that find a great balance between understandable-but-too-simple and accurate-but-too-complex-to-follow. I walk away feeling like Ive understood a majority of the maths and (equally importantly) the history of how theorists arrived at our current understanding. Too many popular explanations of the CMB in particular fail to explain blackbody radiation, Dicke and Peeble's prediction of the recombination epic, and useful historical tid-bits like that Penzias and Wilson were originally looking for 21-cm lines and even pointed their telescope at Andromeda to rule out Milky Way origins for the unexpected microwaves. Sorry for the ramble. No need to respond, just keep up the great work. This channel will undoubtedly be used in the classroom for generations to come. It's just way too insightful not to. (I can only hope you get compensated appropriately for your excellent work).
Really appreciate your in depth understanding of the subject you are presenting and doubly appreciate the meticulous nature of your explanation. Great work. Keep it up.
I met Penzias shortly after he and Wilson had been awarded the Nobel Prize; for some reason he gave a lecture at a Unitarian Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to an audience of about 30 people. I felt so bad for him- he was led to believe that they were interested in Cosmology. In fact, they were using him as a status symbol in a rivalry between two Unitarian "ministers" engaged in "one-upsmanship". When he took questions after the talk it became quite apparent that the audience was trying to use leading questions to put words in his mouth and he got pretty indignant. As the meeting broke up I tried to offer some condolences about how they had used him, but he was pretty terse and got out of there as fast as he could. I couldn't blame him. I myself, though an electronic technician doing avionics but with an interest in physics, had not been aware of this topic in cosmology and attended on a whim; if I had been up to speed on the subject I'd have asked a real question of two. As it was, I'm sure he left with a very bad taste in his mouth regarding the level of intellect in Oklahoma.
You just have to continue to produce these videos. I have never really come across physics videos that I can listen to for more than ten minutes. Your work is great and it's so great that I had to come out and actually comment on a RU-vid video which I don't do much at all. I am here to encourage you to continue producing these great works, I am hungry for this stuff and I am far from being satiated.
You are to be commended for NOT making it so simple that the message is not presented. This video would have been so helpful during undergraduate days, about the time Wilson, Penzias & Pebbles were doing their work. Yes, I am old. Along with your Vacuum Catastrophe Video this is the best I have ever seen on these topics. Your work is very important; I thank you for your energy.
Former physics undergrad here, have been out of school for some years now. This content is incredible. Makes me feel like I'm able to apply myself to thinking about this stuff again. Really hope you keep making videos
same here, after finishing my Bsc in physics, i went to work in the software industry, and these videos just make me remember how much I love physics, I can only imagine the feelings of those scientists when doing the calculations and unveiling the secrets of the past of our universe, must be the best feeling of their life.
Beautiful video. Thank you. I find myself struggling at times with transitions you make and having to pause, rewind and listen many times... Even with such great videos, this is no easy stuff!
Thanks for the comment and feedback. You are right, there is a lot of content squeezed into a short amount of time, so I think it makes sense to pause and process all the information. Good effort!
Awe-inspiring, as usual. You assemble the pieces of the story without getting bogged down in the details but disclose the details in boxed digressions. It was good to see how this video built on your video about the ultraviolet catastrophe. Also as usual, you've given me a few days worth of homework. Thank you and please keep up the good work.
Hi Andrew, I'm a stem cell biologist watching your videos for... fun. They are so good. I'm writing a lecture series and I'm so impressed with your style that I'm going to use some of it in my own delivery. Thank you
I'm very much your average Joe who works a normal job and has a GED but I've come to realize in these last couple years I always seem to enjoying watching videos regarding science or reading about the history of math. I even enjoy videos like these when it's so far out of my pay grade but I still feel like it can teach me so much even from a conceptual standpoint. It helps me feel like I have a slightly better grasp of something that's still very foggy to me. Hopefully I will be able to understand this from a purely mathematical view someday too.
Fantastic videos. Historical background, physical explanations (really good and insightful), some mathematical formulas to show how works the numbers, and great presentations with graphics and so on. Thanks for this, keep working on it, great material.
Very nice and informative video. Arno Penzias was quite the character. He probably still is, at age 87. About 25 years ago I worked for a startup company of which Arno was one of the chief instigators. One day my boss and I were talking and he allowed as to how sometimes, when investors, etc., were giving them problems, they had to "wield Arno." The two of us decided that Arno was a +5 Nobel Laureate of Influence.
Saw the video 4 days ago. Knew it would be awesome, so saved it for a quiet night, and enjoyed every single atom of it. Keeps getting better and better...
I did my PhD in physical/quantum chemistry and im eternally grateful for your videos. They effectively clear up all the missing links in my knowledge. Incredible work!
my person deep down has an agonizing interest in answering questions i have for this universe. i have yet to fully understand the contents of this video but i will come back when im learned and do understand. thank you for your content
Got 0 (out of 15) points in circular motions & harmonic oscillators and 1 (out of 15) points in mechanical waves - why am I watching this? Im literally incapeable of understanding physics lol. Still enjoy your videos a lot. Your voice is so comforting.
Already in the very beginning of the video is probably the best explanation of the 21cm hydrogen emission on RU-vid. I'm not knocking other channels but most just say its a wavelength at which hydrogen emits a photon without this deeper understanding. It was very well explained in this video.
Yet another wonderful explanation of formation in such a lucid way. It makes my day when I watch your videos. It is comforting to know that universe works on a basic laws of physics, yet it looks very complicated when looked at it with bare eyes. Thank You!
One thing that is almost never mentioned is that the CMB irregularities are extremely small and that lovely multicolor graph is a very exaggerated representation of the real thing
Another excellent programme. One of my favourite things about the history of Planck's radiation law is that Wien had found this relationship empirically in 1896, 4 years before Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe. Then, as you show, Wien's law just falls right out of Planck's work.
For a visible light telescope, its easy to cancel out the noise of the electronics. You just need take an exposure with the camera shutter still closed. The resultant image is pure electronics noise (along with the occasional cosmic ray strike). I'm not a microwave or radio astronomer so I don't know if the procedure is as easy.
Excellent video and I appreciate you taking the time to explain things simply vice making it so complex that you can't follow along. I will be using this when tutoring my young students.
Simply wonderful. I cringe when I think how much effort and planning must go into one of these videos so offer my most sincere thanks for your efforts to educate people with an interest in physics. Saying that; more please!!
Can I ask what is your professional background? You have such a good grasp on topics like these. I wish I received the same process of thinking from uni professors. I keep rewatching some of your videos because I always seem to gain a new perspective on how intimate our world really is. From the cosmos down to the atom, these series beautifully compliment one another. Man what a great time to learn physics.
Thanks for your comment, much appreciated. In terms of my background, I completed a PhD in theoretical physics (focusing on String Theory), and have been teaching physics for the past ten years.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos that is awesome, 10 years?! Can I also ask why did you started a RU-vid series? Your videos have a lot personality to them. They give me vibes that you are really approachable to ask questions about physics.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos That teaching background really shows and shines, yet it's importance is often underestimated. The didactic punch really is what produces the prerequisite number and quality in the next generation of science, for someone within it to "stand on the shoulder of giants".
Thanks for the feedback! I am glad you were able to follow along - I try to make the videos so that you can follow the main thread even without following all of the mathematical details
You do such a great job with these videos. I feel like you fill a great niche between introductory, overview videos and complete month-long courses! Keep up the amazing work!
Thank you for this superb video! I was wondering whether you have been planning a video on thermodynamics in the future, e.g. statistical thermodynamics explaining Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution, Boltzmann entropy and the origins of Boltzmann constant, and equipartition theorem. In any case, I’m looking forward to watching your next video!
I apologize for not being earlier, but RU-vid somehow unsubscribed me - something that happens couple times a year on various channels. And now I'm going to watch this amazing video. BTW, do you take requests on Video Topics? Obviously you have your own things planned, so it wouldn't be immediate, but for example doing video on requested topic within a year?
This is the best full explanation I have seen yet, a bit over my head but I get it enough that I now comprehend this perhaps biggest discover in studies on the origins of Our existence, thank you good sir for taking the time to do this,..
Thank you man! Usually I don't comment without any Input, but your videos are so high in quality, that i feel obliged to feed the algorithm with my comment and help getting you a bigger audience! Great stuff!
Thanks for another great video. Really loving the long format and the way the calculations are provided. I've watched it a couple of times and am really confused on one point. I'm looking at the Stefan-Boltzmann law at the 21:00 mark. When I work out the dimensions it does indeed come out to units of energy per metre cubed, as subsequently used in the video. But in astronomy we regularly use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to compute the total luminous power of a star. The Stefan-Boltzmann law supposedly gives dimensions of power per square metre, and we multiply up by the surface area of the star to get total power. When I look at the law as given in Wikipedia and elsewhere, there is an extra factor of _c_ included. This would explain the different dimensions as energy per metre cubed multiplied by a speed would give power per square metre. But whence these two different formulations? Then when I look back to the version of the Planck Law from which the Stefan-Boltzmann law is integrated, at 16:45 in the video I see that this is also missing the extra factor of _c_ given in other sources. Alright, so it seems there is a version of Planck's Law used here that gives an energy density per unit wavelength instead of the spectral irradiance (power per unit area per unit wavelength) used elsewhere. I'm wondering how to physically understand this? I'm thinking back to the Ultraviolet Catastrophe video and the calculations based on a black box cavity. I'm right in thinking the actual black body in those examples is the hole in one face of the box, rather than the box itself? So the energy density could refer to the "photon gas" (i.e. Planck's quantised version of the Rayleigh-Jeans modes) inside the cavity, while the spectral irradiance would be the power emitted from the hole? Clutching at straws here. Even if my speculation is right, I am then further confused by the video at 24:25 where we calculate the number density of photons. Whatever about freely propagating radiation in a black box cavity, intuition fails me when we are talking about a plasma. Surely photon number does not have to be conserved in scattering interactions in the plasma? So how does it make sense to talk about a photon number density? Is there some sort of statistical conservation principle at work? _(EDIT:_ on reflection, that's a stupid question: of _course_ there are statistically conserved properties, otherwise neither the Planck law nor the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution would work. The bulk properties of systems in thermal equilibrium are _all about_ statistics. Nevertheless, Maxwell-Boltzmann was all about indestructible atoms, whereas the concept of a conserved number of transient photons boggles my mind. But perhaps no more than energy conservation in general, which seems to require some sort of unseen backroom accounting in Nature's ledger book). Anyway, I've studied some physics before and these questions never arose, so I'm really loving how this video makes me question what I thought I'd understood.
Why, in all these videos of "Physics Explained", the narrator's name/background is never revealed? Amazing work! I'm sure every viewer who enjoyed these videos would like to know more about the author(s) and narrator(s).
