Sixty Symbols - 2023-06-01
Professor Mike Merrifield on a new paper about Red Galaxies - and why that may cause a rethink about galaxy formation. More links and info below ↓ ↓ ↓ The paper in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05786-2 And on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.12446 Professor Merrifield is an astronomer at The University of Nottingham: http://bit.ly/NottsPhysics Mike Merrifield Playlist: http://bit.ly/Merrifield_Playlist Mike on Twitter: https://twitter.com/astromikemerri Visit our website at http://www.sixtysymbols.com/ We're on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/sixtysymbols And Twitter at http://twitter.com/sixtysymbols This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham http://bit.ly/NottsPhysics Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/sixtysymbols Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran http://www.bradyharanblog.com Editing by James Hennessy Email list: http://eepurl.com/YdjL9
It feels so weird to have grown up watching Sixty Symbols as a kid and then as a grad student wind up being part of a work that gets covered here 😅
I think that's great!
ᕙ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ᕗ
wow congrats!
Is this show that old?
@@evionlast The first videos on this channel came out 14 years ago, so definitely possible for a grad student to have watched as a kid..
2:53 - Whoever does those animations really needs to be told that redshift (of something that starts out blue) doesn't go through purple. It's (at least) the second time they make something go blue -> magenta-> red, which is the opposite of the way redshift works. It would go blue -> green -> yellow -> red (progressively increasing wavelengths / decreasing frequencies).
In fact, magenta isn't a wavelength at all, it's just the way our brain interprets a mix of frequencies at the low and high end of our visible visible spectrum (i.e., red and blue/violet), in the absence of mid-range frequencies (i.e., yellow / green). If you're doing a colour shift to illustrate some physical property and going through magenta, you're doing something wrong.
I knew I wasn't the only one to notice that!
Yeah, they need to interpolate the transition in counterclockwise HSV space rather than RGB space.
Yeah, what the heck? That's basic ROYGBIV-level stuff.
@@DrMackSplackem - I suspect whever did the animation just through "redshift" meant "add some red".
@@RFC-3514 LOL. I agree, that's most likely what they/them did.
While the explanation was enlightening, I loved the last part the most, starting at 11:04.
Something could be wrong. And then see the excitement and humbleness of the scientist delving in how his/our understanding might be wrong, closing in his preference to study nearby galaxies because they look nice. This gave the video a wholesome human touch.
only 12 minutes ?? i can watch Mike for hours !
Really appreciate Dr. Merrifield's clear explanations of this stuff. Can't wait for more JWST data and more explanations. We'll be wrong about more stuff, and I am here for it! :)
This is probably the best science talk I remember. Clear, concise, engaging, ACCURATE. Bravo, professore!
I gotta say as someone who considers switching to science journalism Brady is one of the biggest inspirations I have had for a long time. It's always excellent especially in a field where there a so many people doing it badly. If you read this thank you!
Professor Merrifield constructs such a beautiful narrative in terms of explaining the paper. He doesn't even reach the crux of the paper till more than midway in the video, providing a solid understanding and context, building it up till he explains the paper itself.
Masterfully done
Wow, this video is an amazing explanation. I saw another video about lyman-alpha breaks (going over similar observations from JWST) and I sort of got it, but this gives a really great explanation of how it occurs and what the double break means. Thanks!
Agreed! This is by far the best explanation I've ever seen. He explained the lyman-alpha break in a great set of steps. 1. all energies above a certain level will ionize the atom, absorbing all of the radiation. 2. the spectrum will have a drop, a cliff, as you move to the left, at the point where all of the radiation starts being absorbed. 3. because the spectrum's y-axis is the intensity of the radiation. 4. (exercise for the viewer) and because the spectrum's x-axis is wavelength, which is inversely proportional to energy. The shorter wavelengths as you go left are higher energies. I could do that step 4 on my own because I finally understood 1, 2, and 3. Awesome!
It's good to see a fresh Sixty Symbols on the channel. Thank you! 👍🏼
It's actually cool when science and discovery throws you for a loop and is not exactly what you expected
I think that's what makes science so exciting! 🎉
Very likely the best explanation about these distant mysterious galaxies I’ve heard so far on any of the astronomy/physics YouTube channels I subscribe to! Well done!!!!
Oh my gosh I’ve never seen ionisation described with an energy level diagram like that - that’s amazing!
As well as the Lyman and Balmer, if you spot the Amen Break in your spectra then you can confidently date the galaxy's formation to no earlier than 1969.
I hope this comment gets the appreciation it deserves.
@@renerpho Oh, brother...
And then you've also got the Ballmer peak.
I love that I understood the reference
Thanks I can never get amenbreaks out of my head-
Mike Merrifield is just awesome at explaining the most intricate theories. Thank you so much.
It's incredible how much can be resolved from so little signal - a few pictures in different wavelengths and a few very clever people with the right tools can break the current understanding of galaxy formation. Remarkable.
And THIS is how you explain things!
Sure it raised a lot of questions in the end, but that's just a good thing.
Thank you so much!
What a Beautiful explanation!
If I had to keep watching one youtube channel for rest of my life, it would be this channel. Absolutely loved this video!
Mike Merrifield is the platonic ideal form of a science educator.
They say his brain is a perfect sphere
@@DrKaii smooth brain best brain
Of unit radius.
false.
Magnificent video! Thanks for keeping it current and not dumbing things down too much. Would love to know more about the limit of how far back we can measure objects VS time of Big Bang.
The limit will be 41 billion lightyears. The observable universe. These galaxies are about 30 billion light years away
What I like most is how Prof. Merrifield gets most excited when Brady asks him what could potentially be wrong with his own work at about 11:03. That is a sort of concentrated form of the spirit of inquiry as seen through facial expression and gesture.
Thank you. I needed all of this reasoning part of the argument.
Thank you for this.
Amazing video. I hope to see an update about this paper in the future :)
Things like this are often dumbed down or badly explained but this video (and channel) is excellent.
Crazy nice explanation
Thanks
Thank you for explaining the double break. Seems intuitive in hindsight.
Best explanation of why ionized gas is opaque I've ever heard and the video just got started!
Brilliant. Clear crisp and entertaining !!
I love sixty symbols so much
Great video, thanks!
Didn't those early stars tend to be more massive? Could that mean that the 200 million years for the big stars to explode number could be wrong for the earliest galaxies? Or do we always get a certain number of stars that need 200 million years to explode?
Is it right to say that the closer the light spectrum to the (lyman, balmer, ...) breaks, the easier it its to identify the object and how far it is?
Superbly explained! Thank you!
Great explanation of "the problem" that even a knuckle dragger like me could somewhat understand.
This is the best explanation of the wavelength breaks I’ve ever heard. I feel like I finally understand 😅
Fantastic video!
best channel on yt. thanks fellas
From what i understand, the longer the wavelength the harder it is to resolve fine details. Does it mean we get less "features"/information when looking at extremely far objects?
It's correct that the same aperture of a telescope will provide less resolution at longer wavelengths.
This is really interesting, but as a layperson, I gotta say my immediate concern would be...we have Red Shift, AND we have the contention that these galaxies are red as a separate feature? That's SO much red! How do we know which red is which???
Mike Merrifield is my favorite Professor
I mean, it would be pretty boring if JWST just confirmed our existing theories.
I'm having a hard time with this: You say you have dips in the spectrum because some wavelength are absorbed by the specific energy levels... But you also say that anything below the maximum energy level tends to be absorbed which results in a big dip in the lower end the spectrum... But is that before the dips mentioned earlier if those dips are from energy levels that are part of the range that causes the big dip?
The graph used had wavelength as the x-axis. So it went from high energy levels on the left to lower on the right, which made the dip appear at higher energy.
The graph you're looking at is actually in the positive direction for wavelength, but the negative direction for energy.
Look at the equation for a photon's energy, E = hf, and then look at the equation for the photon's speed, c = fλ. If you do enough jigging about, you get λ = ch/E. Or in other words, as the energy goes up, the wavelength goes down, and vice versa. So you're right, all the energy is absorbed the higher you go, which is further to the left on the diagram.
I wish I could give this 100 likes. Very well done!
The JWST finding galaxies so close to when the Big Bang is supposed to have occurred is like taking someone to an island that is supposed to of never had human habitation and when you get there you find a shopping mall.
I have a question... maybe I don't know enough about science in general, but what are the units of time considered when studying this, I always get confused about the mindset applied when understanding these subjects, is it the time applied only for light speed? Or is it about factoring OUR time unit into analyzing this? (I'm sorry if I sound dumb... u.u)
". . . they are not really very exciting, are they?"
"ngaaa" 😂
@12:00
Everything you said about stars doesn’t distract me from the fact that you are wearing 2 watches??????? Why????
@jeroenvandorp - 2023-06-01
It is possible to explain difficult science in a correct, non-spectacular, non-oversimplified, not-pr-like yet interesting way to everyone interested in the subject. My compliments for every video so far.
@ro_yo_mi - 2023-06-01
Agreed... Everyone in Brady's Bunch all do a fantastic job of explaining their field so well.
@Q_QQ_Q - 2023-06-01
press releases are PR . you need to read offical papers to know the thing .
@DrKaii - 2023-06-02
@@Q_QQ_Q press release is also PR 🤯
@ArawnOfAnnwn - 2023-06-02
@@Q_QQ_Q Official papers are not written for the general public, and are typically quite hard to understand.
@nickvanamstel - 2023-06-02
All of the contributors are great, but I really like Professor Merrifields ability to break down these truly complex facts.