What is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? And what does it mean?

Thankful when background noise is not heard myself

It is out there but their guess why is wrong.

What if we are in a Blackhole/Counterspacial Sink? We could be imploding into Nothing. Like, fractals from the Mandelbrot set?

I’m so lost during all those calculations all I can do is laugh

What about the axis of Evil?

When you described elections dropping wavelengths and releasing protons in the process, was that wholly accurate? Or are there some glossed-over ideas being avoided for ease of explanation? I only ask because the way you described it made it click instantly for me, bravo. I understood immediately as you explained it, whereas others' explanations have always fallen short of epiphany.

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.

Very well explained compliments

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

Wooooooooow

What if we are now in a universe with shrinking atoms and the red shift is caused by larger atoms, which have a temperature of 2 degrees Kelvin and are not moving away from us at almost the speed of light.
Wat als we nu in een heelal zitten met krimpende atomen en de roodverschuiving word veroorzaakt door grotere atomen, die een temperatuur hebben van 2 graden Kelvin en zich niet met bijna de lichtsnelheid van ons verwijderen.

❤️❤️❤️

Amazing! Thank you very much.

So the CMB is based on the same theory/technology greenhouse theory is defined by. The same technology and (blackbody) curve that was refuted by the quantum revolution.

Too much unnecessary details which clouts the real concept

Thank you for your videos..They are the clearest I have ever seen .. if I may say , your sentences are beautiful

You can only measure what hits 5he sensors, it's rubbish to say it comes from the big bang

What of half life of this radiation, why as it not disappeared if its travelling apart..

If its background still travelling apart it's going to be near impossible to pick out from 3very other light source the light hitting the sensor could come from any source.

Why is it travelling. What's pushing it why can you not hold it in place.

Or is it bullshit..

Amazing video :)

And the gold medal for mental gymnastics in physics to try and prove a flawed theory goes to...

I disagree that red shifted light proves the universe is expanding. It does prove that that red shifted light had to travel a great distance in order for its wavelength to increase. Or that particular source of light is moving away from us while another is moving towards us. This theory of red shifted light proving an expanding universe is still just a theory.

More BellLabs plagiarism and idiocy. JWST just revealed a definite lack of a biggangbang. Background is low energy space dust fluorescence
And the 'red shift' effect is quantized, implying it results from electrodynamic interactions

Straight up in my top three physics channels for accessibility and making complex topics available for under grads, thanks!

The theory of big bang is a typical example of human ignorance and blind application of human-invented concepts of mathematics, which obviously has numerous flaws and defective holes due to human limited knowledge and stubborn subjectivity. To make it simple to understand why it is so, you just take the amount of water on this planet as a similar example of how and why the total mass of the universe is a constant, and a constant can never change to be bigger nor smaller. The total mass of the universe includes the entire space of the universe and all other forms of matter, but it is not that it is only observable forms of matter, while the entire space of the universe is excluded as how many ignorant human scientists have done so. Since the total mass of the universe is a constant, the total energy of the universe is also a constant, and that is why energy can only be transformed from one form of energy into another form of energy with the total constant mass of the universe, and why the universe can never expand nor shrink as the way how ignorant human scientists have claimed. You should know that energy can be generated only when there is a transformation of mass or an interaction between two masses or among masses because energy actually is force generated from mass, and different forms of mass can give different forms of force or energy. Ex, electric energy gives electromotive force to drive electrons around a closed circuit from the negative terminal to the positive terminal of a power source, and transmit positive charge throughout the circuit in the opposite direction; gravitational energy gives pulling force to move masses or objects from larger heights to lower heights in the air, and higher levels to lower levels of the Earth surface. Hence, it can be applied to move, say, cargo carriages or train carrying mined coal or metals in a mountainous area. When the train runs downhill, no mechanical force is needed because the gravitational force already does the work, and while it is running downhill, the rotational motion of the wheels can be transferred to electricity generators through rotational axes. When it runs uphill, the generated electricity thanks to gravitational force can provide electromotive force to push the train uphill, and the cycles of gravitational force and electromotive force keep going to drive the cargo train without causing any environmental pollution; chemical energy is generated when, a mass is transformed, say, petrol is burnt to explode in a combustion chambre of a motored vehicle to change into a pushing force to drive the piston connected to an rotational axis to provide mechanical force to rotate the wheels of the vehicle; food you eat everyday is transformed into chemical compounds or energy needed for your physical body cells to do their biological functions, and their functional operations are obviously also forces in microscopic scales; nuclear energy obviously provides thermal energy which can provide a massive force, and transformed into electromotive force to produce electricity for doing different types of work to serve human purposes as mentioned above. Those are some of the simple basic examples of why energy actually force, but all you guys keep using the ambiguous word "energy", which can certainly make ignorant individuals understand it as something else different from force, and that is the reason why so many ignorant human scientists keep claiming that mass can be obtained from energy by Ein Stein's formula of energy, E = mC^2 , while E here is actually a force which drive mass to move at a certain velocity. it obviously means that you can never ever actually get any sort of mass from energy in reality because it is a force, although technically speaking, you can use the energy formula to estimate an amount of mass needed to generate a type of force-which you guys call as energy- in human-invented concepts of mathematics. For instance, you burn petrol in a combustion chambre to generate a pushing force, or burning rocket fuels to get a thrusting force for a spaceship to escape the Earth's gravitational or downward pulling force. But, you can never ever get any sort of mass back from the generated forces, by such formulas of energy as Ein Stein's nor anyone else's. Therefore, when given a type of energy, which should be correctly understood as a force, you can never get any sort of mass from the energy in any way, while all the masses have been transformed to generate the forces( or energy). In order to estimate the transformed masses released into space in the forms of chemical particles, you will have to come up with another different formula from Ein Stein's to include the invisible transformed masses in the form of polluting particles when the forces or energy are generated from the original masses.
Since the total mass and the corresponding total energy of the universe are both constant, the idea of an expanding universe based on human- invented and defective concepts of mathematics is merely human wild imagination or baseless nonsense.
Science should be logical reasoning totally based on objective and undeniable facts, but not merely on human- invented defective concepts of mathematics.

The Planck data confirms what the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data reveals. The large-scale structures within the universe look to align with Earth's equator and solar system, producing the dome of microwave background radiation, the CMB. And according to cosmologists, one thing is evident: the alignments somehow exist! Moreover, because the data does not fit the Standard Model of Cosmology, scientists dubbed it the Axis of Evil. But instead, I propose these alignments would be the Axis of Beginning.

Hubble thought that red shift was the least probable explanation. Read what he actually wrote.

Interesting discussion of radiation emitted by glowing bodies. I suggest, however, that the CBR is caused by the movement of photons through the aether. Photons escaping from gravitational wells loose energy and display a red shift; photons going past large masses also loose energy and cause an additive red shift to the light. The photon itself moving at "c" through the aether also loses energy due to gravity that the photon creates against the direction of motion. All these are additive and create the red shift we see from all directions. Also, I can not envision light from the "big bang" being going slower than our galaxy and stars; one would expect the light from the "big bang" to have passed us and be out of reach of our observations.

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

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.

So., when they measured it...they switched off the sun?

The cmb is bs. Never been measured. It's a lie. COBE PLANK...ALL BS

white dielectric material !!!🤣🤣🤣🤣
incrediblay informative sir.thank you for your great work.

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).

Figured out the dipole anisotropy and why there's no dark energy on my channel.

White

It's not from big bang. The big bang theory is like the perceiving of Earth is the center of the universe

Some background rattle on your mic. Otherwise yet another stonking broadcast, thanks.

According to my theory and my formulas, Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation sources are still active and the age of the universe is unknown ( infinite).

Is there anyway of getting 0.08 nanometre photon data for the ultra-weak electromagnetic radiation of the entire universe??? I think we are all going to be in for an amazing surprise everyone...

this is an amazing resource

I have a headache.

The CMB picture shows an oblate sphere opened out. So locally it’s flat but on the big scale it’s equal in every direction strongly suggesting a sphere. Yet the cosmic web does not seem spherical,flat or of any particular shape, why this discrepancy.