Sabine has always been a little bit on the fringe of physics (e.g. Superdeterminism has had a, let's call it, less than mainstream appeal)
But now every other video is some complete crackpot nonsense being given consideration for 5 minutes and, hastily debunked in the last minute, and with a title like Could This New Theory of Everything Solve Consciousness and Dark Energy?
Sabine's Youtube is a very different type of content than the old BackReaction days.
So, yes, it is hot. But it also very, very sparse. According to Wikipidia 10^5 to 10^7 K[1]. But there isn't very much of it.
As to why they are hot, from what I've been able to find, it is at least partly due to gravitational potential energy being converted to thermal energy, as it falls into filaments.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm%E2%80%93hot_intergalactic...
In this case, the paper don't call it "hot" but it says that 99.99% of the Hydrogen is ionized.
To ionize one Hydrogen you need 13.6eV. The average energy is temperature*k_Boltzmann. So if the temperature is 13.6eV/k_Boltzmann ~= 160000K then the 50% of the Hydrogen is ionized and 50% not ionized.
To get only 0.01% not ionized you need to increase the temperature, IIRC -log(0.01%)~=9 times.
So the temperature is ~1400000K. Unless I'm making an horrible stupid mistake, I agree it's hot.
(I may be missing the 4.7eV of the dissociation of H2 molecules into two H atoms, that would increase the temperature like a 40%.)
As I understand it: when astronomers are looking at things a very long distance (measured in lightyears) away, they are looking at how things were that number of millions/billion(s) years ago.
Based on my possible misunderstanding, shouldn't any such claims be made on the basis of how things were and with no indication as to how things may have changed since?
How do you measure the speed of a radio signal going away from you?
[1] https://www.astronomy.com/science/half-the-matter-in-the-cos...
umeshunni•7mo ago
dhosek•7mo ago