Planemos | When is a star actually a planet?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 авг 2024
- People often ask: "how big is the biggest star?" But I reckon the more interesting question is how small are the smallest stars? Because when you get down to the smallest stars, there's a huge grey area between what is a star and what is a planet. Sub-brown dwarfs, planemos, rogue planets - how do we actually tell them apart?
Luham et al. (2004) - confirmation of OTS44: arxiv.org/abs/...
Zapatero Osorio et al. (2002) - the discovery of S Ori 70 - arxiv.org/abs/...
My awesome dinosaur earrings are from this store on Etsy: www.etsy.com/u...
Follow me on Twitter: / drbecky_
And on Instagram: / drbecky_s
---
🔔 Don't forget to subscribe and click the little bell icon to be notified when I post a new video!
----
📚 My book: "Space at the speed of light" is now available in the USA & Canada! Order your copy here: www.penguinran...
📚 For anywhere else in the world you can buy my book here (Space: 10 Things You Should Know - same book, different title) here: bit.ly/SpaceDrB...
---
🔭 Royal Astronomical Society podcast that I’m co-hosting 😱 🥳- podfollow.com/supermassive
---
📹 Dr. Becky also presents videos on Sixty Symbols: / sixtysymbolsand Deep Sky Videos: / deepskyvideos
---
👩🏽💻 Dr Becky Smethurst is an astrophysicist researching galaxies and supermassive black holes at Christ Church at the University of Oxford.
drbecky.uk.com
rebeccasmethur...
Your series should be required viewing in every grade school in the world 'til every little girl understands she doesn't need to give up anything to be a scientist. Black holes+girlish giggles; neutron stars+ killer nails; "cute" planemos + "look at my earrings". This is what girls need to see before the world convinces them it's not feminine to be smart or educated or scientifically literate. Although the other young, female science presenters are very good, you are special. YOU are what they need to see 'till the day comes when it is normal for any little girl to carry a doll in one arm and a science text in the other. We are going to need every single one of you we can find.
Couldn’t agree more with your comments. Dr. Becky is a great role model !
The world does not convince women it's not feminine to be smart or scientifically literate.
Being versed in Astrophysics, the science of parroting information does not directly correlate to being intelligent. The study and knowledge of a subject or subjects......obviously requires some level of intelligence although it's very possible to have such qualifications using commitment and a well exercised memory. The foundation of science is to question everything but let's just force cram space 'facts' on them because we 'Need' equal amounts of women in every field and those that aren't, are not as useful in future society.......we need every one we can get! Mankind is struggling without more women in SCIENCE!
The thing is, there will never be as many women in certain fields, and vice versa. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is not just societal pressures but also a natural tendancy toward gaining certain skills ie to attract a mate. There's nothing wrong with being whatever the heck they want and I don't feel like the world (Well at least western world) has done anything but support women and men to have the option to do anything they want to follow, maybe........just maybe women generally don't see a value in the theoretical science fiction of astrophysics. I'm all for everyone chasing their dreams but forced (equality? - As seen in some workplaces with men/women numbers etc prioritised over actual talent or productiveness) is plain ridiculous and not freedom or liberating anyone of the societal pressures in my opinion.
Plus your whole post is full of stereotyping........dolls......giggling......which is the problem with society not letting women become scientists right?
@@snitchcore8635 Your problem is your ignoring the social pressures like your not feminine if you do a set activity. Women on a steady basis report on the social pressure that causes them to avoid certain things only once we eliminate these social pressures will we be able to tell what if any biological causes are involved.
I agree with you it not helpful to quota improve a work force. But as discrimination did exist and still shows up when you test for it special efforts to train oppressed groups to meet the same standards as white males are still needed. And all jobs must set measurable standards for jobs so that the biased discriminating choice of the boss keeps less qualified white males as perjured.
No the point is stereotyping girls who are into girl stuff can't be brilliant scientists causes many of these girls to avoid science. The original point of Dennis Best is anti stereotyping by people telling girls they can't be girly and into science is the problem to be fought.
With the massive discrimination in the past and lawsuits still frequently finding irrational discrimination against women it is way to soon to be assuming current behavior in females is purely genetically based.
But back on your side of the argument as before refrigeration, when males were expendable and females were not for making a new generation, when females often were taken by other tribes, when females had to have as many children as possible and thus start at puberty whatever age that occurred (12 in ancient world was norm but early developing girls were married younger, with modern life girls hit puberty more at 10) And thus female were always nursing or pregnant it made sense to have them do the work needed in camp and care for young children. So dolls are a primary female instinct and thus the vast majority of doll users will be female, but like any instinct some boys have that instinct and should be allowed to be into it. And a complete matriarchy was formed under the restrictions I just mentioned and this matriarchy still exist today. And many tribes had women warrior who often were as good or better in combat as clearly martial arts development allowed some women to use their physical flexibility and endurance advantages to over come the male advantage in dumb brute violence. After all the best male warriors oftener were not the biggest and strongest male so you can see how women at the top of the female bell curve could beat men for the same reasons the smaller weaker man was beating the stronger bigger men. The need for reproduction though did limit the woman warrior to a small part of the forces. Societies that did not allow women warriors strangely often put aside a similar number of women in chaste things like nuns.
@@RedRocket4000 You lose all credibility when you can't differentiate between your and you're.
@@snitchcore8635 I think the core of the post was "representation matters", and, if you're going to get all pseudo-intellectual and preach about what science is, you may be interested in Googling any of the MANY studies that demonstrate that society does actively and passively discourage girls from entering STEM.
Women have been in STEM since day one, despite being actively discouraged and erased. Without women, we wouldn't have a lot of the knowledge we do now. I mean, equations that are the foundation of physics, for example. Just think of how much better off we'd be if MORE women were encouraged to join STEM (do not combat this with "encourage boys to do STEM, too!" everyone should, but boys are not actively told not to, are not sexually harassed to the point of dropping their career, are not brought to a prestigious conference as presenters only to be followed by some Meninist saying women are too stupid for physics). Science benefits from more perspectives. Without a deaf woman, we wouldn't have sonification.
Or maybe I'll just time-travel back to high-school and thank my vice principal for coming to chemistry class to say "girls don't belong in chemistry". I mean, obviously that wasn't meant to discourage anyone, right? Maybe listen to lived experiences before spouting off.
I think I like your outtakes at the end of your videos the best!
It shows that you can be a brilliant scientist and still have a sense of humor. :)
I LIKE THE WAY SHE BOUNCES WHEN SHE GETS EXCITED, SHOW ONE CAN BE SEXXY AND SMART ..
I think that’s the reason why I addicted to her...
Children are not in my future, but I do dearly hope someone's taking their kids to watch these and talk about them. As part of the discussion, getting girls to see this *could* be them, and they are no less cool for being smart, and getting the boys to see smart women. Same with YT "Physics Girl." I think the outtakes are an important part of seeing the very human side of what it means to be have a Phd in Astrophysics or any other area of STEM. Reality really doesn't give a damn for one's gender. Reality just is, and it is there to be discovered!
Andy Romaq Smith
Absolutely. Movies and TV do a huge disservice to girls by portraying female scientists (and make ones) as boring “thinking machines” without humor.
Dr. Becky is a real rôle model for girls who may be thinking of going into STEM.
Sigh, if I was only 30 years younger... (And better looking... and smarter... :) )
@@EtzEchad It seems that is what "sells" at this time.
www.dailydot.com/parsec/black-widow-toy-ultron-motorcycle-replaced-captain-america/ still pisses me off.
4:50 I just love it when Dr. Becky talks technical. Lumpy, bumpy, baubly kind of objects.
I’m always coming up with words I like better than the technical jargon 😂
@@DrBecky Thank you. My trade has quite a bit of jargon specific to it. It makes it fast and easy to get your ideas across to others in the trade but it take some effort to speak so that the majority can understand what's being said.
Yeah! Lumpy, bumpy... However it was so amusing, and reminded me: "bubling, mumbling band of baboons" from one of Harry Potter movies that I lost the track of what was said just right after that. Had to rewind to get that part about the Pluto. I think, after such inspiring moment of amusement there should be some irrelevant moment of plateau for listeners to unwind, and get back into attention.
I see no Whovian has entered the conversation yet... Don't worry! I'll fix that for ya!! Wibbly wobbly timey whimey!
@@Avery_HikariBeat me to it.
1:14 I always loved this picture. This is literally a nebula flipping a "bird" at us.
and to think god made that just for us
I came for the science and stayed for the outtakes.
yup. those were awesomly cute
Dinosaur earrings?!?!
For the first time in my life, I want to get my ears pierced.
@@IAmAlgolei I love her earrings! I wonder if they have raptor ones as well.
I came to watch then hope there are flat earther responses, I am both a sadist and a masochist as I like to punish myself.
Funny, I actually often skip them... I’m here for the great presentation of scientific facts / theories - no need to play the “cute girl card”
Dr. Becky: "Earth which is like 99.99999 of the mass in its area"
The Moon: Say WHAT!
Moon: 7.347 × 10^22 kilograms
Earth: 5.972 X 10^24 kilograms
So, if Dr. Becky did the math in her head, she was pretty quick and accurate. Poor Moon... :)
Given just the right mass, I wonder if some planemos can end up pulsating like "now I'm a star" - "now I'm not" - "now I'm a star" - "now I'm not"...
So it would appear to be a very faint red variable star.
I can imagine a star bouncing a few times, maybe, but see no reason why an oscillation would be kept going.
Unless the oscillation was caused by proximity to a massive orbiting object that caused temporary modulation of local gravity!
1. Love your earring
2. Love your nail color
3. Love your content
Not in that order. I should've numbered them all 1...
Don't forget that top, like whaaaat?? I couldn't take my eyes off it, I want like 7 so I can wear it everyday. Dr. Becky should set up some sponsored links for all the sweet geek chic she discovers.
@@GelidGanef 2nd'd. I need that shirt.
I love her brain and the words that come out. GLad she is sharing her passion.
@@cawfeedawg not just sharing it, but sharing it in a way that other people can easily understand and partake in it. it really comes out how cool the subject she's talking about is and that just adds to the interest
Watching on a small screen: what are the dots? Star fields?
I like the way you explain things with that much enthousiasm 😊
Yes, the enthusiasm is key
I've long sensed that our idea of what constitutes a planet, is still a work in progress; that the IAU pronouncement that "demoted" Pluto was only a rough start.
What you've shown us here, gives me hope that some real progress is being made in that direction, including some of these other categories of celestial body.
Thank you!
Fred
The word _planet_ is often used in different ways, to mean any object that revolves around a star, or even around any other object. You need consider the context it appears in. The distinction between asteroids, moons, dwarf planets and planets isn't as important as the classification of stars, I think. The smaller objects are classified more based on where they are and how they formed.
Hey if the science gig doesn't work out you could form a rock band called Dr. Becky and the Planemos! XD
The HOT JUPITERS!
@@superdave54811 Perfect! My wife and I keep waiting for her to start sporting a ring. She's too cute and too smart to stay single!
I love how Smart, fun, and informative you are, a real joy to watch, love the nails btw.
Becky, you are my favorite science person!!! Thanks for your humor. ;-)
You are way too cheerful and enthusiastic right after I wake up.
If I were a physics teacher I would show your vids to my students followed by discussion and a self-scored quiz.
I just lost one of my space channels because the youtuber concerned just got too smug, forgot about science and wrote a cringey apology (or something) to the future - aaaarg noooo. Then I found this channel which has better information, more interesting and is even aesthetically pleasing. Why would a person not subscribe. Thanks.
9:58 thank you, Rebecca for putting those "artist's impression" annotations to those animations. That is such a disservice when popular media (i.e. "science" channel in US) doesn't do it. So I can guarantee that 90% of general public thinks that those are real images.
Well they didn't used to think people would be stupid enough to get it wrong. And earlier than that it was so clearly painted there was no need, even for the dumbest of possible humans.
@@markhackett2302 how about instead of shaming the audience for trying to learn, you acknowledge that someone who's uninformed but seeking knowledge doesn't have the knowledge yet to determine what's a real image, what's an edited image, and what's an artistic dramatization, especially when popular media and bad/oudated science communication muddies the waters?
nobody was born knowing any of these things. we have to learn it, and part of learning in old, iterative, difficult, and sensationalized fields is dispelling misinformation.
Very nice video from you Becky. And thank you for showing what could be the smallest dinosaurs that ever existed. Maybe we could call them Beckysaurus. :-)
LOL! Great idea!
It was cute.
Another informative and entertaining presentation, Dr. Becky! I thank my lucky planemos for stumbling onto your RUclips channel.
Fascinating as always, Becky.
Thanks Dr. Becky, always informative and entertaining. Keep up the great work! :-)
Doctor Octopus actually needs tritium for his project ;)
Damn you’re right! That’ll teach me to leave in the random Spider-Man thoughts I have whilst filming
Since it is pure fantasy shouldn't that be better some like quadritium, or fourtium maybe? Ya know - 'unobtainum' kind of thing.
@@MrPzyt or Chinesium perhaps?
@@bulwinkle No. Because Chinesium is a real thing. I also follow Big Clive. ;-)
Came here to say this.
OMG. I think I have just had a mind-meld with the great and wonderful Dr. Becky Smethurst and my circuits have nearly reached their thermal limit. Wow. Such intense and fascinating information. Thank you Dr. Becky - you are the best!
OMG!!! HER NAILS!!! SO FREAKING BOMB!!!!
Hence forth asteroids shall be called lumpy, bumpy, bubbly thinghies
Dr. Becky should write an astrophysics children's book!
"Lumpy, bumply, bobbly kind of objects." When you spell it right, it's iambic pentameter. 4:50
That's almost like a Monty Python sketch line
I love those earrings!
Etsy! Link is in the description 👍🥰
Dr Becky, you are fantastic! I just stumbled on two of your documentaries and must admit that I learned more about our solar system and the universe with it’s behavior than I did in all my past life. It’s sad in one sense I suppose that I didn’t do more research myself, particularly with all the sources made available today, but at the age of 77 I’m just too lazy.
Keep up the good work, I’m looking foreword for more substance and information.
530 likes, 0 (ZERO) dislikes, there is no other video in the entire youtube with such stats.
Dr Becky you have just made astronomy sexy.
As of May 29, 8:02 pm EDT, it's now 654 up to 0 down!
Fred
Brilliant explanation, did not expect any paleontology.
Dino earrings, love them. ♥️👍♥️
LORD NO! GOD PLEASE NO! She is going to KILL US ALL!
*CUTE.exe found*
exeCUTE
...mass extinction level event initiated...
Waiting for meteor earrings. :)
This was one of your best ones yet. Keep it up!
Thanks! 👍🤗
Finally, at last! A woman on RUclips that has a channel about stuff I like. Thank you so much.
1:12
did that nebula just gave me a middle finger?
That's a penis
It looks like two humanoid figures, but remember it's an artist's impression so are we surprised?
@@snitchcore8635 Bro, don't disrespect images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope by calling them artist impressions. A lot of hard work and real science went into capturing that actual image of the universe we live in.
At most, some of the colors may have been enhanced to better represent the different gasses present, but that by no means deserves calling it an impression, which implies that it would be entirely fabricated.
Quite possibly. That object a quarter of a million miles from here frequently moons me.
@@azdgariarada THEY ARE ALL FABRICATED AND PHOTOSHOPPED.
Planemo is so much nicer on the ear than 'Brown Dwarf', which sounds like Wayne and Waynetta Slob were on the naming committee.
Jeeez that is not what she said. A planemo is not a brown dwarf. Pay attention...
@@blazer666del Read again, I didn't say the two terms were referring to the same thing, only that one sounded more refined than the other.
@@IveJustHadAPissIf that is your logic So does fluffy or velvet or pistachio sound better than brown dwarf....your reply makes no sense. Stop back peddling...
@@blazer666del Please don't talk about poor logic when you're the one making an erroneous inference from an implication you _think_ I've made.
As for your examples, none of the three were in the video, nor bear any - even tenuous - relationship to each other in any context.
Ultimately, I know what I meant. Secondly, you're not a a mind-reader. And thirdly, creating a specious argument on the basis of false equivalence - context vs no context - just makes you look incredibly belligerent and stupid.
@@IveJustHadAPiss lol my point exactly...obviously scarcasim is something you fail to grasp so I won't use it in future....
Man, I could listen to this lady all day!
I love that you answered the Dark Matter question about 15 seconds after I thought of it.
What if they became rogue because they were made fun of for being too small by other stars?😱
Scott Manley got an asteroid called after him. We should find an Asteroid for clever Dr. Becky 👍
I think we should kick Scott manly out of the solar system. , Get on the Pluto bench ...
Mike Stevens, no I like his videos.
I love these videos and Dr. Becky, you are the coolest. It’s incredible to learn so much about space, but it’s so much better when it’s delivered by a person with such an enjoyable personality.
Me: What are asteroids, comets, etc.?
Dr. Becky: Lumpy bumply bobbily kind of objects.
those ear rings are sweet af
Etsy! Link in description 👍
You know someone is awesome when they have
Dinosaur earrings /jewelry
and a constellation themed t-shirt
Stay awesome, Dr. Becky.
but where to get that t-shirt?!?!
Well stated! To the point and very educational. The out-takes at the end were truly charming. Keep up the fantastic work!
I love how the illustration of the brown dwarf is literally just Jupiter in a redder hue and rotated slightly.
Jupiter is at the lower end of the planet/star scale ("...between 1 and 10 times the mass of Jupiter..." 11:47) and does, in fact, emit infra-red & microwave light; www.giantworlds.org/meetthegiants/seeing_the_unseen.php
In some radio wavelengths it is brighter than the sun phys.org/news/2014-09-jupiter-radio-frequencies.html
You had me at "Lumpy Bumby Bobbely" :D
Not sure if intentionally mimicking Dr Who or just that British
@@darthmortus5702 I'm going with both :-)
no kidding but I watch it not just for astronomy but also for ur accent :P
Dr. Becky has a beautiful, alluring accent. Cheers, Russ
Again i learned something new on your channel, love your explanations, never thought of asking this question you presented and yet it is so basic and interesting. Cant wait for next upload, ty Dr.Becky sending regards from Europe/Slovenia
Thanks! 🤗
Very clever! Enjoyed trying to listen as fast as she chattered. Bravo!
Lots of interesting information in this video (Thanks!)
However, I knew most of this from watching Star Trek Voyager.
;-)
New Pixar movie, coming soon... "Finding PlaNemo"
groan!
ChrisBrengel You’re welcome. Here all week....
You are _SO_ rocking those dinosaur earrings! I don't know of any other astrophysicist who comes even close!
Spiderman reference during an astrophysics lesson? Nerd cred +1! Love it, lol.
I came for the word ‘planemo’ and stayed for the hot genius.
Could these account for.... oh, nevermind
Honestly, what if their theoretical Dark Matter and Dark Energy do not exist? Which is what I believe. There is no tangible evidence, none that has been sampled, none has been seen, does not interact or have a force of collision, yet has so much gravity? I say it is impossible for it to exist.
@@bosstowndynamics5488 , Effectively, your answer makes no sense and is not related to my statement. Photons are well established. Dark Matter is not. Gravity requires mass. Mass requires substance. This Dark Matter has no mass, as I stated, it does not interact with collision. I am stating, that expansion is a false claim also.
If you understand time lapse photography, photography of deep field galaxies, you might understand that we would see that fast expansion that is described. That expansion would be seen as blurry images to streaks. Just as we have star trails with time lapse photography of our sky, we might be able to show this with a faster than light expansion.
So, no, my insight on this is not weird. It is normal. Believing in something that is nothing is what is weird.
@@superdave54811 you got schooled. Now apologize.
@@flamethrowercandle2354 Nope. I did not. He brought up an example of something that collides with things and can be observed. Neutrinos are proven. Dark Matter is a fiction. Try again. Stupid to ask someone to apologize when you do not know the facts.
@@superdave54811 i think its stupid to say dark matter is fiction. It could be wrong but to state something as false without knowing all the facts is not smart. It is a theory and has never been presented as fact.
Great episode! I didn't realize that a dust cloud did that much fragmentation -- those simulations were fascinating. You are picking excellent topics; not too basic, not to advanced. And yeah, your earrings are awesome. :-)
I came to learn something new and stayed for the bloopers and outtakes love the way Becky brings the science into this and goes further into it and shows how things are determined. I like you nail color Becky it nice to see that.
Dr. Becky is the only type of M.I.L.F. i want in my life. *Mamas I Learned From.*
HAHAHAHAHA
Brah. I know they're delicious, but you really need to wash off the Cheeto dust before filming.
Weather you are dense enough or not to create deuterium Dr. B, you are a STAR✌👍♥️
Dr. Becky... a lady with an eye for astronomy, but an ear for paleontology!
Another great episode. These rogue planets and brown dwarfs are going to be important resource spots for colonizing the galaxy. They hold plenty of material, and yet they are safer and last longer than stars. Once their galactic orbits are charted, they could be used as way stations to resupply & build ships for as long as the galaxy will last. (Although we'll have to recalculate everything during/after the AndromeWay collision era.)
Not sure I'd call a gas giant "safe", but their satellites might be habitable if a little cold.
@@MarkTillotson Oh, I'm not talking about living on or colonizing them. I'm talking about using them as raw material. Scoop up what you need and move on. A gas giant is fuel and eventually metals for a very very long time, to power and build millions of habitats over eons of use.
As far as I'm concerned, planets have 2 uses. Either they are luckily fit for a terraforming spot to grow new wild life and see what eventually evolves, or you strip them down for ingredients to build more spacefaring civilization.
In our solar system alone, we have mercury, venus, all the asteroids and dwarf planets, and most of the moons, plus uranus itself as entirely disposable commodities. Chopping them up for redistribution just makes the rest of the system orbits more manageable.
We can drop enough of the scraps onto mars to grow it into a planet worth terraforming, with a proper working core and so on.
In my opinion, lumps of dead stuff floating through space have no ecology or conservation value. Life first!
Very cool earings. Really glad I found your channel.
couple things. 1- i understand more of what you are trying to convey than your other colleges. 2- your nails are on point
Thanks for the explanations! Really interesting. Ever since I discovered my first Class-Y and Class-T objects in Elite Horizon (and nearly got swallowed trying to probe it), I wondered "what are these things? What do they do? How do they form? Why are they not planets? Or are they not stars? Or neither?Why does no one talk about them? "
But then, haha, you did, so thanks a lot. Solved a lot of riddles.
What I want most in life is to be able to visit all of these different celestial objects and see them, visit them if they have a surface, and study them. I cannot fathom what these things would look like in real life up close. It would be the absolutely most incredible thing.
This is going to sound odd but some of this I actually learned from exploring star systems in the game Elite Dangerous.
You can actually see planets and stars of all sizes and densities up close and side by side (relatively) and it really makes you contemplate those cut-off points and what bodies in that "grey" area look like.
You literally could have used clips and stills from that game in this video to help visualize everything you discussed here.
What a refreshing channel. Serious science at a level all can understand.
I love this earthling, she is awesome. Her videos always cheer me up no matter how bad a day I had.
Awesome ear rings 🦕🦕
Another RUclips channel I'm becoming addicted to. There's just not enough time in the day.
those dino earrings are the jam!
So cute and smart too :)
I like your brontosaurus earrings
FYI, in Spiderman II, the nuclear fuel that Doc Ock was after wasn't deuterium, it was tritium.
Wonderful educational video. I learned a lot. A Big hug from Colombia
3:40 You think of Dr Octopus wanting Deuterium, for those of us that are a bit older the Germans in WW2 were making "heavy water" with deuterium and this was used in the plot of "The Heroes of Telemark" with Kirk Douglas
1:11 The shape of that nebula... Okay, it's official. The universe really is flipping me off.
I m simple man , I see Dr. Becky I click love...
Great video .. and Dr Becky, the thumbnail is 👌🏼😆
Dylan O'Donnell ~ your video 'On The Nature Of Daylight' by Max Richter
[nov 23 2013] is a great video to . Brand new guitar , it's a beautiful rendition . I still keep it saved in favorites bar . Thank you . "Dylan O'Donnell everybody"
@@garyschraa7947 Hey thanks Gary! That's one of my fave old videos too... glad to hear someone else likes it too, cheers!
Dylan ~ You're welcome . It came out excellent I was really stuck on it for a while . (wont let it go either haha)
Your wife's violin work came in so subtle . No , I thank you . Cheers
So attracted to her intelligence, your enthusiasm, that accent, and your look, gorgeous!
Becky my new best science channel
This subject is something I've thought about ever since I started to understand stellar formation. Thank you!
Those earrings! Awesome!
Also, the galaxy treats us to even more weird, fun, crazy objects.
Good video. Well done :)
very clear voice, great clear info
What seems really interesting to me is how the categories are blurring in the other direction in particular the discovery earlier this year of a 0.5 solar mass star like a planet embedded inside the circumstellar disk surrounding a 40 solar mass behemoth "protostar" is mind bending. Of course the planetary star is doomed to be consumed by its host star when it rapidly ages off the main sequence but the ability for such a thing to form like a planet in the first place is the ultimate blurring of the lines. It is also interesting to note it has its own mini circumstellar disk however that to me at least isn't too surprising since based on the arrangement of moons around the gas giants in our solar system they likely did as well especially in the case of Jupiter.
On a related note about the interior of Jupiter as while there is good evidence it probably formed as a planet from about a 10 Earh mass "rocky seed" Juno's observations seem to be pointing towards it having a fuzzy core which appears to be dissolving into the surrounding liquid metallic hydrogen. (And thus likely playing a critical role in driving the planets magnetic dynamo).
Thus if Sub Brown Dwarfs differentiate like we would expect, and since white dwarfs differentiate they probably would, there might potentially be an equilibrium point where sub brown dwarfs and Gas giant Planets would structurally converge making it harder to distinguish which was which. Of course given how slowly the core of Jupiter is dissolving most gas giant planets in the universe might not old enough for that to have really complete depending of course on when the first gas giants were able to form
You are such an engaging person, wish my lecturers could have done the same. Thank You.
Love those earrings!!!🤩🤩
To me the distinction between stars and non-stars looks a lot like the distinction between planets, dwarf planets and planetoids: if you have full nuclear fusion in the core, then it's a star, if you have only partial fusion (such as deuterium fusion), then it's a dwarf star, and if you have no fusion, then it's a planemo (or some other pertinent name, such as "substar").
If you look at this definition, what we still call "red dwarf" would not be a dwarf at all, but just a "red star", while a brown dwarf would just be a dwarf star.
Anything orbiting around a star or a dwarf star would be categorized either as a twin/satellite star or dwarf star, a planet, a dwarf planet or a planetoid. Anything orbiting a planemo would just be a moon or satellite.
Obviously, since gravitational interaction could have an object ejected from a system or captured into one, the categories are "fluid". An object could be born as something and then evolve into something else, even more times in its lifespan.
For example, a dwarf star could form as such from a nebula, be captured by a star sometime later, then, when the capturing star turns into a red giant, it could strip away enough hydrogen from it to become a proper star itself. Nothing stays the same forever in the universe.
There would also be the need for some new definition for star remnants, since "white dwarf" or "neutron star" would be misleading. Those things are not stars anymore, but are not planemos either.
Since it is difficult to distinguish the line between planet and stars, then it would appear as if this is observant-dependent. In other words, we see planets as planets because we see the light that they emit is infrared and so we can make out their rocky/gaseous structures. As mass increases, the energy emitted also increases and at a certain point it just happens to cross into the visible light spectrum and suddenly the systems are "stars."
But, let us say that we determined a mass ratio of our own atoms to the systems that we see. For instance, the mass of our atoms compared to the mass of Earth has a certain ratio. In the same way, the mass of our atoms compared to the mass of the sun has a different mass ratio. Suppose that an observer doesn't have to be made of "atoms" but could be made of a smaller particle, one that has the same mass ratio to our Earth as our atoms to the sun. Then, they would see a star rather than a planet because these would be observer dependent traits.
This can be taken further to black holes; if we just continue increasing mass to the point where the energy of the light emitted goes beyond the visible light spectrum, the systems suddenly appear differently yet again and we call them black holes. But, could it be that they are just "stars" which emit in the x-ray spectrum? Ones that appear as singularities only when we approach them with a visible light spectrum focused angle and preconceived notions? After all, theory was developed long before their discovery and the theoretical nature of the objects discovered has largely been taken for granted since we largely just accepted that we had their nature understood and proven by detection of what may just be systems that exhibit characteristics that appear like those we were looking for. Just some thoughts... sorry to rant. Great videos, appreciate your time, efforts, passion, energy and everything else! :D
Yes, very cool earrings. More brontosauruses to match your necklace. And I love that color nail polish. But more to the point--other than Arthur C. Clark writing sci-fi about mystical monoliths pushing the mass of Jupiter high enough to ignite (if that's the word) in "2010" (I think), this was the first I'd heard of this weird domain between big planets and small stars. Fascinating to think of a planemo with circling planets. I need to watch this one again...... Thank you!
(Deuterium burning... .08 solar masses down to Jupiter-size... so interesting. I always thought of brown dwarves as just kind of failed stars, but it's really all much more interesting. Golly....)
I got your channel in my recommendations feed
You explain everything simply
Just binged on loads of your videos
You've gained another subscriber
Thank you Becky
You sound northern?
4:52 -- I entered "Lumpy Bumply Bobbly Kind Of Objects" in my Meade AudioStar celestial object finder and it exploded. From cuteness.
So for objects forming through direct collapse, if they are massive enough to support protium fusion in their cores (and still do), they are *stars,* and this is believed to be possible for objects with mass greater than about 75 Jupiter masses. If they are not massive enough to support protium fusion but are massive enough to support deuterium fusion in their cores, they are *brown dwarfs,* and this is believed to be possible for objects with mass greater than about 13 Jupiter masses. If they are not massive enough to support fusion at all, they are *sub-brown dwarfs,* and it is expected that such objects can form with masses as small as 3 Jupiter masses or less, perhaps as small as 1 Jupiter mass.
For objects forming through accretion around a star, brown dwarf, or sub-brown dwarf, or around a multiple star system, if they are massive enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium and have cleared their orbits, they are *planets,* and this is believed to be possible for objects with mass greater than about the mass of Pluto and much less (~1%) than that of the host star. If they are large enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium but have not cleared their orbits, yet are not satellites of any sub-stellar objects, they are *dwarf planets,* and that is believed to be possible for objects with masses greater than about 5% that of Pluto (10^20 kg). If they are natural satellites of sub-stellar objects, they are *moons.* If they are not large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, they are *small solar system bodies* if around the Sun (or presumably *small stellar system bodies* if around other stars). Technically this includes all bodies down to the subatomic scale, but in practice it is only used for objects larger than perhaps a gram. Smaller objects are *cosmic dust* if they are large enough to have complex structure much larger than a molecule. Below this, we get to chemical terms, including *molecular complexes,* *molecules,* *atoms,* and subatomic particles including *protons* and *electrons,* as well as radiation including *photons* and *neutrinos.*
It's not just a matter of temperature, the first step of the proton-proton cycle is governed by the weak nuclear force, so the creation of deuterium is a rare event. It requires a big enough core for this to happen enough to keep fusion going.
I love that enthusiasm.
Sometimes I think of rogue planets swooshing through the galaxy. Occasionally they pass through a solar system and thaw, and life goes through a cycle or two... and then back to the darkness.
I reckon they’d be going too fast for life to develop 🤔 if we think about Oumuamua that passed through the solar system last year, that came within the Earth’s orbit but was there for only a couple of months. Development of life takes place over millions of years. Unless somehow it’s bacteria that’s laid dormant in the cold? Interesting to speculate about!
But what if we had noticed that it was coming and "seeded" it with bacteria, etc. that could survive under those conditions and then let it go elsewhere. Would that make us the Preservers? Or even better, sending an equivalent of the Svalbard Vault to a rogue planet like that for later retrieval? By us or other races...
That's a question I was always interested in, but I didnt want to read astronomy papers as someone who's not in the field. Thanks for the great explanation!
TL;DR: If pressure in an object is strong enough to start fusion, it's a star. If not, it's a planet. But I love to hear her talk, so it's worth watching!
WHich kind of fusion? H-H, H-D, D-T? different temperatures.
I love the brain food you give me with these wonderful videos. Bless your beautiful mind
"Lumpy, bumpy, bubbly objects." reminds me of Dr. Who "Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff." 🤣🤣🤣
Right. I'm just a low-life Meteorologist, and I have a lot of stupid space questions. So here's one, (please don't slam me too badly in the comments, folks). As I understand it, the current theory is that the Universe is expanding. Also, as I understand it, this is based partially on observations of distant stars or galaxies which are red-shifted, thus moving away. Sooooo... if the red-shift we are seeing now is, say, from billions of years in the past, how can we know that the Universe isn't collapsing at this moment? That is to say, blue/green-shifted light simply hasn't reached us yet. Again, please take into account I only deal with Earth's atmosphere, and I know next to nothing about Astronomy, other than looking at Saturn through my telescope and enjoying it greatly. Thank you, Doc.
Really great subject, but cosmology AND dinosaurs? I just wasn't prepared to be hit over the head with such a double whammy of nerdy goodness.
"...a double whammy of nerdy goodness." LOL!
I bet you that sentence has never been uttered/written in all of human history! Maybe it will take off as a meme?