The thing that i find most interesting is that whatever happened to the star happened 75 million years ago, as that's how long its taken for the light to reach us. Basically when the star collapsed dinosaurs were still roaming the earth:)
@@hellfiresiayan Yes, it's a way of looking back in time, so to speak. It's part of the way that people have tried to date the age of the universe, though there is a clamor in the astronomy community about variations in the measurements of the "cosmological constant", which might not exactly be so constant... It's an interesting time for physics right now.
Yeah theres a gap in our knowledge there how we get from 5-10 solar mass blackhole to 50 billion plus solar mass in less time than the 14 billion year age of universe. The direct collapse theory is really the only viable theory we got right now because theres just not enough time for enough mergers to have happened yet to get to these super massive sizes....perhaps very symmetrical uniform gas clouds in the center of proto galaxys direct collapse making larger black holes to begin with. I havnt heard any other credible explanation
I imagine it would be difficult to witness. I've learned to not say impossible though. A few years ago I would have thought imaging a blackhole to be impossible.
Question: when a neutron star becomes a black hole is the star itself still there inside the Black hole, or is all the neutrons teared appart when its forming? I know we cannot se inside the event horizon, but there must still be allot of compressed mass in there, The Black hole must be composed by something to still be a black hole right ? Any theorys?
We don't know. It's possible that the star compresses into some kind of object that still has a measurable size, but it's also possible that it continues to collapse, maybe forever at an accelerating rate. From an outside perspective, the mathematics treat it as a singularity.
I clicked on this channel expecting it to be a Frasier Crane parody account. I certainly isn't that, but it's a great channel non the less. Subscribed.
@jS197 thermodynamics says they physically can't use all its energy in that way as a 100% efficient use of the energy isn't possible under our current understanding of physics, there will always be "waste" energy, which should be detectible in infrared. It's also worth noting a total Dyson sphere isn't possible with any known material as tidal forces would tear it apart, a free floating Dyson swarm is a far more viable method that does not require materials with tensile strengths hitherto unknown to man. The downside to this is it wouldn't totally occlude the star in question, it would probably have a visible light signature very close to that of an extremely dense dust cloud, but with more precisely controlled periods.
@jS197 dysons spheres are...shall we say impracticle. To completely enclose a star even bery thinly, it would likely take at a minimum three times the amount of mass in materials of that star to construct one. A spider web type design would be far better.
It's strange that something totally unpredicted happens and no-one is considering that maybe stellar evolution theory is just wrong. Instead we get 8 minutes of the dogma that didn't predict this event. People are always saying that the difference between science and religion is that science changes in the light of new facts but that isn't what's going on here.
That's how science works. You make a theory for the observations that you've made so far. And if you make an observation that shows your hypothesis is wrong, you start again. Scientists had a model for how stars evolve, now there's an observation that shows that maybe this model is wrong, so scientists will adapt their model to try to explain this behavior as well.
@@frasercain Did you read that in a high school science book? I was making the point that, contrary to the 'message' about science being ready to change, this isn't what happens in space science. There have been numerous previous observations that have falsified stellar evolution theory and there has been no change at all to this dogma which was dreamed up when Eddington suggested that stars are nuclear furnaces. Not only have there been numerous counter examples but there hasn't been a single star that changed as predicted by this model. That's hardly surprising because the time scales involved in the suggested model are so long that it would be almost impossible to observe a positive prediction. That doesn't mean it can't be falsified, though, because it has.
Very interesting topic! Great video. Nitpicking: From the video you get the impression that exothermic means that a reaction gives off gamma radiation, could be phrased in a more clear way.
So... a black hole walked into a barred spiral galaxy. The barred spiral galaxy tender says "what'll you have?" The black hole say, "Ill have a tequila and a pitcher. I really just want the worm hole. I gotta get out of town fast!"
Sorry for the long question. Relating to gravitational lensing, I imagine the light is stretched as it bends around the galaxy or whatever is causing the lensing. I assume this would slow down the light to below light speed, or maybe just make it take longer to get to us. Does this mean we're watching a further delay(25 million light years away = 25 million years ago + effects of lensing)but happening in real time, or is it slowing down the light so that we're seeing through the "lense" at reduced speed from "normal"(like .90X speed or whatever)? I know time is different in different places, so "normal" would be relative. Thank you for all the hard work you do. Your videos have been very educational and enlightening. Have a great day!
I'd like to hear more about how the mechanics would work. What could be different about some stars that could make them skip the supernova? Could it be that a few stars manage to form with a very small rotation, so that all the infalling matter drops into the new black hole? That a normal supernova is from matter that had angular momentum, so it "missed" the even horizon, reached high enough temperatures to fuse to heavier elements, somehow got slingshotted away from the center again?
Supernovae are related to fuel depletion. Black hole transformation is based on ultimate mass. I never had any reason to suspect that the possibility of a direct-collapse black hole was impossible (if enough mass was added through accretion).
I thought the "onion layer" method of fusion was disproved. I know that wasnt the technical term, but I'm curious if maybe I had misheard something at some point regarding fusion and the ways stars transition between fusing different elements.
Well it is like everything an overly simplified description usually applied for far less massive extremely massive stars like Betelgeuse. Technically for Luminous Blue Variable(LBV) stars they are so massive and rare we really don't understand much about them. With formation masses of ~60 Msun to in more extreme examples well over ~100+ Solar masses or more, LBV's, along with the "less evolved" hydrogen fusing WNh stars which may or may not be related we don't know for sure, are unimaginably extreme stars. LBV's are known for their nonperiodic variability and thus effectively named for their violent outbursts which eject solar masses worth of material and have a number of times been missidentified as supernovae. There may be several different classes of such stars of varying masses, the lower mass category thought to have formed with around 60 Msun are thought to be a transitional phase between the supergiant phase of O & B type stars and Wolf Rayet stars deficient in hydrogen and or helium which will eventually die as type Ib or Type Ic core collapse supernovae and with sufficient spin and a polar alignment the likely progenitors of long duration Gamma Ray Bursts.... Some simulations based off of known examples suggest for the most massive stars they appear to be analogous to the red giant phase of low mass stars or the red supergiant phase of less massive high mass stars and thus the typical end stage of such massive stars before they either explode and or collapse into a black hole. If sufficiently "metal" poor they could potentially produce pair instability supernovae or on the other extreme they could go out with a whimper as is speculated here. Regardless both are extremely rare and extremely short lived phases which blur the limits of being able to hold themselves together that for a long time astronomers doubted their observations of such stars as if such stars had established hydrostatic equilibrium the stellar evolution equations for less massive stars suggest they should largely have radiated themselves apart due to their luminosities exceeding the gravitational binding energy. LBV's are known primarily for their colossal eruptions which we don't really understand though helium opacity seems to play a role in triggering them within more local easily studied examples like S. Doradus or Eta Carinae. Given the extragalactic nature of this star it would probably have to be the more extreme class of such stars. If WNh stars are their progenitors one implication is that if "metal" enriched the extreme CNO cycle fusion reactions would result in the star being fully convective while on the main sequence resulting in the star burning its entire supply of hydrogen in a few million years. For example R136a1 the current record holder of most massive star known has a spectrum that is approximately 40% Hydrogen to 60% Helium (+ less than a percent trace elements of course)suggesting it is a little over half way through its main sequence lifetime. Thus at the very least an onion shell structure is not going to be possible for such a star as it will have little to no hydrogen left. Plus once helium fusion begins with the triple alpha process it isn't that much harder for the resulting carbon 12 to merge with another alpha particle (i.e. helium 4) to become oxygen 16 or for that oxygen to merge with another alpha particle to become Neon 20 etc. thus while the shell burning model isn't entirely wrong the alpha ladder is also quite important resulting in most of the universe's Oxygen(16), Neon(20), Magnesium(24), Silicon(28), Sulfur(32), Argon(36),Calcium(40),Titanium(44 is Unstable half life 60 years) etc. these processes are minor relative to triple alpha reactions as each reaction above gets progressively less likely as there is more coulomb repulsion but are responsible for most of the above elements in the universe especially in the case of oxygen. There is also neutron capture going on adding even more complexity so it is certainly going to be far more messy than the simple hydrogen shell models.
I live in a town in Uttar Pradesh, India. It's called Jhansi. The place doesn't witness many Earthquakes. I've been living here for nore than 18 ears now and we only had less than 5 minor earthquakes But today, the ground shook and so did our house of concrete walls, when it was thundering... you know the cloud rumble thing. Never before have I felt it this way. It was completely different. I've checked out Google and RUclips, but couldn't find any satisfactory results. I think enough research has not been done on this topic
I love those kind of thunderstorms. Not uncommon here in midwest USA. Did the big strikes happen after the storm had passed over? That's how it usually is here. Positive lightning bolts come from the top of the cloud, usually out the back, and because the distance is so much larger than regular negative bolts from the bottom of the cloud, they're much more powerful. The brightness is incredible even from miles away, and it creates a shockwave in the air that rattles the windows, and feels like an earthquake for maybe 10-20 seconds, and continues rumbling long after that.
@@dekutree64 You love them?😬 I'm not sure if it was accompanied by lightning though But the shockwaves sure shuddered my whole house as if it was gonna break down BTW how do you know about the charge distributions over the cloud things Can you give me the source of that info Coz again It's physics
The possible scenario could be that massive stars harbor Black Holes inside _prior_ supernova explosion or that "silent" collapse. Once nuclear fuel in the core runs out, the black hole is formed - but star remains ~the same. Instead of gamma radiation from nuclear fusion the radiation of falling material of star takes control (accretion). Such stars with black holes inside probably can burn their outer layer smoothly - without drastic implosion and explosion - and silently disappear. ?
-The article I read said "something" is still visible in the infrared there, it didn't absolutely disappear- EDIT: It isn't. I was thinking of N6946-BH1
@@frasercain Oh, so then this one is a different star. Since there is a gap in the data, scientist think it may have gone nova during while they weren't looking. "An alternative explanation for the disappearance for the LBV in PHL 293B is an undetected SN explosion. Burke et al. (2020) favour this hypothesis, suggesting that an SN IIn event occurred between 1995 and 1998, during which no photometry is available. " I was thinking of N6946-BH1
Hi Fraser! How do scientists know that there's an actual singularity at the centre of the black hole and not just some strange type of superdense matter? I mean, if we can't see beyond the event horizon and the denser the black hole the bigger the event horizon gets, is the singularity inevitable? Couldn't there be just something, the same way stars have very dense matter? Greetings from Spain.
We probably won't ever know what's inside the event horizon. Maybe it's a superdense object, maybe it's a singularity. But a black hole behaves as if it's a singularity.
We see stars as they were in the past, it blows my mind. Some of them we see as they were millions of years ago, some billions of years ago. We could be looking at a star right now that went supernova millions of years ago but the light hasn't reached us yet so we still see the star. Even our own sun, we see it as it was 8 minutes ago so if it suddenly just vanished, it would take 8 minutes for us to see...it just seems surreal.
I've mentioned in some of the QAs that I'm not happy with the quality of these videos compared to the depth I can go with the interviews. I'd like to figure out a way to synthesize them together again, but it's still a work in progress.
Call it a gut impression, but I bet stars that spin slowly are more likely to do this than the faster spinning ones. If it didn't spin at all the forces would be so symetrical that it would have to go that way with no "orbitting" to help maintain the distance, just a straight falling in. There has to be some threshold for both mass and spin rate.
Shouldn’t there be some visible gravitational lensing effects now, that was not there before the star dissapaired if in fact it turned into a black hole?
I think as you suggested. About 70-75% of supermassive stars that do produce black holes do supernova. About 25-30% of supermassive stars simply implode producing a black hole. Perhaps supermassive black holes are primary black holes. They may have formed from the collapse of hyper massive molecular hydrogen clouds and hyper giant stars, that were too huge to explode, during the beginning of cloud and star formation. Your cosmic time those supermassive black holes would have merged with other black holes.
How do astronomers and cosmologists map out and find their way around billions of stars inside billions of galaxies to be able to come back to specific ones and observe/study them?
@@frasercain still, those are almost unimaginably slight positional measurements, and doesn't the position of stars in the sky change very slighty over time due to everything moving? wouldn't that mess up the recorded positional data from a while back?
So, when elemental fusion reaches iron, it shuts down, I get that. However, I am confused, does the fusion process go like this; hydrogen fuses into helium, until ALL hydrogen is gone, THEN helium starts fusing until All of the helium is gone, and so on? Or, can helium be fusing as hydrogen starts winding down? So, expanding on that, is it possible that some elements are currently fusing into iron now in the core? I ask this, because if no silicon has been fused to produced iron at all, then, all of the sudden it does, I get the super nova collapse. However, if a variety of different elemental fusions are constantly going on, and the build up of Iron is gradual, I don't see why it would collapse at relativistic speeds, kind of a more gradual collapse relative to the speed of iron being formed.
Fusing heavier elements releases less energy than fusing lighter ones. This means with each successive heavier fusion the star's core shrinks, and each type of fusion is done exponentially quicker than the previous one. The last fusion is very fast, IIRC less than a couple of minutes, and then suddenly the star has no outward pressure preventing collapse. There may still be an atmosphere of lighter elements to blow off, but they would have been too far out from the fusing core to participate as fuel. Wolf-Rayet stars are oddballs that have multiple types of fusion occurring in layers like an onion.
Assumptions. All they know is they can't find it anymore. There is no sign or trace of it. It's too far away to see it directly which could also be the reason for the complication
my qeustion is : where is the black whole ? You can not see the black whole but you can see it by looking at the other planets around. So if this star imploded directly in a black whole , where is the black whole ?
I'm having trouble visualizing how this would work. My first problem is: where did all the star's angular momentum go? There's always some rotation. So a blackhole forms at the center, wow cool. The rest of the star's mass has to fall into it. But for that to happen without an accretion disk forming would require all of the star's rotation stop instantly or have NO rotation to begin with. Non-rotating stuff just doesn't happen. There has to be an accretion disk giving off a bunch of x-rays. I'm betting there's a modest accretion disk that we're just too far away from to detect. 75 million lightyears is a long way from a not-so-big 30-sol-mass blackhole.
I think the point is just that we didn't detect the supernova part at any point during that period. There could very well be an accretion disk now that's too dim to detect. I guess we'll have to wait for the E-ELT. As usual...
Like a 3 billion year old species of sentient parsec spanning super hivemind that devours blue giant stars, but they're vegetarians, and limit themselves to only eating suns where life cannot exist, or even eat them so local neighbors don't get blasted by supernovae? Ethical super hivemind beings could be cool, I guess. At this point it's anyone's guess. Disappearing stars give astrophysicists early deaths, because our maths don't properly explain why this should be happening, but the universe is under no obligation to behave according to our maths, as this so vividly demonstrates. We need better instruments. We need to keep fine tuning and improving LIGO/Virgo, and also try to start miniaturizing them. If we continue to make progress in gravity mapping, who knows what we might even find hiding out in the dim chill of the outer Kuiper belt and the distant darkness of the Oort cloud.
I'm not sure I can accept this explanation for stars becoming black holes without explosions with two possible exceptions. 1 - the star was devoured by another black hole 2 - the star was so massive that the core density reached that of black holes and sucked in the rest
If a star was devoured by a black hole, we'd see a flash of x-ray radiation. We can see when the black hole in the Milky Way is eating snacks by flashes of X-rays.
I have seen an astronomer explaining that a supernovae needs a core to bounce off. So only star collapses that results in a neutron start results in a supernova. If a black hole is generated there is nothing to bounce off and there will be no supernova. I thought it was in a sixty symbol video
I mean, to be fair, a Type 3 civilization would totally be able to pull that off too. One could argue the speed that it happened but if a civilization is at the Type 3 level then their view of speed and time may be vastly different from ours.
Interesting. Always thought disappearance of objects like stars would be used as proof of black holes more often. I suppose its testament to the size of the universe that it doesn't happen more often. Or perhaps for all the technology we have we can't see everything.
How does this new finding, 10%-30% of the stars wink out without a Supernova, affect the mass estimates of the universe and "dark matter"? For that matter are smBHs considered baryonic matter if we cant see them?
People are still cautious about saying for certain that direct collapse is real. But it seems quite likely that we have made a big discovery in cosmology that nobody was really talking about just a few years ago.
Great explanation of star lifecycles Anton Petrov made me aware of this last week, fascinating story, and I'm interested in the follow-up on this investigation. I think the maths' will prove to be invaluable to this mystery. I think the curve of where the event horizon falls is predictive based on the time vs the density of the object, but there might have been a jump in the mass of the object before collapse, maybe another body such as a brown dwarf collided with it, and produced the spike which moved the event horizon beyond the normal boundaries from when the collapse occurred... its hard to talk about something that takes both time and space to explain, but this could have moved the star into a mass which is greater than the allowance that the core could push outward, and also hastened the collapse, and this would explain the huge inward fall without explosion, as the iron core was not present?
Merging stars rotate around each other sometimes for billions of years before they merge. If it was another star colliding with it shouldn't we have seen that star in our telescopes.
@Ivan Jakanov If it were a black hole wandering around that ate this star, there would have been an enormous amount of evidence of the occurrence as the star was ripped laterally into the magnetic stream of the black hole, a "wandering" black hole would have simply torn the star apart far before the point of impact, and there would have been a LOT of stuff to detect from a star that big.
Could it have been a (super)massive black hole interposing and gravitationally lensing the light from the star? We should be able to check by looking for the same signal not in that particular exact direction but in a circle around it (radius depending on black hole's mass).
Might the fact that the galaxy where this vanishing was observed is metal-poor have anything to do with the fate of the star? The most massive BHs seem to be discovered in the greatest distances from here and thus our views of them are oldest, often billions of years old when the universe was significantly younger and metal- poorer than today.
So, could this estimate of 10% direct black hole collapse contribute to explaining dark matter? I.e. just tons and tons of stellar-mass black holes? Or would that collide with direct observations we make here form earth? How "visible" would a stellar mass black hole be, anyhow (both to normies and astronomy), if it would just pass our sun a few light years away?
If a black hole got that close, we might see a little bit of gamma radiation coming from it as things got consumed by it. One idea for dark matter is primordial black holes, but not many people believe in that idea any more. :-)
When a sun-like star fades away to the background temp of the universe at the end of its life what is it like?...I mean, if we theoretically sent a probe into one (just pretending we could) , what would it find? A gas giant or something more exotic?
Could it be imagined like the star is like a balloon and the balloon is filled up with air (gases like helium and H2 ) , suddenly a needle ( solar flares) is pricked and the star just shrinks to form a black hole.....
The names of these telescopes are simply fantastic beyond their surface verbiage. I look forward to the future RLT (Ridiculously Large Telescope) and the LLT (Ludicrously Large Telescope).
@@frasercain I had not, but now I have. Things are...better :) "Soon, they will make a telescope with a name so literal, it will destroy them all! Aaaahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaa"
Spinning black holes cannot lose the event horizon? So maybe people were looking at it without knowing that they were looking at a naked singularity? And somehow the singularity shrink again bellow the event horizon imaginary part of space, going back to standard black-hole. Or maybe is just so very dense dust cloud passing by. The third possibility is that it reach some very unique state that cause it to disappear from space-time, totally collapsing, evaporating in record time or has gone to a parallel universe.
It gave off all the chemical signature of just being a regular star. And then it was gone. The direct collapse hypothesis seems to fit the data best so far.
Q&A : If the universe is expanding and will eventually get to a point where we will only see our local neighbors, wouldn’t people alive then observe that and think the universe is just that? Could it be the universe is much bigger but it just expanded out of our view and we think this is it?
Yes, far enough into the future, astronomers won't be able to see any galaxies other than the ones in their local group. The evidence for the Big Bang will disappear from the cosmos.
Who would've guessed. That in our finite ability to perceive the universe around us has infinite possibility of outcome. I love space and everything to do with it. But observing the cosmos can also be done by looking inside yourself. Infinity goes both ways.
How do you prove a negative? If you don't see it, is a Black Hole really there? How fast can a star transition through a supernova so that it isn't seen? Could the star have captured the light pulse before it escaped the Event Horizon? Multiple stars spiraling in bringing mass but none big/old enough to go supernova; but as they get closer together their mass moves what would become the Event Horizon far enough away so that nothing would escape?
We should have seen a supernova. A star like this could put out as much energy as the rest of the galaxy combined. It's hard to miss. They usually last a few weeks and then fade away.
@@frasercain This is common sense. Otherwise generations of stars throughout the universe wouldn't create more and more different elements. The dust and elements from earlier supernova combine to form a new star. That new star now has more elements in it than the star before it which went supernova, and this new star, when it explodes if it's large enough to create a supernova creates even more different elements than the supernova star before it. It has more to work with.
There is a giant icecream cone cruising around the universe gobbling up stars and planets, but we can't get rid of it till after Jim Kirk is born in 200 years time.
There is also the possibility, that the distant star just crossed the speed of light in its movement going away from us and we have noted just the last information coming to us from the expanding Universe and it is the limit of study possibility in the case of this particular star. Can it be true? Stary
Fraser Cain yes I’m sure hahaha. Though maybe an advanced interstellar alien society just decided to drop their solar system through a wormhole, which they held open with their exotic matter! They might’ve just needed a vacation from that corner of their galaxy, perhaps to avoid a nearby supernova stripping off their planets’ atmospheres :) Gotta respect the hustle, that’s for sure!
No black hole or super nova, just simple Electro-Magnetism in which the incoming electrostatic energy entering the star weakened. Therefore no energy in = no luminosity of the star because it basically ran out of fuel.
It was too far away. You'd need a star going supernova within the Milky Way and it's immediate vicinity. There is a supernova neutrino warning system, but it's never been triggered.
@@frasercain I meant it could have been a long lived meganover. It started way before the telescopes first saw it. It looked like a bright star, but it was a exploding star which lasted many years, then the explosion burned out.
My personal hypothesis is that the supermassive black holes at center of quasars are actually white holes. Black holes and white holes occupy the same space at the same time depending on field of reference usually we see the black hole that obscures the white body. Quasars would be the same objects "flipped on" or inside out and showing their full potential. Einstein for the longest time honestly believed some unknown force of nature must prevent these monstrosities from forming in the first place, despite his own equations leading to their conceptualization. Black holes AND white holes. And we can find the black holes even the beyond the event horizon is damn near "unfindable" so where are all the white holes? The white holes should be super easy to find. Yes. According to my theory they're right in front of our faces. Quasars. Maybe Einstein was sort of right with forces of nature placing limitations on such objects. What's stopping the entire universe from forming one big giant black hole containing everything? Perhaps there's a size limit before they reverse course and belch out all that excess material. If spacetime is 4 dimensional but visualized as a two dimensional plane like the old bowling balls on a mattress to simulated gravity.. a black hole as we all know would be like vertical lines down into a pit that goes right off the chart. That vertical aspect is the fourth dimension. If a white hole that it's same contents would rain down from above and belch forth horizontally beyond it's own event horizon. The EV being a ring around the gravity well from which 3d objects can't cross as it dives into 4d. If a black hole was a tub drain then a white hole is the shower faucet and the system is one big loop. Once enough goes in one end, the bucket tips over and pours it back out from the top.
If out star just blinked out of existence would we notice the effects of gravity instantly or would it be like the speed of light and take time for us to notice? Thanks, great video.
My guess, it almost went supernova but forces then balanced again, and as result shed a lot of energy and matter without exploding or collapsing. Meaning they will find it with the new Extremely Large Telescope, just dimmer.
The thing about this is it's only surprising because for the last several decades science has decided clever math formulas aren't just the starting point to forming an actual theory, they are an acceptable replacement for real observations and forming testable theories. Which is to say they basically said we have a product of 4 so the process has to be 2+2. Look we have proof 2+2=4...Only the real answer is 1+3 ,50- 46 or one an infinite other mathematical formulas no one ever considered because they already had the answer.
I'm waiting for the computer simulation to verify that this is possible. I wonder if it has just the right blend of elements. How maassive would it be, and how long before we see other objects rotating it. * You should label the artist guesses vs the actual photographs, it is quite disrespectful of your viewers not to do so. *
We'll need more observations and more data to be able to understand what's going on. We've done whole videos about artist illustrations compared to actual pictures. ruclips.net/video/Q41hLHcKyUM/видео.html
Do we have information about whether this galaxy is one of the ones that does not have a halo of Dark Matter? It would be interesting and provocative if that were the case. Perhaps without Dark Matter it is more likely that black holes form in this way, and I think we can all follow some basic logic from there. Of course, this is all speculation.
Meh, the Vogons just turned it off for maintenance. No big deal. ;O)-
Or built an interstellar highway through the region.
Or the Star didn’t pay its electric bill.
@@itzed I think it's more due to the star not obtaining the right license for graviton emissions. Can't have that kind of pollution sticking around.
Stolen by the Begrudgers. They never accepted the blame for antimatter.
I can confirm
The thing that i find most interesting is that whatever happened to the star happened 75 million years ago, as that's how long its taken for the light to reach us.
Basically when the star collapsed dinosaurs were still roaming the earth:)
Old news in other words
Yes, everything we see in space happened in the past. We experience the Universe at the speed of causality.
@@frasercain Is there any point in saying something happened however many years ago if, from our reference frame, it's happening now?
@@hellfiresiayan Relativity breaks human minds because it is so counter-intuitive.
@@hellfiresiayan Yes, it's a way of looking back in time, so to speak. It's part of the way that people have tried to date the age of the universe, though there is a clamor in the astronomy community about variations in the measurements of the "cosmological constant", which might not exactly be so constant... It's an interesting time for physics right now.
A sentient alien dust cloud? The best of all explanations!
That explains everything.
The remnants of Deep Thought?
Does it eat hemoglobin?
@@frasercain At least if you play cards
I love the idea of giant gas clouds transitioning directly into being super massive black holes.
That sounds legit.
Yeah theres a gap in our knowledge there how we get from 5-10 solar mass blackhole to 50 billion plus solar mass in less time than the 14 billion year age of universe. The direct collapse theory is really the only viable theory we got right now because theres just not enough time for enough mergers to have happened yet to get to these super massive sizes....perhaps very symmetrical uniform gas clouds in the center of proto galaxys direct collapse making larger black holes to begin with. I havnt heard any other credible explanation
Yeah, it's a cool idea. We need LUVOIR to see that.
Yeah , doesn't make sense.
I imagine it would be difficult to witness. I've learned to not say impossible though. A few years ago I would have thought imaging a blackhole to be impossible.
Question: when a neutron star becomes a black hole is the star itself still there inside the Black hole, or is all the neutrons teared appart when its forming?
I know we cannot se inside the event horizon, but there must still be allot of compressed mass in there, The Black hole must be composed by something to still be a black hole right ? Any theorys?
We don't know. It's possible that the star compresses into some kind of object that still has a measurable size, but it's also possible that it continues to collapse, maybe forever at an accelerating rate. From an outside perspective, the mathematics treat it as a singularity.
I clicked on this channel expecting it to be a Frasier Crane parody account. I certainly isn't that, but it's a great channel non the less. Subscribed.
I'm listening...
@@frasercain Do you have a brother named Niles to make a snippy comment? Loved that show!
Because a species was playing around with a particle accelerator and created a black hole. We'll be next.
That's a big oops.
Partical accelerator?
Particle accelerator?
what if aliens put a dysonsphere around it
They must have worked quickly.
@jS197 thermodynamics says they physically can't use all its energy in that way as a 100% efficient use of the energy isn't possible under our current understanding of physics, there will always be "waste" energy, which should be detectible in infrared.
It's also worth noting a total Dyson sphere isn't possible with any known material as tidal forces would tear it apart, a free floating Dyson swarm is a far more viable method that does not require materials with tensile strengths hitherto unknown to man. The downside to this is it wouldn't totally occlude the star in question, it would probably have a visible light signature very close to that of an extremely dense dust cloud, but with more precisely controlled periods.
@jS197 I'm more of an Isaac Arthur fan personally but I'll happily have a watch.
@jS197 dysons spheres are...shall we say impracticle. To completely enclose a star even bery thinly, it would likely take at a minimum three times the amount of mass in materials of that star to construct one. A spider web type design would be far better.
They would be bankrupt right now.
i'm glad someone mentioned your channel, because youtube never shows you in my feed despite being subscribed and double-bell-subscribed..
It's strange that something totally unpredicted happens and no-one is considering that maybe stellar evolution theory is just wrong. Instead we get 8 minutes of the dogma that didn't predict this event. People are always saying that the difference between science and religion is that science changes in the light of new facts but that isn't what's going on here.
That's how science works. You make a theory for the observations that you've made so far. And if you make an observation that shows your hypothesis is wrong, you start again. Scientists had a model for how stars evolve, now there's an observation that shows that maybe this model is wrong, so scientists will adapt their model to try to explain this behavior as well.
@@frasercain Did you read that in a high school science book? I was making the point that, contrary to the 'message' about science being ready to change, this isn't what happens in space science. There have been numerous previous observations that have falsified stellar evolution theory and there has been no change at all to this dogma which was dreamed up when Eddington suggested that stars are nuclear furnaces. Not only have there been numerous counter examples but there hasn't been a single star that changed as predicted by this model. That's hardly surprising because the time scales involved in the suggested model are so long that it would be almost impossible to observe a positive prediction. That doesn't mean it can't be falsified, though, because it has.
Very interesting topic! Great video.
Nitpicking: From the video you get the impression that exothermic means that a reaction gives off gamma radiation, could be phrased in a more clear way.
Ah, sorry, I hope you got what I was saying. :-)
So... a black hole walked into a barred spiral galaxy. The barred spiral galaxy tender says "what'll you have?" The black hole say, "Ill have a tequila and a pitcher. I really just want the worm hole. I gotta get out of town fast!"
That explains everything.
@@frasercain I wish it did. How cool would it be if you invented the unified field theory from my joke?!?!?!?
Can't decide if a Doctor Who "The stars are going out" or a Matrix glitch reference would be most appropriate...
Well, you just made both.
Lexx "There's patches in the sky."
Sorry for the long question.
Relating to gravitational lensing, I imagine the light is stretched as it bends around the galaxy or whatever is causing the lensing. I assume this would slow down the light to below light speed, or maybe just make it take longer to get to us. Does this mean we're watching a further delay(25 million light years away = 25 million years ago + effects of lensing)but happening in real time, or is it slowing down the light so that we're seeing through the "lense" at reduced speed from "normal"(like .90X speed or whatever)? I know time is different in different places, so "normal" would be relative.
Thank you for all the hard work you do. Your videos have been very educational and enlightening. Have a great day!
I'd like to hear more about how the mechanics would work. What could be different about some stars that could make them skip the supernova? Could it be that a few stars manage to form with a very small rotation, so that all the infalling matter drops into the new black hole? That a normal supernova is from matter that had angular momentum, so it "missed" the even horizon, reached high enough temperatures to fuse to heavier elements, somehow got slingshotted away from the center again?
It's probably just a faulty memory cell in the simulation running this universe.
We'll know; if it turns back on . . .
Let's hope they don't turn the whole thing off and then back on again.
@@frasercain that's how I used to re-set my old Commodore 64
@@frasercain Depends really. If the last save was in late 2019 say, I actually wouldn't mind. The whole of 2020 has been seriously buggy.
@@frasercain Why would it matter? We wouldn't know the difference.
Supernovae are related to fuel depletion. Black hole transformation is based on ultimate mass. I never had any reason to suspect that the possibility of a direct-collapse black hole was impossible (if enough mass was added through accretion).
The traditional idea is just that material couldn't get into the singularity quickly enough, so it bounced out as a supernova.
I thought the "onion layer" method of fusion was disproved. I know that wasnt the technical term, but I'm curious if maybe I had misheard something at some point regarding fusion and the ways stars transition between fusing different elements.
I'm not sure it's a perfect onion layer, just that heavier and heavier elements get fused in the core.
@@frasercain Yea, I wish I could remember what exactly about that was up for debate. Idk. Love the videos though! Stay safe out there.
Well it is like everything an overly simplified description usually applied for far less massive extremely massive stars like Betelgeuse.
Technically for Luminous Blue Variable(LBV) stars they are so massive and rare we really don't understand much about them. With formation masses of ~60 Msun to in more extreme examples well over ~100+ Solar masses or more, LBV's, along with the "less evolved" hydrogen fusing WNh stars which may or may not be related we don't know for sure, are unimaginably extreme stars. LBV's are known for their nonperiodic variability and thus effectively named for their violent outbursts which eject solar masses worth of material and have a number of times been missidentified as supernovae.
There may be several different classes of such stars of varying masses,
the lower mass category thought to have formed with around 60 Msun are thought to be a transitional phase between the supergiant phase of O & B type stars and Wolf Rayet stars deficient in hydrogen and or helium which will eventually die as type Ib or Type Ic core collapse supernovae and with sufficient spin and a polar alignment the likely progenitors of long duration Gamma Ray Bursts....
Some simulations based off of known examples suggest for the most massive stars they appear to be analogous to the red giant phase of low mass stars or the red supergiant phase of less massive high mass stars and thus the typical end stage of such massive stars before they either explode and or collapse into a black hole. If sufficiently "metal" poor they could potentially produce pair instability supernovae or on the other extreme they could go out with a whimper as is speculated here.
Regardless both are extremely rare and extremely short lived phases which blur the limits of being able to hold themselves together that for a long time astronomers doubted their observations of such stars as if such stars had established hydrostatic equilibrium the stellar evolution equations for less massive stars suggest they should largely have radiated themselves apart due to their luminosities exceeding the gravitational binding energy. LBV's are known primarily for their colossal eruptions which we don't really understand though helium opacity seems to play a role in triggering them within more local easily studied examples like S. Doradus or Eta Carinae.
Given the extragalactic nature of this star it would probably have to be the more extreme class of such stars. If WNh stars are their progenitors one implication is that if "metal" enriched the extreme CNO cycle fusion reactions would result in the star being fully convective while on the main sequence resulting in the star burning its entire supply of hydrogen in a few million years. For example R136a1 the current record holder of most massive star known has a spectrum that is approximately 40% Hydrogen to 60% Helium (+ less than a percent trace elements of course)suggesting it is a little over half way through its main sequence lifetime. Thus at the very least an onion shell structure is not going to be possible for such a star as it will have little to no hydrogen left.
Plus once helium fusion begins with the triple alpha process it isn't that much harder for the resulting carbon 12 to merge with another alpha particle (i.e. helium 4) to become oxygen 16 or for that oxygen to merge with another alpha particle to become Neon 20 etc. thus while the shell burning model isn't entirely wrong the alpha ladder is also quite important resulting in most of the universe's Oxygen(16), Neon(20), Magnesium(24), Silicon(28), Sulfur(32), Argon(36),Calcium(40),Titanium(44 is Unstable half life 60 years) etc. these processes are minor relative to triple alpha reactions as each reaction above gets progressively less likely as there is more coulomb repulsion but are responsible for most of the above elements in the universe especially in the case of oxygen. There is also neutron capture going on adding even more complexity so it is certainly going to be far more messy than the simple hydrogen shell models.
Direct collapse does clean up some time line questions, and raises some new ones. Never a dull moment.
Great video.
Stay safe, stay healthy.
Thanks, yeah, we really need Vera Rubin to come online to help us out with this one.
@@frasercain that, IMHO, would make a great episode.
Exciting, I loved this episode ❤️
Thanks Fraser
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
What are the mechanics involved in a non-supernova? Does the singularity come into being before matter and light can escape as supernova?
The singularity forms as the star is imploding, but it gets too dense too quickly, and the event horizon forms before the supernova can happen.
I think we dont need to talk about the gravitational singularity in the centre. We only need to think about the event horizon in this case.
This is the way _some stars_ end. Not with a bang but with a whimper. - T.S. Eliot
Me as a star hahahahaha 😂😂
Maybe. :-)
I live in a town in Uttar Pradesh, India. It's called Jhansi. The place doesn't witness many Earthquakes. I've been living here for nore than 18 ears now and we only had less than 5 minor earthquakes
But today, the ground shook and so did our house of concrete walls, when it was thundering... you know the cloud rumble thing. Never before have I felt it this way. It was completely different.
I've checked out Google and RUclips, but couldn't find any satisfactory results. I think enough research has not been done on this topic
I love those kind of thunderstorms. Not uncommon here in midwest USA. Did the big strikes happen after the storm had passed over? That's how it usually is here. Positive lightning bolts come from the top of the cloud, usually out the back, and because the distance is so much larger than regular negative bolts from the bottom of the cloud, they're much more powerful. The brightness is incredible even from miles away, and it creates a shockwave in the air that rattles the windows, and feels like an earthquake for maybe 10-20 seconds, and continues rumbling long after that.
@@dekutree64 You love them?😬
I'm not sure if it was accompanied by lightning though
But the shockwaves sure shuddered my whole house as if it was gonna break down
BTW how do you know about the charge distributions over the cloud things
Can you give me the source of that info
Coz again
It's physics
The possible scenario could be that massive stars harbor Black Holes inside _prior_ supernova explosion or that "silent" collapse.
Once nuclear fuel in the core runs out, the black hole is formed - but star remains ~the same. Instead of gamma radiation from nuclear fusion the radiation of falling material of star takes control (accretion).
Such stars with black holes inside probably can burn their outer layer smoothly - without drastic implosion and explosion - and silently disappear.
?
That's an interesting idea, what would be the mechanism that actually forms the black hole, without the implosion?
"Lost a star have you, How embarrassing" ✌️🐸 Yoda
I'm sure it's around here somewhere.
-The article I read said "something" is still visible in the infrared there, it didn't absolutely disappear- EDIT: It isn't. I was thinking of N6946-BH1
I didn't see that for the Kinman Galaxy star.
@@frasercain Oh, so then this one is a different star. Since there is a gap in the data, scientist think it may have gone nova during while they weren't looking. "An alternative explanation for the disappearance for the LBV in PHL 293B is an undetected SN explosion. Burke et al. (2020) favour this hypothesis, suggesting that an SN IIn event occurred between 1995 and 1998, during which no photometry is available.
" I was thinking of N6946-BH1
Hi Fraser! How do scientists know that there's an actual singularity at the centre of the black hole and not just some strange type of superdense matter? I mean, if we can't see beyond the event horizon and the denser the black hole the bigger the event horizon gets, is the singularity inevitable? Couldn't there be just something, the same way stars have very dense matter? Greetings from Spain.
We probably won't ever know what's inside the event horizon. Maybe it's a superdense object, maybe it's a singularity. But a black hole behaves as if it's a singularity.
@@frasercain Thanks!
We see stars as they were in the past, it blows my mind. Some of them we see as they were millions of years ago, some billions of years ago. We could be looking at a star right now that went supernova millions of years ago but the light hasn't reached us yet so we still see the star. Even our own sun, we see it as it was 8 minutes ago so if it suddenly just vanished, it would take 8 minutes for us to see...it just seems surreal.
Yeah, it's hard to wrap our minds around those kinds of distances. :-)
You’ve been doing a lot of interviews and Q&A’s lately. I like to see more episodes like these
I've mentioned in some of the QAs that I'm not happy with the quality of these videos compared to the depth I can go with the interviews. I'd like to figure out a way to synthesize them together again, but it's still a work in progress.
So... Would it be the first unnova "observed"? Interesting!!!
I mentioned in the video that there was another one, but this is pretty interesting.
@@frasercain Yeah, I commented too early. 😬
But definitely interesting!
Call it a gut impression, but I bet stars that spin slowly are more likely to do this than the faster spinning ones. If it didn't spin at all the forces would be so symetrical that it would have to go that way with no "orbitting" to help maintain the distance, just a straight falling in. There has to be some threshold for both mass and spin rate.
That's a really interesting idea, yeah, the outward force would help slow the material falling inward to give it a chance to become a supernova.
For almost twenty years (2000 to 2020) nobody looked and then it was gone?
There are a lot of galaxies to look at. That's why we want the Vera Rubin Observatory. ruclips.net/video/L1otYvmqp6w/видео.html
Fraser Cain Sure, but without knowing much about stars, I can't help thinking that a lot could happen in 20 years - while nobody watched...
Shouldn’t there be some visible gravitational lensing effects now, that was not there before the star dissapaired if in fact it turned into a black hole?
Telescopes still aren't powerful enough to actually resolve the individual star, just detect the presence seeing a larger region in the galaxy.
I think as you suggested. About 70-75% of supermassive stars that do produce black holes do supernova. About 25-30% of supermassive stars simply implode producing a black hole.
Perhaps supermassive black holes are primary black holes. They may have formed from the collapse of hyper massive molecular hydrogen clouds and hyper giant stars, that were too huge to explode, during the beginning of cloud and star formation. Your cosmic time those supermassive black holes would have merged with other black holes.
That would help explain how those first black holes got so big so quickly.
Another possible reason for the star just disappearing may be, it was consumed by an existing black hole, skipping the supernova event.
Extremely well made video.Great stuff.
How do astronomers and cosmologists map out and find their way around billions of stars inside billions of galaxies to be able to come back to specific ones and observe/study them?
Every spot in the sky has a very specific location that astronomers can return to as long as they recorded the address the first time.
@@frasercain still, those are almost unimaginably slight positional measurements, and doesn't the position of stars in the sky change very slighty over time due to everything moving? wouldn't that mess up the recorded positional data from a while back?
So, when elemental fusion reaches iron, it shuts down, I get that. However, I am confused, does the fusion process go like this; hydrogen fuses into helium, until ALL hydrogen is gone, THEN helium starts fusing until All of the helium is gone, and so on? Or, can helium be fusing as hydrogen starts winding down? So, expanding on that, is it possible that some elements are currently fusing into iron now in the core?
I ask this, because if no silicon has been fused to produced iron at all, then, all of the sudden it does, I get the super nova collapse. However, if a variety of different elemental fusions are constantly going on, and the build up of Iron is gradual, I don't see why it would collapse at relativistic speeds, kind of a more gradual collapse relative to the speed of iron being formed.
Fusing heavier elements releases less energy than fusing lighter ones.
This means with each successive heavier fusion the star's core shrinks, and each type of fusion is done exponentially quicker than the previous one.
The last fusion is very fast, IIRC less than a couple of minutes, and then suddenly the star has no outward pressure preventing collapse.
There may still be an atmosphere of lighter elements to blow off, but they would have been too far out from the fusing core to participate as fuel.
Wolf-Rayet stars are oddballs that have multiple types of fusion occurring in layers like an onion.
Assumptions. All they know is they can't find it anymore. There is no sign or trace of it. It's too far away to see it directly which could also be the reason for the complication
my qeustion is : where is the black whole ? You can not see the black whole but you can see it by looking at
the other planets around. So if this star imploded directly in a black whole , where is the black whole ?
The star itself wasn't resolved directly, they still need a much more powerful telescope to see exactly where it was.
I'm having trouble visualizing how this would work. My first problem is: where did all the star's angular momentum go? There's always some rotation. So a blackhole forms at the center, wow cool. The rest of the star's mass has to fall into it. But for that to happen without an accretion disk forming would require all of the star's rotation stop instantly or have NO rotation to begin with. Non-rotating stuff just doesn't happen. There has to be an accretion disk giving off a bunch of x-rays.
I'm betting there's a modest accretion disk that we're just too far away from to detect. 75 million lightyears is a long way from a not-so-big 30-sol-mass blackhole.
I think the point is just that we didn't detect the supernova part at any point during that period. There could very well be an accretion disk now that's too dim to detect. I guess we'll have to wait for the E-ELT. As usual...
Trust me, it's always aliens.
👾 don't tell everyone or we will have to pay you a visit.👽
Except when it's dust.
Like a 3 billion year old species of sentient parsec spanning super hivemind that devours blue giant stars, but they're vegetarians, and limit themselves to only eating suns where life cannot exist, or even eat them so local neighbors don't get blasted by supernovae? Ethical super hivemind beings could be cool, I guess. At this point it's anyone's guess. Disappearing stars give astrophysicists early deaths, because our maths don't properly explain why this should be happening, but the universe is under no obligation to behave according to our maths, as this so vividly demonstrates. We need better instruments. We need to keep fine tuning and improving LIGO/Virgo, and also try to start miniaturizing them. If we continue to make progress in gravity mapping, who knows what we might even find hiding out in the dim chill of the outer Kuiper belt and the distant darkness of the Oort cloud.
@Fraser Cain Heyyy aren’t you supposed to be on vacation decompressing from our fast paced digital life? It’s hard, I know.
...a really bad day at the office for someone :-) ooops!! Darn!! I busted it!!
Wouldn't element abundance be effected by stars blinking out? Isn't 30 percent too high?
We're still learning all the different ways that elements come into the Universe. Now it turns out that white dwarfs are big source of carbon.
I'm not sure I can accept this explanation for stars becoming black holes without explosions with two possible exceptions.
1 - the star was devoured by another black hole
2 - the star was so massive that the core density reached that of black holes and sucked in the rest
it was likely just absorbed by a black hole
If a star was devoured by a black hole, we'd see a flash of x-ray radiation. We can see when the black hole in the Milky Way is eating snacks by flashes of X-rays.
@@frasercain they said it disappeared when they weren't watching for a good while.
This is the third video about this subject that I watch.
And, ofcourse it's the most interesting and detailed one.
As usual. 👍
Oh thanks, I try not to pay attention to what anyone else is doing. :-)
Glad you enjoyed it!
The universe is electric... stars are powered externally via electrical currents.
The electric universe theory fails many observational tests. briankoberlein.com/blog/testing-electric-universe/
I think someone will claim dark matter is to blame and we will spend another half a trillion dollars chasing unicorns and leprechauns.
I don't think anyone's making the case for dark matter on this one. Dark matter doesn't seem to interact with regular matter in any way but gravity.
I have seen an astronomer explaining that a supernovae needs a core to bounce off. So only star collapses that results in a neutron start results in a supernova. If a black hole is generated there is nothing to bounce off and there will be no supernova. I thought it was in a sixty symbol video
I mean, to be fair, a Type 3 civilization would totally be able to pull that off too. One could argue the speed that it happened but if a civilization is at the Type 3 level then their view of speed and time may be vastly different from ours.
Interesting. Always thought disappearance of objects like stars would be used as proof of black holes more often. I suppose its testament to the size of the universe that it doesn't happen more often. Or perhaps for all the technology we have we can't see everything.
Isn't route to Mars with Wenus gravity assistance better than direct flight? Ive watched yt video about it recently
It's an interesting idea, but there are a lot of problems with it too.
Question: when a red dwarf finally dies out does it simple fizzle away or does it become something dark and solid?
How does this new finding, 10%-30% of the stars wink out without a Supernova, affect the mass estimates of the universe and "dark matter"? For that matter are smBHs considered baryonic matter if we cant see them?
SMBHs have been ruled out as dark matter, but smaller, primordial black holes could still explain them.
Is there an official acronym for stellar mass black holes (smBH) that is different from super-massive black holes (SMBH) ?
People are still cautious about saying for certain that direct collapse is real. But it seems quite likely that we have made a big discovery in cosmology that nobody was really talking about just a few years ago.
Great explanation of star lifecycles
Anton Petrov made me aware of this last week, fascinating story, and I'm interested in the follow-up on this investigation. I think the maths' will prove to be invaluable to this mystery. I think the curve of where the event horizon falls is predictive based on the time vs the density of the object, but there might have been a jump in the mass of the object before collapse, maybe another body such as a brown dwarf collided with it, and produced the spike which moved the event horizon beyond the normal boundaries from when the collapse occurred... its hard to talk about something that takes both time and space to explain, but this could have moved the star into a mass which is greater than the allowance that the core could push outward, and also hastened the collapse, and this would explain the huge inward fall without explosion, as the iron core was not present?
We need that Extremely Large Telescope to help us learn more. 2026 can't come soon enough.
@@frasercain 2020 can't be over fast enough...
Merging stars rotate around each other sometimes for billions of years before they merge. If it was another star colliding with it shouldn't we have seen that star in our telescopes.
@Ivan Jakanov If it were a black hole wandering around that ate this star, there would have been an enormous amount of evidence of the occurrence as the star was ripped laterally into the magnetic stream of the black hole, a "wandering" black hole would have simply torn the star apart far before the point of impact, and there would have been a LOT of stuff to detect from a star that big.
From what I understand this only happens in hyper-giants, that, or there's nothing left behind due to a pair-instability supernova.
Could it have been a (super)massive black hole interposing and gravitationally lensing the light from the star? We should be able to check by looking for the same signal not in that particular exact direction but in a circle around it (radius depending on black hole's mass).
Might the fact that the galaxy where this vanishing was observed is metal-poor have anything to do with the fate of the star? The most massive BHs seem to be discovered in the greatest distances from here and thus our views of them are oldest, often billions of years old when the universe was significantly younger and metal- poorer than today.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. It would have been more similar to those primordial stars.
Simulator must have thought no one is looking and tried to save some memory space!
Let's hope they don't reset the simulation.
If you had a star made of cobalt (or other elements past iron), would a fusion reaction become exothermic again?
No. You can do nuclear fission, but not fusion beyond iron.
@@frasercain That fruity little author Adrian Berry put out a book many years ago with said title.
So, could this estimate of 10% direct black hole collapse contribute to explaining dark matter? I.e. just tons and tons of stellar-mass black holes? Or would that collide with direct observations we make here form earth? How "visible" would a stellar mass black hole be, anyhow (both to normies and astronomy), if it would just pass our sun a few light years away?
If a black hole got that close, we might see a little bit of gamma radiation coming from it as things got consumed by it. One idea for dark matter is primordial black holes, but not many people believe in that idea any more. :-)
If it formed a Blackhole. Could jets produced along its axis of rotation be so tightly focused, that we couldn’t see them?
If it completely gobbled up the stellar material, there wouldn't be any jets any more.
Hey isn’t Fraser supposed to be on vacation?? Glad he’s responding to comments
No, I'm still working, I'm just not doing any livestreams. It's possible I'm working even harder...
He's hardly ever on vacation, but the live streams are on hiatus for now.
@@frasercain
I live in l.a. and I'm looking for this comet. Never seen one before. Dont know if I'll be able to see it
When a sun-like star fades away to the background temp of the universe at the end of its life what is it like?...I mean, if we theoretically sent a probe into one (just pretending we could) , what would it find? A gas giant or something more exotic?
Maybe something like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_star
Could it be imagined like the star is like a balloon and the balloon is filled up with air (gases like helium and H2 ) , suddenly a needle ( solar flares) is pricked and the star just shrinks to form a black hole.....
The names of these telescopes are simply fantastic beyond their surface verbiage.
I look forward to the future RLT (Ridiculously Large Telescope) and the LLT (Ludicrously Large Telescope).
I'm assuming you've seen this comic? xkcd.com/1294/
@@frasercain I had not, but now I have. Things are...better :)
"Soon, they will make a telescope with a name so literal, it will destroy them all! Aaaahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaa"
They have yet to fund The OLT
Spinning black holes cannot lose the event horizon? So maybe people were looking at it without knowing that they were looking at a naked singularity? And somehow the singularity shrink again bellow the event horizon imaginary part of space, going back to standard black-hole.
Or maybe is just so very dense dust cloud passing by. The third possibility is that it reach some very unique state that cause it to disappear from space-time, totally collapsing, evaporating in record time or has gone to a parallel universe.
It gave off all the chemical signature of just being a regular star. And then it was gone. The direct collapse hypothesis seems to fit the data best so far.
Q&A : If the universe is expanding and will eventually get to a point where we will only see our local neighbors, wouldn’t people alive then observe that and think the universe is just that? Could it be the universe is much bigger but it just expanded out of our view and we think this is it?
Yes, far enough into the future, astronomers won't be able to see any galaxies other than the ones in their local group. The evidence for the Big Bang will disappear from the cosmos.
Has it shown back up yet?
The Universe definitely does strange things when we're not looking. It does strange things when we are looking, too.
Wouldn't there be gravity waves if it formed a black hole? Or neutrinos at least? We have detectors now!!!!
Who would've guessed. That in our finite ability to perceive the universe around us has infinite possibility of outcome. I love space and everything to do with it. But observing the cosmos can also be done by looking inside yourself. Infinity goes both ways.
ahh so thats what caused the giant star to disappear.. fascinating..
Sure, but those are two different things, and they can't really provide insights into each other.
How do you prove a negative? If you don't see it, is a Black Hole really there? How fast can a star transition through a supernova so that it isn't seen? Could the star have captured the light pulse before it escaped the Event Horizon? Multiple stars spiraling in bringing mass but none big/old enough to go supernova; but as they get closer together their mass moves what would become the Event Horizon far enough away so that nothing would escape?
We should have seen a supernova. A star like this could put out as much energy as the rest of the galaxy combined. It's hard to miss. They usually last a few weeks and then fade away.
Did you ever ask yourself: If you can't fuse beyond iron, where did all of the heavier elements come from?
From collapsing stars, colliding black holes and neutron stars I think?
They're formed in the moment that the supernova is happening, as all the material is imploding and being forced together.
@@frasercain This is common sense. Otherwise generations of stars throughout the universe wouldn't create more and more different elements. The dust and elements from earlier supernova combine to form a new star. That new star now has more elements in it than the star before it which went supernova, and this new star, when it explodes if it's large enough to create a supernova creates even more different elements than the supernova star before it. It has more to work with.
There is a giant icecream cone cruising around the universe gobbling up stars and planets, but we can't get rid of it till after Jim Kirk is born in 200 years time.
There is also the possibility, that the distant star just crossed the speed of light in its movement going away from us and we have noted just the last information coming to us from the expanding Universe and it is the limit of study possibility in the case of this particular star. Can it be true?
Stary
That's the "dust" idea that I mentioned. We might see the star reappear.
Not going to lie, I fast forward every time the patreon stuff comes up lol
Do it! They support us so you can see the videos. That section is really only for them, for me to thank them for their support.
Maybe that star just needed a smoke break? Don’t worry, I’m sure it’ll be back in a few short millions of years 😂
I'm sure people will be watching the region pretty carefully. :-)
Fraser Cain yes I’m sure hahaha. Though maybe an advanced interstellar alien society just decided to drop their solar system through a wormhole, which they held open with their exotic matter! They might’ve just needed a vacation from that corner of their galaxy, perhaps to avoid a nearby supernova stripping off their planets’ atmospheres :)
Gotta respect the hustle, that’s for sure!
No black hole or super nova, just simple Electro-Magnetism in which the incoming electrostatic energy entering the star weakened. Therefore no energy in = no luminosity of the star because it basically ran out of fuel.
“It’s always dust.” Lol
Always dust.
The bane of astronomy :-)
@@zapfanzapfan Na those are clouds
Darn you MorningLightMountain!
I've got to read this series. :-)
Ancient giant black holes are like the result of mergers between the black holes from population 3 stars
But the question is how they got so big so quickly.
@@frasercain I would suspect giant population 3 stars that ended quickly in large black holes that merged and consumed other stars and gas,etc.
Doesn’t a neutrino outburst preceded the supernova? If so why was that not detected?
It was too far away. You'd need a star going supernova within the Milky Way and it's immediate vicinity. There is a supernova neutrino warning system, but it's never been triggered.
What if the star was meganova, it's blast lasted for many years, then it went out and formed to a blackhole?
As I said in the video, nobody every saw a supernova in that region of the sky. It would have been very obvious.
@@frasercain I meant it could have been a long lived meganover. It started way before the telescopes first saw it. It looked like a bright star, but it was a exploding star which lasted many years, then the explosion burned out.
Galactus, it's gotta be Galactus.
I'm not saying it's Galactus...
"A Massive Star Just Disappeared.."
Well, we haven't heard from David Copperfield in a while, have we?
Could a refueled Starship repair James Webb?
Sure, in theory. That would be pretty easy for Starship.
@@frasercain Thanks. I was skeptical about Starship, but I saw the dynamism of its development, and I think they can pull it off in the next years.
My personal hypothesis is that the supermassive black holes at center of quasars are actually white holes. Black holes and white holes occupy the same space at the same time depending on field of reference usually we see the black hole that obscures the white body. Quasars would be the same objects "flipped on" or inside out and showing their full potential. Einstein for the longest time honestly believed some unknown force of nature must prevent these monstrosities from forming in the first place, despite his own equations leading to their conceptualization. Black holes AND white holes. And we can find the black holes even the beyond the event horizon is damn near "unfindable" so where are all the white holes? The white holes should be super easy to find. Yes. According to my theory they're right in front of our faces. Quasars. Maybe Einstein was sort of right with forces of nature placing limitations on such objects. What's stopping the entire universe from forming one big giant black hole containing everything? Perhaps there's a size limit before they reverse course and belch out all that excess material. If spacetime is 4 dimensional but visualized as a two dimensional plane like the old bowling balls on a mattress to simulated gravity.. a black hole as we all know would be like vertical lines down into a pit that goes right off the chart. That vertical aspect is the fourth dimension. If a white hole that it's same contents would rain down from above and belch forth horizontally beyond it's own event horizon. The EV being a ring around the gravity well from which 3d objects can't cross as it dives into 4d. If a black hole was a tub drain then a white hole is the shower faucet and the system is one big loop. Once enough goes in one end, the bucket tips over and pours it back out from the top.
Man...how disappointing would it be if Betelgeuse or Eta Carinae just disappeared after all that anticipation.
If out star just blinked out of existence would we notice the effects of gravity instantly or would it be like the speed of light and take time for us to notice? Thanks, great video.
Pandora's star - Morningligthmountain is there!
I clearly need to read this book.
How about something large and dark is between us and the "disappeared" star?
That's the "dust" idea.
My wife asked if she could borrow my credit card. Now my bank account is a black hole 🕳
Good luck getting it back out again.
My guess, it almost went supernova but forces then balanced again, and as result shed a lot of energy and matter without exploding or collapsing. Meaning they will find it with the new Extremely Large Telescope, just dimmer.
The thing about this is it's only surprising because for the last several decades science has decided clever math formulas aren't just the starting point to forming an actual theory, they are an acceptable replacement for real observations and forming testable theories. Which is to say they basically said we have a product of 4 so the process has to be 2+2. Look we have proof 2+2=4...Only the real answer is 1+3 ,50- 46 or one an infinite other mathematical formulas no one ever considered because they already had the answer.
Where are the links to all of your claims? How about the study that determined the disappearing star at minimum?
I put all the references into the shownoted
I'm waiting for the computer simulation to verify that this is possible. I wonder if it has just the right blend of elements. How maassive would it be, and how long before we see other objects rotating it.
* You should label the artist guesses vs the actual photographs, it is quite disrespectful of your viewers not to do so. *
We'll need more observations and more data to be able to understand what's going on. We've done whole videos about artist illustrations compared to actual pictures. ruclips.net/video/Q41hLHcKyUM/видео.html
Do we have information about whether this galaxy is one of the ones that does not have a halo of Dark Matter?
It would be interesting and provocative if that were the case.
Perhaps without Dark Matter it is more likely that black holes form in this way, and I think we can all follow some basic logic from there.
Of course, this is all speculation.
I'm not sure what the dark matter amount is in that galaxy.
Much as you can block out the sun with your hand, i'd imagine a solar powered sailboat could heading our way.
It's got a long journey ahead of it. 75 million years, even if it moves almost at the speed of light.
have you gotten to see comet neowise this week