Methuselah star HD140283, is so close, just at the corner: only 190 LY away: "A study published in 2013 used the Fine Guidance Sensors of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to measure a precise parallax (and therefore distance and luminosity) for the star. This information was used to estimate an age for the star of 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years. Due to the uncertainty in the value, this age for the star would possibly conflict with the calculated age of the Universe as determined by the final 2018 Planck satellite results of 13.761±0.038 billion years. However, more recent models of its stellar evolution have suggested revision of the star's age to 13.7 billion years."
@@egay86292 you make an extremely good point. But, in the original age range, if it really is the -0.8, then it equals 13.66 Billion, so the new revision seems to fall within range.
Of course it is after 100 millions years of any formed stars will emit light and calculated age of the universe is 13.8byrs it is possible for a star to be age of 13.7byrs
THE ONLY way to get a reliable age of star is via spectroscopy and then getting its redshift and then that gives you an age. Any and every other way is very dodgy verging on a straight up lie. See Dr Becky’s channel and she is a astrophysicist working on black holes, mostly. YES this means all those people say “I’ve found the oldest star ever” using the pictures from JWST and checking that spectrum are all lies very very big lies since the people saying this know how it should be done. The JWST images being used are the picture images that get coloured to make them pretty. The problem is that this isn’t a comp,eye spectra but just 3 overlayed images at various wavelengths. Similar to Hubble taking a red green and blue image and overlaying them to make a full colour image. So what happens now is that the light from an image that makes an image when split is now missing 95% of the wave lengths that fills the gaps between the 3 individual wavelength images. This means that the scientists LITERALLY MAKE UP the missing light. This means that their error bars in real life are nothing like the 0.8 LY error you quote and are more like 5 LY +- errors or more. That’s why JWST has a spectra camera that does FULL SPECTRA for every pixel in the frame.
Appreciate this vid, Anton. We keep positing theories and researching them to see if they are correct. Pop. 3 stars may be all gone, but they will always be remembered.
Love that you can offer appraisals of the latest scientific papers. Happy to watch more of these when you do such a good job of presenting the information.
Talked to a research manager from NASA about 12 years ago, he implied that magnetism had nothing to do with star formation. Interesting how this view point seems to be changing since that decade old conversation. Godel showed us how formulas can be misleading if not thoroughly rooted in reality. We also use fractals to resolve mathematical issues with infinite integers as well. Now that we have better tools for examining reality perhaps we may need to re-examine some our more basic concepts in this field.
My guess is that population III stars can't form in our current universe. Low metallicity stars exist, but they don't seem to have the sorts of properties we expect from Population III stars. There must have been something about the properties of the early universe that allowed/enabled/ensured that the first generation of stars were very large/shortlived. Perhaps the extreme density of the early universe caused the stars to form almost immediately.
Given that they were expected to live during the first 100 million years, they must have been massive. For people out there, the heavier a star, the faster it chews through all its fuel. By comparison the dinosaurs lived over a longer period than the pop-3 stars. What also could happen is gas clouds obscuring/hiding the furthest stars.
I expect stars to have formed almost as quickly as it was physically possible. That would have been around 300,000 years after the Bang. The insanity of that time must have been something, massive compact gas clouds directly collapsing into mega stars and those in turn crashing into each other. I'd love to know how massive some of these actually got. 1000 solar masses? I'm also curious if we'd ever be able to distinguish any surviving population 3 stars as they must have been enriched in metals post formation by the 1000's of super novas or collisions they've witnessed.
What qualifies you to have an opinion? How dare you speculate! I certainly know less about this than you but I see that you have an opinion on the Internet and I feel obliged to disagree.
Thank you Anton for continuing with these Videos for so long and love learning all the info you present. THE Universe sure has grown in my 47 years I have been alive for and cant wait to see with the next generation of space telescopes will uncover in the coming decades🙂
Watching this video today made me realise something I had not thought about, that black holes will not have a lifespan like typical stars, and they will probably outlive everything else
Oh yeah. the hydrogen-burning star period of the universe is actually only going to be a small sliver of the total lifespan, assuming of course that Big Rip is less likely than heat death. If you're interested in this sort of thing, I'd recomend checking out Isaac Arthur's 'Civilizations at the end of Time' series
From what I know watching videos about this sort of thing, there will be an era in the universe where there will only be black holes. In fact, I think most of the universe's life will be that black hole era.
The universe has been around 13.8 billion years, but because it is expanding and dark energy is accelerating, the stars would be 46+ billion light years away.
It’s incredible to think that humans think they are strong enough or intelligent enough to try to even spend resources and time to try ti answer dumb questions like this. YOU’LL NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER. And the answer is pointless. (I love these vids btw) but cmon.....The Lord speaks directly against asking questions like this lmao pointless.
Hi Anton, Thank you for this enlightening video presentation of your take on the "simulations of magnetic fields' effects on the first stars' creation" paper you cited. Mostly for the cerebral content that helps us become even smarter, but also because of the significant time that we all potentially save by absorbing your condensed version of the paper's significant amount of information that is accompanied by graphical elements you have often personally chosen for their potential relevance and enhancement, making the content less "dry". Moreover, I am a big fan of everything having to do with the potential application of magnetic fields, especially since I am writing a book that make unique use of magnetic fields to surprising and rewarding effect on two key pivotal occasions that are points driving the premise. Tke care, Mark
@@jimleane7578 You left out gravity. That is important. Of course EM was present soon after the beginning of the universe. But its more of a local effect. Gravity has not range limit.
I just realized, any observers on our cosmic horizon would not be able to see any evidence of our planet, solar system, or perhaps even our galaxy from their perspective.
I hope you and your wife are doing as well as can be expected. We never get over a loss of a loved one, but we get through it, no matter what anyone said.
I find the early universe fascinating, and Anton you've managed to rejuvenate that once again! The only thing that interrupts that joy of discovery is the somewhat confusing terminology - numbering generations backwards in time. But I guess it's more adaptable - if we realize there may be other even earlier generations, there are numbers left for them.
blows my mind to ponder a star living such a short life to then go black so much energy learning how to become a supermassive focus creating barred spirals and the dance of life
Serious premise question, would Milky Way galaxy pop III stars be recognizable given capture of enough pop II and I supernova material? Wouldn't most / all have been "contaminated" with metals spewed out over everything? After posting I noticed that Iry posted a similar question 12d ago. And others before that...
I had to explain to my father why I am so captivated by the cosmos since a few years. If only I had your comment then. It would have saved both of us some time.
so basically the hypothesis is that magnetism was stronger in the early universe , and that made galaxies and stars form faster. if they find some way to test for this then that would be cool .
As always Anton you never disappoint. Amazing video. One small suggestion, please consider using the term "hypothesis" instead of "theory" when referring to what scientists believe but don't have enough proof or evidence. "Theory" means a complete different thing than what it does in everyday conversations.
The Big Bang is considered a theory because many aspects of it have been confirmed through observation. Some aspects still have the status of hypothesis because we don't have enough data to confirm or disprove them.
It's interesting how much shorter the lifespan of early stars was, based on this study. That would result in a faster pace of evolution in The Universe, and I imagine that might help to solve some of the questions that have come up from JWST observations of objects that are older than scientists expected to find at that time period.
Just remember all these calculations & theories are hinged upon the speed of light being a constant & remaining a constant over infinity. And we have yet to actually prove the the speed of light, we merely assume the speed of light. We still have nothing whatsoever that is fixed to build our understanding of the cosmos upon. Science will not admit it, but science is just as much of a faith based religion as any other... meaning we have to have faith that the speed of light is fixed and immutable in order for any of science to work.
@@petersteele7603 If scientists you talk to refuse to admit that it requires faith in established theories then I'd suggest finding better scientists to talk to. They are also ready to alter that faith when presented with compelling new evidence that contradicts old theories; unlike most religions.
These should be called Population 1 stars, as they were the first/oldest. But that’s looking from what we know now, not what we knew when they started naming them.
I, hereby would like to make the suggestion to reverse the population-numbers.this is going to get quite complicated a couple of billion years from now
If you want to find the three stars then you need to aim at the centre of them. All atoms, solar systems, galaxies etc. spin around a centre point of rotation. The 3 stars do the same, they spin individually and also as a complete system of two pairs rotating around a centre point/star. On the scale of our universe, there would be a centre point, the same as there is a centre point at the centre of our galaxy, our solar system, a living cell or even an atom. If a person can calculate the trajectory of a planet around a sun, they can calculate the trajectory of all galaxies around a centre location/star. That is where the centre star / source of force will be at that scale of calculation. If you use the same calculation you can find the source of the original three stars at every point in the universe after the expansion event. Which means everything at an atomic level of our universe is part of the original three stars, we are inside it, we are it, everything around us is it and together everything is one form which is made up of many parts (as is the case with everything around you as well).
Unfortunately the matter in the Universe, as a whole, is not orbiting any central point. It tends to be drawn into vast, thin filaments with large relatively empty voids between them.
@@permanentvisitor2460 I believe we haven’t actually mapped all the travel paths of the galaxies yet. If there was a central point of origin like the three stars then the great expansion would all be expanding from that point still, even if it was in the shape of a web, an egg, a ball, a disc, vast thin elements, or even branches. You can calculate a trajectory if you predict where an object is travelling to, the same as calculating where it came from. If it were branches or drawn out vast thin elements then you would follow its path backward. At intersections of different paths there may be signs of convergence and divergence. And if this was not the original point of origin but instead was a node then the net effect of the whole node would also be directional like following a tree branch back toward a trunk. Everything would generally point back to the same direction, maybe not an exact centre point initially but definitely in the correct direction. And over time as we gain more data of the movements from larger convergences then we would be able to gain more accuracy.
I would think that it would be very difficult to tell a pop 3 star from a pop 2 star. Even though the pop 3 stars were not formed out of supernova remnants, they could be contaminated by ejecta from nearby supernova making them look like pop 2 stars.
It seems that when an extremely massive star, such as many population 3 stars were, goes supernova there would not be a blackhole or any form of stellar reminant left behind. The most massive stars undergo a process known as a "pair instability nova." This type of supernova is not the result of core collapse, but rather runaway fusion that ultimately grows to exceed the binding energy of the star. Therefore, when a star undergoes a pair instability supernova it completely explodes core and all. There is no black hole, neutron star, or any form of stellar reminant. Note: this only rules out stellar reminant black holes. There could still be direct collapse black holes when population. 3 stars are forming.
A somewhat unrelated question that occurred to me is how are magnetic lines able to “escape” a black hole? Or is it just the matter surrounding a black hole that produces these lines?
If I understand correctly, a magnetic line is non material, not made of particles of any kind but rather is a magnetic force that results from material. This is a layman's attempt at describing, not information from a university professor or other recognized authority on the subject.
Technically speaking yes, because of it's relatively high metal content. It's been called an intermediate population 1 because it's also pretty old. People tend to think of population 1 stars as being hot young O-B giants like Rigel, but the classification of population 1 or 2 actually only refers to the metal content.
Hi Anton, thanks for that. Can you please do a video on why neutron stars shine given that we call them "dead" stars which no longer have fusion as their source of energy?
@Anton Petrov Could you please explain the images we are seeing from James Webb? To me, they look more like a digital artists rendering as opposed to a "real" or maybe "optical" image? Thank you for your content Anton "Wonderful Person" Petrov.
@@neftysturd I hear there's some kind of viewer app that lets you construct images out of the raw data. idk how it works exactly but I imagine you have various bands and you assign a visible frequency to each band.
JWST works in infrared. The raw images are brightness maps: when you open a raw image, it's grayscale. These images are taken through a filter that limits which wavelengths are recorded. For a color image, they take 3 or more images, using different filters. After downloading, the imaging team assigns colors to each image and stacks them to make a color image. There is some artistic freedom in choosing which colors to use, but generally the longest wavelengths are mapped to red, medium to green and short to blue.
I'm more interested in 4th generation stars. Elements we don't know 🤔 The magnetic universe is born to die and be born again. Ultimate growth followed by Ultimate death. Beautiful.
I'm guessing the Methuselah Star doesn't count? I think it's classified as a Population II star because of its metallicity, but is it possible for metals to have deposited onto the surface from space dust it's passed through?
Usually, a star doesn’t pick up much material from the interstellar medium after forming, as the stellar radiation pressure creates a 'bubble' around the star and its planetary system. If anything, it would probably be from asteroids or planetoids falling into the star, but that is made more difficult by orbital mechanics and harmonics - plus what little could impact a star would make up a minuscule fraction of its mass. Not saying that it is impossible for pop III-stars to have been 'metallicised' by foreign objects and thus hidden among pop II-stars, especially if they have been around for billions and billions of years, but it is probably unlikely. That said, I wonder if small-mass pop III stars could be born in the interim between the first massive stars forming and their deaths, forming from smaller collapsing fragments of pure gas clouds left over after the giants swept most of their surroundings clean. In fact, it might be possible for the larger stars to aid in this process by compressing the fragments with their enormous radiation pressure due to them being so massive.
@@mikkohernborg5291 iirc, that's one mechanism hypothesized to be behind binary star systems with large mass gaps between them. Such as a G Type and a red dwarf, or an O type and a G Dwarf.
Note known very old almost as old as universe stars we already know exist. They are type III by definition the reason they have some metals is absorbing metals over their existence. In other words no first star could exist till now without absorbing metals thus looking like Pop II. These scientists research something not even needed for metal production. And stars like Methuselah really make it very hard to have a earlier star period as it's age almost that of the Universe with updated data. Any Metals Methuselah has almost certainly deposited over the billions of years of Spotting individual stars at those ranges near impossible they just too small at those ranges and way too few photons reach us to image. They would have to be gravitationally lensed and super huge. But a few prove nothing as we have Super huge stars now.
At the edge of the Galactic filaments, can we see if there is a higher concentration of type 3 stars and within or at the center of the filaments is there more type 1 stars?
@@brucemibus9523 It is my understanding that a scientific theory is a hypothesis that withstood attempts to disprove it and subsequently successfully made predictions and was backed by observations (facts). Like the theory of evolution, general relativity etc. If something didn't meet the above requirements should be regarded as a hypothesis.
Makes me think that all the supermassive black holes in the universe are population 3 stars along with thousands of smaller objects they absorbed over billions of years
I love the presentation, and I don't mean any ill ere, but I would very much prefer captioning of the dialog. This good man knows his stuff, but he does not speak clearly enough in English to be easily understood, and he speaks rather fast. Sorry, but some of his presentation is lost due to the hard-to-understand language barrier for some of us. Captioning would make this presentation clear for everyone.
Really fascinating. Just everything about the interconnected nature of … well, Nature is just so awe inspiring to me. I feel so grateful for our star ancestors.
Partially because bulk matter is electrically neutral for the most part. The early universe contained only hydrogen, helium and perhaps a sprinkle of lithium after the last scattering of the CMB. Until the stars themselves coalesced and ionized the atoms within themselves, moving electrical fields to create magnetic fields were hard to come by.
Could there be some undiscovered laws of physics that existed early on but are not powerful enough to be detected now that could have overpowered modern laws?
There have been conflicting reports since about 2010 or so arguing that the fine structure constant has changed as much as 45 parts in a billion over the lifetime of the universe.
Only the latter. It will need a powerful gravitational lense to directly see one of these stars. Just like earendil. Stil jwst is the best telecope suited for that task.
In the infrared region of the EM spectrum. By viewing the universe at infrared wavelengths Webb will show us things never before seen by any other telescope. It is only at infrared wavelengths that we can see the first stars and galaxies forming after the Big Bang. And it is with infrared light that we can see stars and planetary systems forming inside clouds of dust that are opaque to visible light. The primary goals of Webb are to study galaxy, star and planet formation in the universe. To see the very first stars and galaxies that formed in the early universe, we have to look deep into space to look back in time (because it takes light time to travel from there to here, the farther out we look, the further we look back in time). …..one more point to highlight: Objects of about Earth's temperature emit most of their radiation at mid-infrared wavelengths. These temperatures are also found in dusty regions forming stars and planets, so with mid-infrared radiation we can see the glow of the star and planet formation taking place. An infrared-optimized telescope allows us to penetrate dust clouds to see the birthplaces of stars and planets.
It's so crazy to think about the first stars and if there's any still out there...it's mind boggling to think how many billions trillions whatever many stars there are
There are at least 2 trillion galaxies by last estimate, so multiple that by however many billions of stars are in each one. For reference, estimates say there are between 100 and 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone.
Anton, can't metalicity of those super old stars be explained by simply stuff falling in. Over billions of years obviously it absorbs ☄️🌠🌌 meteors and stuff full of metals which vaporize and there we go- we found these stars and explained the metalicity, cheers👏🍻
Wouldn't it have made more sense to call the first stars population 1 and the latest population 3? With the current reverse order designation the scientists in a few billion years time are going to have to call the newest stars population zero.
The very first stars were likely huge and no longer exist today. If we look back far enough we may be able to see them but they would have died since their light was created.
So, according to this thinking one or more supernovea have led to the creation of something complex ? Like our bodies ? How would an explosion lead to increased complexity? Secondly, when we look further away we look at formations that are older. But how would something that is really far away from us, say at the edge of the universe be similar to something that much closer or to ourselves? I think there are too many assumptions here. What Zi would like to know from the Web- telescope is what is the shape of the universe at a certain period in time when we look at formations that are of equal distance to us. Let’s say when we make a map ofall the objects that are of an equal distance away from us
Aren’t neutron star collisions responsible for making those heavier elements? I thought all simulations on early supernovae can’t successfully explain the distribution of heavy elements today
3:37 - Well, 100 million years is maybe a bit too soon, but 200 - 300 million years seems more realistic. But all of this is a subject of change with JWST.
If I understand it, these small stars should exist everywhere if they still exist at all, but Anton was also talking about looking back in time to an earlier stage of the universe using JWST and gravitational lensing, to see if they EVER existed.
It will be so good to see what Webb (the JWST) will be able to tell us - I've been so happy with what its done, already! But it's not even scratched the surface! I bet it will be able to help us learn more about this very subject! Thanks so much for what you do, Anton! ❤️❤️
It seems the real question is, did K and late G stars form in the early universe. If the answer is 'yes' then there are still existing Pop III stars (as in still burning fusion fuel) since stars later than Late G take more than the universes current age to die off
The naming of population 1 and population 3 stars seems to be turned on its head. I would think that population 1 would be original stars with abundant hydrogen while population 3 would be the newest stars, formed from the material of previous super-novea, containing heavier elements. But hey, I had nothing to say when these conventions were adopted.
Yep. Population I stars were the first to be discovered, pop II came after that, and when we really started to investigate the early universe we concluded there had to be another group which became pop III.
ya. the giant pop 3 stars are definitely all gone. if pop 3 starts never formed into small stars. then they are extinct and they will forever remain a theory until scientists travel back in time
From memory the very first stars were all humongous for some reason and thus they all had very short life spans. They all super-novaed quickly providing the universe with countless trillions of giga-tons of heavy elements; with special situations forming all matter heavier than star deaths normally produce. Wolf Ryat hyper-novae, colliding neutron stars or pulsars providing anything heavier than iron.
Considering all those connect strings / ropes, visible in the universe images,seems to me matter converges at certain nodes, in the mesh, resulting in new matter constantly being created. In other words we live in a period of expansion, a sinusoidal pattern within a web of matter and energy.
@@periurban that might be the prevailing theory. However a singularity traps both matter and energy. We know matter decays or can be converted to energy as well so there must be a mechanism for energy to be converted into matter. I suspect there is a never ending cycle between the two states. Our current understanding of the universe is probably closer to being a hypothesis than a theory.
@@permanentvisitor2460 interesting. The general consensus amongst physicists seem to lean in the direction of an ever expanding universe but it’s based on observation of the current state of the universe. However the universe is structured more like a web. The web acts like a three (or infinite) dimensional spring. Like a sinusoid that has zero slope at peak amplitude and peak speed at zero amplitude, it seems to me that the universe operates in a similar fashion. My understanding of the universe is so primitive so could just be hogwash but I suspect the universe will in fact coalesce at some point of time.
@@greghelton4668 the prevailing cosmology models until the discovery of accelerating expansion predicted that gravity would eventually slow down and finally reverse the growth of the Universe, resulting in a "Big Crunch". Or in other words, a cyclic Cosmos of singularity, inflation, expansion, contraction and back to singularity.
I would say yes, Population III stars still exist, however they're gonna be hard to find - of course that's how red dwarf stars are, very difficult to spot due to their dim natures - there's safe bet Milky Way galaxy has a few Population III stars, considering we also have Population II stars that follow them, particularly Methuselah Star which is one of the oldest Population II star in our galaxy. As for the planets, I don't think Population III stars would host those planets entirely by themselves like Earth is to Sun, rather they may capture the rogue and / or orphan planets instead. Of course we also have a known Population III white dwarf star, WD 0343+247, about 130 light years away from us, which would have been either Type F or G white star before it died out, considering how fast it crashed through its entire lifespan.
Maybe the quasars that we see are magnetic supergiant stars of the past that became black holes. The early magnetic fields is a definite turn that needs to be investigated
When you block out the light that comes from quasars, you can usually see it sat at the centre of a galaxy. They are just highly active super-massive black holes who`s poles happen to be facing us
Curious if we will spot any, past or present. I actually think it is possible, though extremely improbable, that they could still form today with the right balance of temperature and mass. Would be curious to see the simulations, but I dont think they would immediately collapse into a bh for the same reasons massive stars do not, only collapsing when the radiation pressure within can no longer withstand gravity. The fusion rate of those pop 3's though might give an appearance of immediately collapsing.
@@periurban Like I mentioned, its extremely improbable, but there are low metallicity objects out there like blue compact dwarf galaxies that are rather unexpected to exist at the point that they do. I think its more a problem of mass and temperature needed.
okay. so finally I get a genius explaining it this way. it started with stars. the stars contributed materials that over a long time, ultimately, resulted in us. okay so why all of the coincidental order? that's the last question, isn't it?
Methuselah star HD140283, is so close, just at the corner: only 190 LY away: "A study published in 2013 used the Fine Guidance Sensors of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to measure a precise parallax (and therefore distance and luminosity) for the star. This information was used to estimate an age for the star of 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years. Due to the uncertainty in the value, this age for the star would possibly conflict with the calculated age of the Universe as determined by the final 2018 Planck satellite results of 13.761±0.038 billion years. However, more recent models of its stellar evolution have suggested revision of the star's age to 13.7 billion years."
one more convenient correction in a century of convenient corrections.
@@egay86292 you make an extremely good point. But, in the original age range, if it really is the -0.8, then it equals 13.66 Billion, so the new revision seems to fall within range.
Ratio
Of course it is after 100 millions years of any formed stars will emit light and calculated age of the universe is 13.8byrs it is possible for a star to be age of 13.7byrs
THE ONLY way to get a reliable age of star is via spectroscopy and then getting its redshift and then that gives you an age. Any and every other way is very dodgy verging on a straight up lie. See Dr Becky’s channel and she is a astrophysicist working on black holes, mostly.
YES this means all those people say “I’ve found the oldest star ever” using the pictures from JWST and checking that spectrum are all lies very very big lies since the people saying this know how it should be done. The JWST images being used are the picture images that get coloured to make them pretty. The problem is that this isn’t a comp,eye spectra but just 3 overlayed images at various wavelengths. Similar to Hubble taking a red green and blue image and overlaying them to make a full colour image. So what happens now is that the light from an image that makes an image when split is now missing 95% of the wave lengths that fills the gaps between the 3 individual wavelength images. This means that the scientists LITERALLY MAKE UP the missing light. This means that their error bars in real life are nothing like the 0.8 LY error you quote and are more like 5 LY +- errors or more. That’s why JWST has a spectra camera that does FULL SPECTRA for every pixel in the frame.
You Rock Anton! Thank you for doing all these videos, simply awesome! 👍🏻👍🏻😃
Congratulations on 1m subscribers! A huge milestone.
Anton you are amazing. Thank you for your wonderful science commentaries.
Appreciate this vid, Anton. We keep positing theories and researching them to see if they are correct. Pop. 3 stars may be all gone, but they will always be remembered.
Love that you can offer appraisals of the latest scientific papers. Happy to watch more of these when you do such a good job of presenting the information.
Brilliantly communicated as always
TY Anton and thank you stars 🌟 for all the good work.
Excellent work Anton looks like you really enjoyed making this one mate
You the man bro. 1 luv. Keep up the hard work buddy
Thank you Anton for continually making GREAT CONTENT! Been years now ☺️And thx for making me finally realize what Magnetohydrodynamics means :p
Crazy he doesn’t respond huh
Talked to a research manager from NASA about 12 years ago, he implied that magnetism had nothing to do with star formation. Interesting how this view point seems to be changing since that decade old conversation. Godel showed us how formulas can be misleading if not thoroughly rooted in reality. We also use fractals to resolve mathematical issues with infinite integers as well. Now that we have better tools for examining reality perhaps we may need to re-examine some our more basic concepts in this field.
My guess is that population III stars can't form in our current universe. Low metallicity stars exist, but they don't seem to have the sorts of properties we expect from Population III stars.
There must have been something about the properties of the early universe that allowed/enabled/ensured that the first generation of stars were very large/shortlived. Perhaps the extreme density of the early universe caused the stars to form almost immediately.
You could be on to something.
Given that they were expected to live during the first 100 million years, they must have been massive. For people out there, the heavier a star, the faster it chews through all its fuel. By comparison the dinosaurs lived over a longer period than the pop-3 stars.
What also could happen is gas clouds obscuring/hiding the furthest stars.
I expect stars to have formed almost as quickly as it was physically possible. That would have been around 300,000 years after the Bang. The insanity of that time must have been something, massive compact gas clouds directly collapsing into mega stars and those in turn crashing into each other. I'd love to know how massive some of these actually got. 1000 solar masses?
I'm also curious if we'd ever be able to distinguish any surviving population 3 stars as they must have been enriched in metals post formation by the 1000's of super novas or collisions they've witnessed.
Or... the theory is wrong?
Webb telescope is "showing" things that may need a revamp of settled science.
What qualifies you to have an opinion? How dare you speculate! I certainly know less about this than you but I see that you have an opinion on the Internet and I feel obliged to disagree.
Thank you Anton for continuing with these Videos for so long and love learning all the info you present. THE Universe sure has grown in my 47 years I have been alive for and cant wait to see with the next generation of space telescopes will uncover in the coming decades🙂
I was 47 once. Life was much ... simpler, happier then. Never take anything - or anyone - for granted. 😕
@@MaryAnnNytowl I'll stop complaining about my late thirties. I thought it was a type of midlife crisis for men, but I should enjoy it more.
Watching this video today made me realise something I had not thought about, that black holes will not have a lifespan like typical stars, and they will probably outlive everything else
Oh yeah. the hydrogen-burning star period of the universe is actually only going to be a small sliver of the total lifespan, assuming of course that Big Rip is less likely than heat death. If you're interested in this sort of thing, I'd recomend checking out Isaac Arthur's 'Civilizations at the end of Time' series
From what I know watching videos about this sort of thing, there will be an era in the universe where there will only be black holes. In fact, I think most of the universe's life will be that black hole era.
@@zualapips1638 It's typically referred to as the Black Hole Epoc, but yeah
Not probably… they will outlive everything else
Its kinda scary ☻️
It's incredible to think we are searching for a small star possibly 13 billion light years away. Wow
The universe has been around 13.8 billion years, but because it is expanding and dark energy is accelerating, the stars would be 46+ billion light years away.
It’s incredible to think that humans think they are strong enough or intelligent enough to try to even spend resources and time to try ti answer dumb questions like this. YOU’LL NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER. And the answer is pointless. (I love these vids btw) but cmon.....The Lord speaks directly against asking questions like this lmao pointless.
@@thaiylooze8217 its incredible you think youre intelligent when youre talking about an imaginary sky being speaking at all. give up the cult.
@@thaiylooze8217 It looks like you are having a hard time mixing religion with science. I had that phase too
@@swiftycortex that is true, but the furthest observed object in space was a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away. It was named HD1
Loving this idea of the evolution of magnetic fields and leftover small stars. Let's keep looking.
Hi Anton,
Thank you for this enlightening video presentation of your take on the "simulations of magnetic fields' effects on the first stars' creation" paper you cited. Mostly for the cerebral content that helps us become even smarter, but also because of the significant time that we all potentially save by absorbing your condensed version of the paper's significant amount of information that is accompanied by graphical elements you have often personally chosen for their potential relevance and enhancement, making the content less "dry".
Moreover, I am a big fan of everything having to do with the potential application of magnetic fields, especially since I am writing a book that make unique use of magnetic fields to surprising and rewarding effect on two key pivotal occasions that are points driving the premise.
Tke care,
Mark
Agree. Everything hinges on electro magnetism. My gut instinct is that it was fully present at the birth of our universe.
@@jimleane7578
You left out gravity. That is important. Of course EM was present soon after the beginning of the universe. But its more of a local effect. Gravity has not range limit.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 Gravity's range limit is causality:)
@@kx7500
Causality is overrated in a quantum universe.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 vague af lol
That's right, Anton... a Star died for you... So, to you Anton and everybody here, stay wonderful... and, thank your lucky Stars!😌
I just realized, any observers on our cosmic horizon would not be able to see any evidence of our planet, solar system, or perhaps even our galaxy from their perspective.
3:55 lower left. I see the Mandelbrot set here.
Hello wonderful man. Thanks, I enjoy your informative videos.
I hope you and your wife are doing as well as can be expected. We never get over a loss of a loved one, but we get through it, no matter what anyone said.
I find the early universe fascinating, and Anton you've managed to rejuvenate that once again! The only thing that interrupts that joy of discovery is the somewhat confusing terminology - numbering generations backwards in time. But I guess it's more adaptable - if we realize there may be other even earlier generations, there are numbers left for them.
Agreed.
blows my mind to ponder a star living such a short life to then go black
so much energy learning how to become a supermassive focus creating barred spirals
and the dance of life
Serious premise question, would Milky Way galaxy pop III stars be recognizable given capture of enough pop II and I supernova material? Wouldn't most / all have been "contaminated" with metals spewed out over everything?
After posting I noticed that Iry posted a similar question 12d ago. And others before that...
"Just a theory" is something I really dont expect to hear from a science channel
I had to explain to my father why I am so captivated by the cosmos since a few years. If only I had your comment then. It would have saved both of us some time.
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
As always,very interesting,thank you😊
so basically the hypothesis is that magnetism was stronger in the early universe , and that made galaxies and stars form faster. if they find some way to test for this then that would be cool .
I honestly think Methuselah and other hyper old red dwarfs are actually Pop III stars that were polluted by nearby supernova.
As always Anton you never disappoint. Amazing video. One small suggestion, please consider using the term "hypothesis" instead of "theory" when referring to what scientists believe but don't have enough proof or evidence. "Theory" means a complete different thing than what it does in everyday conversations.
Amen.
There is some observational evidence to support the existence of pop 3 stars.
@@booklover6753 I was looking and couldn't find that. Can you say more?
The Big Bang is considered a theory because many aspects of it have been confirmed through observation. Some aspects still have the status of hypothesis because we don't have enough data to confirm or disprove them.
It's interesting how much shorter the lifespan of early stars was, based on this study. That would result in a faster pace of evolution in The Universe, and I imagine that might help to solve some of the questions that have come up from JWST observations of objects that are older than scientists expected to find at that time period.
Red dwarf stars are thought to have extremely long lives. Too bad they emit a lot of X-rays and other painful stuff.
Just remember all these calculations & theories are hinged upon the speed of light being a constant & remaining a constant over infinity. And we have yet to actually prove the the speed of light, we merely assume the speed of light. We still have nothing whatsoever that is fixed to build our understanding of the cosmos upon.
Science will not admit it, but science is just as much of a faith based religion as any other... meaning we have to have faith that the speed of light is fixed and immutable in order for any of science to work.
@@petersteele7603 If scientists you talk to refuse to admit that it requires faith in established theories then I'd suggest finding better scientists to talk to. They are also ready to alter that faith when presented with compelling new evidence that contradicts old theories; unlike most religions.
Fascinating and extraordinarily well-explained - as always! Thank you so much, Anton.
These should be called Population 1 stars, as they were the first/oldest. But that’s looking from what we know now, not what we knew when they started naming them.
I think pop 1 stars were first called pop 1 because they are the first ones we were most familiar with.
I, hereby would like to make the suggestion to reverse the population-numbers.this is going to get quite complicated a couple of billion years from now
thanks for making us think in the early morning
Amazing stuff! but the uncertainty factor is very high based on a super small data set of known old stars
If you want to find the three stars then you need to aim at the centre of them.
All atoms, solar systems, galaxies etc. spin around a centre point of rotation. The 3 stars do the same, they spin individually and also as a complete system of two pairs rotating around a centre point/star.
On the scale of our universe, there would be a centre point, the same as there is a centre point at the centre of our galaxy, our solar system, a living cell or even an atom.
If a person can calculate the trajectory of a planet around a sun, they can calculate the trajectory of all galaxies around a centre location/star. That is where the centre star / source of force will be at that scale of calculation.
If you use the same calculation you can find the source of the original three stars at every point in the universe after the expansion event. Which means everything at an atomic level of our universe is part of the original three stars, we are inside it, we are it, everything around us is it and together everything is one form which is made up of many parts (as is the case with everything around you as well).
Unfortunately the matter in the Universe, as a whole, is not orbiting any central point. It tends to be drawn into vast, thin filaments with large relatively empty voids between them.
@@permanentvisitor2460 I believe we haven’t actually mapped all the travel paths of the galaxies yet.
If there was a central point of origin like the three stars then the great expansion would all be expanding from that point still, even if it was in the shape of a web, an egg, a ball, a disc, vast thin elements, or even branches.
You can calculate a trajectory if you predict where an object is travelling to, the same as calculating where it came from. If it were branches or drawn out vast thin elements then you would follow its path backward.
At intersections of different paths there may be signs of convergence and divergence. And if this was not the original point of origin but instead was a node then the net effect of the whole node would also be directional like following a tree branch back toward a trunk. Everything would generally point back to the same direction, maybe not an exact centre point initially but definitely in the correct direction. And over time as we gain more data of the movements from larger convergences then we would be able to gain more accuracy.
I love your channel. I love it even more when listening to your introductions at .25x speed.
Love these videos. Great stuff
I would think that it would be very difficult to tell a pop 3 star from a pop 2 star. Even though the pop 3 stars were not formed out of supernova remnants, they could be contaminated by ejecta from nearby supernova making them look like pop 2 stars.
So what would be our distinction from pop 2 and pop 3?
@5:30 Did Anton really just say "That's the thing though, it's just a theory"!!!!!
Yeah, he really did. So...
It seems that when an extremely massive star, such as many population 3 stars were, goes supernova there would not be a blackhole or any form of stellar reminant left behind.
The most massive stars undergo a process known as a "pair instability nova." This type of supernova is not the result of core collapse, but rather runaway fusion that ultimately grows to exceed the binding energy of the star. Therefore, when a star undergoes a pair instability supernova it completely explodes core and all. There is no black hole, neutron star, or any form of stellar reminant.
Note: this only rules out stellar reminant black holes. There could still be direct collapse black holes when population. 3 stars are forming.
why is the naming reverse? shouldn't it be the first stars be population 1?
The naming convention probably arose from the fact that pop 1 stars are also the brightest.
Wonderful as always anton. Thank you. 😊👍
Glad to have found this channel before it got big
What about the Methuselah Star?
Why were the first stars population 3, and not population 1?
Lol yeah I've always explained our star as gen 3. 🤔
@@kiwibonsai2355 has it been known for long we are an evolved starchild? Wonder if gen 2 also birthed planets with life.
Anton you are brilliant. But if we do not find those second genrration stars did they ever exist ? Some indication more our models might be wrong ?
A somewhat unrelated question that occurred to me is how are magnetic lines able to “escape” a black hole? Or is it just the matter surrounding a black hole that produces these lines?
If I understand correctly, a magnetic line is non material, not made of particles of any kind but rather is a magnetic force that results from material.
This is a layman's attempt at describing, not information from a university professor or other recognized authority on the subject.
@ 1:30 you say the sun is a population 1 star?
Technically speaking yes, because of it's relatively high metal content. It's been called an intermediate population 1 because it's also pretty old. People tend to think of population 1 stars as being hot young O-B giants like Rigel, but the classification of population 1 or 2 actually only refers to the metal content.
Hi Anton,
thanks for that.
Can you please do a video on why neutron stars shine
given that we call them "dead" stars which no longer have fusion as their source of energy?
"We are starstuff. We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out." Ambassador Deleen - Babylon 5
Hello wonderfull Anton, this is Person
@Anton Petrov Could you please explain the images we are seeing from James Webb? To me, they look more like a digital artists rendering as opposed to a "real" or maybe "optical" image? Thank you for your content Anton "Wonderful Person" Petrov.
What would an optical image look, from an infrared instrument? (Webb has visible wavelengths also but a lot of it is IR)
@@nmarbletoe8210 Ya, I know it's not optical... I'm looking for an explanation of the images we are seeing; I'm curious.
@@neftysturd I hear there's some kind of viewer app that lets you construct images out of the raw data.
idk how it works exactly but I imagine you have various bands and you assign a visible frequency to each band.
@@nmarbletoe8210 The raw data is already an image.
JWST works in infrared. The raw images are brightness maps: when you open a raw image, it's grayscale. These images are taken through a filter that limits which wavelengths are recorded.
For a color image, they take 3 or more images, using different filters. After downloading, the imaging team assigns colors to each image and stacks them to make a color image. There is some artistic freedom in choosing which colors to use, but generally the longest wavelengths are mapped to red, medium to green and short to blue.
Seeing as how they're by definition the _first_ stars, shouldn't Population 3 stars be called Population 1 stars? This has bugged me for a long time.
I love this channel. I'm only a simple educated human. I shouldn't drink red wine while watching this channel.☺️☺️☺️
I'm more interested in 4th generation stars. Elements we don't know 🤔 The magnetic universe is born to die and be born again. Ultimate growth followed by Ultimate death. Beautiful.
I'm guessing the Methuselah Star doesn't count? I think it's classified as a Population II star because of its metallicity, but is it possible for metals to have deposited onto the surface from space dust it's passed through?
Usually, a star doesn’t pick up much material from the interstellar medium after forming, as the stellar radiation pressure creates a 'bubble' around the star and its planetary system. If anything, it would probably be from asteroids or planetoids falling into the star, but that is made more difficult by orbital mechanics and harmonics - plus what little could impact a star would make up a minuscule fraction of its mass.
Not saying that it is impossible for pop III-stars to have been 'metallicised' by foreign objects and thus hidden among pop II-stars, especially if they have been around for billions and billions of years, but it is probably unlikely.
That said, I wonder if small-mass pop III stars could be born in the interim between the first massive stars forming and their deaths, forming from smaller collapsing fragments of pure gas clouds left over after the giants swept most of their surroundings clean. In fact, it might be possible for the larger stars to aid in this process by compressing the fragments with their enormous radiation pressure due to them being so massive.
@@mikkohernborg5291 iirc, that's one mechanism hypothesized to be behind binary star systems with large mass gaps between them. Such as a G Type and a red dwarf, or an O type and a G Dwarf.
Disney stated this phenomenon perfectly with those immortal words, "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star."
Note known very old almost as old as universe stars we already know exist. They are type III by definition the reason they have some metals is absorbing metals over their existence. In other words no first star could exist till now without absorbing metals thus looking like Pop II.
These scientists research something not even needed for metal production.
And stars like Methuselah really make it very hard to have a earlier star period as it's age almost that of the Universe with updated data. Any Metals Methuselah has almost certainly deposited over the billions of years of
Spotting individual stars at those ranges near impossible they just too small at those ranges and way too few photons reach us to image. They would have to be gravitationally lensed and super huge. But a few prove nothing as we have Super huge stars now.
At the edge of the Galactic filaments, can we see if there is a higher concentration of type 3 stars and within or at the center of the filaments is there more type 1 stars?
More elements each stage of supernova, Id be looking for the stage 4 stars and orbiting matter.
Thanks Anton!
btw at 5:30 , shouldn't you say "it's just a hypothesis" rather than "it's just a theory"?
You've been watching too many creationism or Flattard videos!
@@brucemibus9523 It is my understanding that a scientific theory is a hypothesis that withstood attempts to disprove it and subsequently successfully made predictions and was backed by observations (facts).
Like the theory of evolution, general relativity etc.
If something didn't meet the above requirements should be regarded as a hypothesis.
Makes me think that all the supermassive black holes in the universe are population 3 stars along with thousands of smaller objects they absorbed over billions of years
The super massive black holes had to form somehow, I still look forward to a better understanding than the big bang
I love the presentation, and I don't mean any ill ere, but I would very much prefer captioning of the dialog. This good man knows his stuff, but he does not speak clearly enough in English to be easily understood, and he speaks rather fast. Sorry, but some of his presentation is lost due to the hard-to-understand language barrier for some of us. Captioning would make this presentation clear for everyone.
Really fascinating.
Just everything about the interconnected nature of … well, Nature is just so awe inspiring to me. I feel so grateful for our star ancestors.
I don’t understand why there wouldn’t be much magnetic fields at the beginning of the universe. Could you explain this Anton?
Partially because bulk matter is electrically neutral for the most part. The early universe contained only hydrogen, helium and perhaps a sprinkle of lithium after the last scattering of the CMB. Until the stars themselves coalesced and ionized the atoms within themselves, moving electrical fields to create magnetic fields were hard to come by.
Could there be some undiscovered laws of physics that existed early on but are not powerful enough to be detected now that could have overpowered modern laws?
There have been conflicting reports since about 2010 or so arguing that the fine structure constant has changed as much as 45 parts in a billion over the lifetime of the universe.
The James Webb Space Telescope was specifically designed to see the first stars and galaxies that were formed in the universe 😊
Only the latter. It will need a powerful gravitational lense to directly see one of these stars. Just like earendil. Stil jwst is the best telecope suited for that task.
In the infrared region of the EM spectrum.
By viewing the universe at infrared wavelengths Webb will show us things never before seen by any other telescope. It is only at infrared wavelengths that we can see the first stars and galaxies forming after the Big Bang. And it is with infrared light that we can see stars and planetary systems forming inside clouds of dust that are opaque to visible light.
The primary goals of Webb are to study galaxy, star and planet formation in the universe. To see the very first stars and galaxies that formed in the early universe, we have to look deep into space to look back in time (because it takes light time to travel from there to here, the farther out we look, the further we look back in time).
…..one more point to highlight:
Objects of about Earth's temperature emit most of their radiation at mid-infrared wavelengths. These temperatures are also found in dusty regions forming stars and planets, so with mid-infrared radiation we can see the glow of the star and planet formation taking place. An infrared-optimized telescope allows us to penetrate dust clouds to see the birthplaces of stars and planets.
JWST will be space garbage in the next few years
We only get smudges of galaxies, I do wonder what the farthest distance Webb can focus on a individual star.
It's so crazy to think about the first stars and if there's any still out there...it's mind boggling to think how many billions trillions whatever many stars there are
There are at least 2 trillion galaxies by last estimate, so multiple that by however many billions of stars are in each one. For reference, estimates say there are between 100 and 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone.
@@mikal There are about 100 quintillion stars in our observable universe, give or take an order of magnitude.
Correction.....100 SEXTILLION, give or take an order of magnitude.
Well, it's not like they had anywhere else to go..
Like counting sand in the desert it's alot
Anton, can't metalicity of those super old stars be explained by simply stuff falling in. Over billions of years obviously it absorbs ☄️🌠🌌 meteors and stuff full of metals which vaporize and there we go- we found these stars and explained the metalicity, cheers👏🍻
lol, didn't see this before posting the same question myself.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to call the first stars population 1 and the latest population 3? With the current reverse order designation the scientists in a few billion years time are going to have to call the newest stars population zero.
Love ya man
The very first stars were likely huge and no longer exist today. If we look back far enough we may be able to see them but they would have died since their light was created.
So, according to this thinking one or more supernovea have led to the creation of something complex ? Like our bodies ? How would an explosion lead to increased complexity? Secondly, when we look further away we look at formations that are older. But how would something that is really far away from us, say at the edge of the universe be similar to something that much closer or to ourselves? I think there are too many assumptions here. What Zi would like to know from the Web- telescope is what is the shape of the universe at a certain period in time when we look at formations that are of equal distance to us. Let’s say when we make a map ofall the objects that are of an equal distance away from us
check out "explosive forming" of metals
That would be quite the map
CMB
Can't rule out Population 1 red dwarf stars that are still in their infancy about 15 billion years later.
Can stars potentially last 14 billion years is the question. It seems feasible, if our estimate of the age of the universe is accurate.
Yes. We expect the smallest stars to last far longer than 14 bn years.
Love you Anton. Life well spent. Thanks!
They could depending upon the fuel and mass.
Aren’t neutron star collisions responsible for making those heavier elements? I thought all simulations on early supernovae can’t successfully explain the distribution of heavy elements today
Wow....giant protostars! As you pointed out, it's just a proposal....but who knows? Sounds plausible enough....
3:37 - Well, 100 million years is maybe a bit too soon, but 200 - 300 million years seems more realistic. But all of this is a subject of change with JWST.
That looks like planetary development in those early star formation simulations. Seems legitimate to me mass acting very mass like.
What we see with our eyes is much different than what the most powerful telescopes see ! and even what they see may not even exist anymore !
Is it not possible for such an object to be in our galaxy as much as any remote one? Could they not just be very weak now and hard to detect?
If I understand it, these small stars should exist everywhere if they still exist at all, but Anton was also talking about looking back in time to an earlier stage of the universe using JWST and gravitational lensing, to see if they EVER existed.
We should never put the words "only" and "light years" together.
Hello wonderful person...
It will be so good to see what Webb (the JWST) will be able to tell us - I've been so happy with what its done, already! But it's not even scratched the surface! I bet it will be able to help us learn more about this very subject!
Thanks so much for what you do, Anton! ❤️❤️
It seems the real question is, did K and late G stars form in the early universe. If the answer is 'yes' then there are still existing Pop III stars (as in still burning fusion fuel) since stars later than Late G take more than the universes current age to die off
No, pop III would be almost entirely hydrogen, and would've been extremely massive and extremely short lived.
The naming of population 1 and population 3 stars seems to be turned on its head. I would think that population 1 would be original stars with abundant hydrogen while population 3 would be the newest stars, formed from the material of previous super-novea, containing heavier elements.
But hey, I had nothing to say when these conventions were adopted.
Yep. Population I stars were the first to be discovered, pop II came after that, and when we really started to investigate the early universe we concluded there had to be another group which became pop III.
ya. the giant pop 3 stars are definitely all gone. if pop 3 starts never formed into small stars. then they are extinct and they will forever remain a theory until scientists travel back in time
From memory the very first stars were all humongous for some reason and thus they all had very short life spans. They all super-novaed quickly providing the universe with countless trillions of giga-tons of heavy elements;
with special situations forming all matter heavier than star deaths normally produce. Wolf Ryat hyper-novae, colliding neutron stars or pulsars providing anything heavier than iron.
You must be very old, "Jerry Adams".
Greetings from the BIG SKY.
Considering all those connect strings / ropes, visible in the universe images,seems to me matter converges at certain nodes, in the mesh, resulting in new matter constantly being created. In other words we live in a period of expansion, a sinusoidal pattern within a web of matter and energy.
In the BB universe no new matter is created, but matter does transmute through fusion into heavier elements.
@@periurban that might be the prevailing theory. However a singularity traps both matter and energy. We know matter decays or can be converted to energy as well so there must be a mechanism for energy to be converted into matter. I suspect there is a never ending cycle between the two states. Our current understanding of the universe is probably closer to being a hypothesis than a theory.
@@greghelton4668 energy certainly can coalesce into matter. Gamma photons can become electron-positron pairs.
@@permanentvisitor2460 interesting. The general consensus amongst physicists seem to lean in the direction of an ever expanding universe but it’s based on observation of the current state of the universe. However the universe is structured more like a web. The web acts like a three (or infinite) dimensional spring. Like a sinusoid that has zero slope at peak amplitude and peak speed at zero amplitude, it seems to me that the universe operates in a similar fashion. My understanding of the universe is so primitive so could just be hogwash but I suspect the universe will in fact coalesce at some point of time.
@@greghelton4668 the prevailing cosmology models until the discovery of accelerating expansion predicted that gravity would eventually slow down and finally reverse the growth of the Universe, resulting in a "Big Crunch". Or in other words, a cyclic Cosmos of singularity, inflation, expansion, contraction and back to singularity.
I would say yes, Population III stars still exist, however they're gonna be hard to find - of course that's how red dwarf stars are, very difficult to spot due to their dim natures - there's safe bet Milky Way galaxy has a few Population III stars, considering we also have Population II stars that follow them, particularly Methuselah Star which is one of the oldest Population II star in our galaxy. As for the planets, I don't think Population III stars would host those planets entirely by themselves like Earth is to Sun, rather they may capture the rogue and / or orphan planets instead. Of course we also have a known Population III white dwarf star, WD 0343+247, about 130 light years away from us, which would have been either Type F or G white star before it died out, considering how fast it crashed through its entire lifespan.
Maybe the quasars that we see are magnetic supergiant stars of the past that became black holes. The early magnetic fields is a definite turn that needs to be investigated
When you block out the light that comes from quasars, you can usually see it sat at the centre of a galaxy. They are just highly active super-massive black holes who`s poles happen to be facing us
Curious if we will spot any, past or present. I actually think it is possible, though extremely improbable, that they could still form today with the right balance of temperature and mass. Would be curious to see the simulations, but I dont think they would immediately collapse into a bh for the same reasons massive stars do not, only collapsing when the radiation pressure within can no longer withstand gravity. The fusion rate of those pop 3's though might give an appearance of immediately collapsing.
I don't think they could form today. There is too much "metal" about.
@@periurban Like I mentioned, its extremely improbable, but there are low metallicity objects out there like blue compact dwarf galaxies that are rather unexpected to exist at the point that they do. I think its more a problem of mass and temperature needed.
okay. so finally I get a genius explaining it this way. it started with stars. the stars contributed materials that over a long time, ultimately, resulted in us. okay so why all of the coincidental order? that's the last question, isn't it?