The most significant thing I have learned from this channel is not to be surprised by any new discovery, since it seems to be almost every week we are hearing of things being observed which were thought impossible. It really puts things in perspective regarding a healthy degree of uncertainty or skepticism. But it is the discovery, not the certainty, that keeps science interesting.
why ive always loved science, we as humans tend to think we know everything, when the truth is there is a vast amount of knowledge we know nothing about and even think impossible
@beta1451 it's closer to the truth to say we know nothing, than everything. The more you know, the greater the cost of new knowledge. Kind of like a video game.
@@crawkn Absolutely. The more we know, the more we know we don't know. The process of discovery is endless for this exact reason, and it's why science is so fulfilling. I wish more in science would embrace your initial stance: "It's the discovery, not the certainty, that keeps science interesting". So many scientists are focused on certainty, which while valuable for industry, isn't what advances the field. Only by discovering new and heretofore unknown phenomena can we advance our knowledge.
He has over a million subs... I know other RUclipsrs who were able to quit their jobs and just do RUclips full-time when they hit something closer to 100k subs. He's likely pushing a 7-figure income.
@@jdlechgiven that Wikipedia says it’s 5 million years old ( at a mass of 25 sol it would only have 3.2 million years ) so it has to be around 20 mass sol for 5.5 million so in effect it either has done or will do in 430,169 years .
@@Hatin.ontonioWhat? ... Huh?? Yeah no idea what you're talking about but no you must be crazy. Because number 1, the main comment is just a reference to commercials and information to drivers on the road, when looking in your side mirrors or the rear mirror things appear much closer, it refers to why a lot of accidents happen, to be cautious. As for the telescope thing, if that's what you're talking about then no because they're redshifted first of all, so that alone is a big no, and you can only see them through telescopes that run a certain time for more exposure otherwise they're not visible in real time.
Wel they must have been bigger regardless because everything was closer together, and they didn't live long so they exploded quickly, creating the first black holes, the gas ejected from them then collected around those black holes, creating the first galaxies, within that they then exploded and everything keeps getting smaller and smaller, our sun is a 3d generation star.
We're only at the Very Large Space Telescope. Wait till be build the Extremely Large telescope. The there will be the Massively large telescope, then the absurdly large telescope. Then we will build the Insanely large telescope. That one will see a matchstick struck at the moment of creation. Which will be really puzzling because nobody predicted it to be a safety match.
Some of our current theories are probably too simplistic, based as they are on observations by inferior instrument to what we have today. Now that we can see more complexity, we will just simply have to adapt our theories to what is observed and discard those which don't fit. Anton, your choice of topics allows for very stimulating viewing. Scientifically speaking, we live in exciting times.
I saw this quoted line online :"Yes, light is a thing: Waves and particles: Light can be analyzed as both a wave and a particle", so that means those are particles of that star reaching us after 160,000 years
I like that you don't say things are impossible when the actual thing is that a simulation failed to depict reality. You used to put it in your titles and I'm super glad you don't anymore. After all science is about discerning truth, right? It was the only thing that fell short of amazingly wonderful in your channel and now I can just bask in the glow of your excellent science communication.
You touch on this briefly, but we're not looking at the star itself. What we see is an oval cocoon of gas and dust around the star. The star itself is about 10 times smaller and would be a bright point in the middle of the cocoon. However, it is too dim or too much obscured to detect.
The explanation of an O-type binary partner seems very strange for a couple of reasons. First and most confusing: an O-type star would have at least 10% the luminosity of WOH G64, and with the remarkable emission spectra of 30,000 K. Even if the surrounding dust were to absorb all the emitted light, its vastly increased temperature should show up as one of the dust lobes being brighter than the other. The second, and less strange, part is that O-type stars have very short life-spans, on the order of 10 million years. If that were the case, this would have to be a recent capture. It feels to me that it'd be more likely a black hole partner, but that would have very obvious gamma ray emissions so is also ruled out by lack of observed gamma rays near this star. What a mysterious star! I also can't believe that it could be 3000 solar radii in size, that's unimaginably enormous!
It's worth noting that all giant stars are relatively short lived, so a red supergiant paired with an O type giant isn't actually too far fetched. However, one would think that it would cause at least some IR emissions from the dust torus, even if entirely cloaked. Maybe, maybe not. The 3000 solar radii figure is just speculation of what it's original size may have been, while remembering too that red giants of such enormous proportions are essentially what have been called a 'red hot vacuum', because most of the star's visible structure is very tenuous in nature. The star doesn't really have a well defined surface or limb, as it were. Because of this, placing firm constraints on the radius becomes somewhat problematic. We can only say that at a given color/temperature, at a given distance, and with a given apparent magnitude, the radius should be at least so and so. With objects that are much closer, interferometric (aperture synthesis) measurements can be used to get a much more accurate measurement, but I'm guessing that this one is just too far away. Cheers!
star core picks up mass or rotational speed, and the excess angular momentum dynamics cause the upper gases in the atmosphere to not be able to hold on gravitationally, so they get partially hurled away in two symmetric equatorial countervortices? that's my guess for that wobbly instability.
All the great astronomers and the biggest stars, Are in Western Ohio (WOH) I'm a serious ATM (Amateur Telescope Maker) who has built several large Observatory class telescopes, and I'm an actual expert on Space. My head is completely full of it .
"There's always a bigger fish." I shoulda known that we'd find a star that's larger than even Stephenson 2-18. Just that the mind-melting size of the latter, got me complacent.
It's a fleeting thing, though. Stars are only like this during their terminal red supergiant phase while they spew out enormous quantities of their own material.
I saw a video that said they found artificial light on one of the Trappist planets:) It might be a good topic to cover. Wonderful person Tshirts are on sale in the store:)
Thanks Anton :) > 1:55 This is also a similar problem that I see with these galaxies that are too well formed in the early universe. More likely they are just further away in space and closer in the time line.
I hate this.....I use to hate outer space stuff when I was younger I still hate it. .. but I like your channel you along with alot of other people in media helped be hate less of anything that happens outside our dirt ball called earth.... 2003 and 2006 when I was a teen was really considering ending my life....there was many silly reasons why ... But one of them was the fear of what tv and even family claimed was going to happen to the sun and beyond that soon....I wasted alot of my teen years afraid of outer space. Your channel along with other RUclips channels and me trying to open my mind which I did do as a child helped me think just enough to not do something so stupid and not be afraid of our universe....thank you for making sure everyone who sees your channel knows what you know to not feel afraid about life but instead know better to help your fellow.... Kind.
The gravitational forces on the extremities of a star that large are going to be so much weaker compare to the central area, that with the fact that the star in the same area will be less dense means it make much more sence that the star wont be a nice round shape and it would be bulgey in places. Dont forget its ejecting mess out too, that would explain the stuff around it, its chaotic so it shouldnt form a stable spinning disk around the star.
Basically the current biggest newest thing at the moment because something bigger newer hasn't been detected yet. I like how scientists say tthey haven't been disproved yet they can't prove anything either.
If it's the biggest it's possible for a star to be, isn't it safe to assume it's the biggest there is? I mean any other star that might compete could only be AS big.
@icekangz817 If you knew anything about science, you would know that scientists don't "prove" anything. They use evidence from observations to support or refute theories.
I think I'm noticing a pattern here. It seems to go like this: "We don't know yet." "We have no idea," "We're just guessing," & "It could be this, that or the other, but we don't know yet" (It could be anything).
I remember, as a child, enjoying the Guinness book of records for it's lists of biggest, fastest, strongest. With all the fascinations of space, the race to find the biggest star seems childish until we see that they are growing or shrinking or about to go supernova and otherwise being something much more interesting than big.😊
So if the star is over 160,000 light years away and we're seeing the light as it was 160,000 years ago wouldn't that mean that if a supernova were to happen let's say within the next 100,000 years wouldn't that light from the supernova take time to get to us which would mean that the star already did go supernova and we would just be seeing the light and if you're saying that this sink could go supernova within a hundred years more or less mostly more, the star has already gone supernova over 100,000 years ago. Same with Beetlejuice and other stars like that but Beetlejuice is only 653 light years away so if it went supernova now we wouldn't see it for another 653 years so in 2677 or whatever. That's just an example okay
Pretty much. Everything we see is delayed in the time line compared to the timeline of the actually object. So it's a context thing. 100,000 years from our timeline or 100,000 years from the stars current time (which we can never see at the moment). Usually they use our timeline :)
@@douglaswilkinson5700 Thanks. I thought that was the case :) I think the OP is attempting to correlate that to a "Now" moment in time for the star as well :)
Its losing mass into space Note the large halo, but that was likely from a super flare. Lot of material leaves since the star is so large in diameter & very hot.
If only we had the technology to realize the Starship Enterprise. Suns, planets, and other celestial objects are many light-years distant. We can discover the largest sun, the Earth similar planets, and other interesting objects, but we will never reach them due to the massive distances!
It makes me wonder how many worlds and possibly civilizations are within the kill zone of the largest star in the visible universe and if they have the capability to understand their predicament. It might be a good place to look to see if we can detect the techno signature of a civilization's mass exodus from the death zone.
Yes. By mass the star bi253 (O2V) in the LMC has almost 100 solar masses, 1,175,000 its luminosity but only 13.9 times its radius. And since it is fusing hydrogen its also a "dwarf" star.
Supergiants are never the highest mass. The most massive stars are also the ones that eject matter the fastest through solar winds. So the most massive ones are the ones that just formed, or just merged with another. But agreed it should be clarified. I've seen people get very confused about this before.
@@sockenpuppe1057 Last I heard, though, those scary things might have played a vital role in the creation of galaxies around themselves. Like their smaller local counterparts could be part of the reason we exist.
I am a little confused. You had said in previous episodes that after 1.4 to 2.5 solar masses, the start will become a neutron start, but this big star has 40 solar mases and it is not a neutron star. Can you make an episode to resolve this apparent contradiction?
Neutron stars happen after collapse (such as in a supernova). The fusion reaction creates pressure that keeps a star like WOH G64 from collapsing. Once that pressure goes and there is core collapse then there are limits to how much mass can be held together. The neutron star is prevented from collapsing further by degeneracy pressure: which has an upper mass limit as you mentioned.
The end result neutron star, or black hole if the core mass is beyond about 3.2 solar masses, comes after the supernova, not during the red giant phase.
I wonder if a high spin rate could cause the stretched formations - we could be looking at it spinwards with the poles at each flattened end. If the star is massive and low density I'd imagine a high spin rate could cause clouds to escape at the equator, with less and less as you go to higher latitudes. That might account for the squashed shape of the clouds.
I could also imagine a scenario where the plasma in the outer layers might pile up due to turbulence creating an imbalance in the star over time - once it reaches a certain tipping point, the entire blob is thrown off creating the large dip in luminosity.
The partners could be gas giants inside the star, planets don't necessarily get consumed when a star god red giant, the planets often stay in orbit even after spending a few million years inside
Hi Anton i know your getting blown up with uap questions but I was curious if that was something you were going to make. Im interested in what your thoughts are on such groundbreaking information
While 160 000 lightyears is a lot it is still pretty much right next to Milky Way. Our own galaxy is about 90 000 ly across. It's might actually be easier to picture it there than in other side of our own galaxy because of less dust etc. in the way. Maybe.
What if the expelled material is not drifting away in a spherical shell, but as a disk (because of the rotation), and we are looking onto this disk at a skewed angle?
@davidhoward4715 filling the gaps of knowledge in our periodical table is the point in relation to disappearing stars 🌟 jwst tasting process that should not be possible in others. Young metaless galaxies who did not sit idly by billions of years without collapse while surrounded by fully seeded with heavy elements and mature did throughout as far away and upclose as we can see
4:50 I take issue a bit with explaining mass loss of Jupiter (Earth annual) as super significant. considering the mass of Jupiter is not as much as perceived.
The first time researchers have been able to take an actual physical image of a star in a completely different galaxy 160000 light years away from us? The nearest galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy at a distance of approximately 0.78 million parsecs (2.5 million light years). Our galaxy is 150000 light years across so...
You have gravity pulling on it and you have fusion pushing it apart , you also have metals ( anything that’s not hydrogen) sinking to the core , at the moment you can’t really get a star bigger then 250-300 masses today , where in this case WOH-G64 is the biggest in regards to radius.
Because if it increases mass past a certain mass/space ratio, it will directly collapse into a black hole without needing a supernova. Basically if you cram enough mass into a small enough area, you could theoretically make a black hole of any size- that's how microscopic black holes are theorized to form. I'm sure there's also an availability issue for mass it can add to itself from the surrounding environment.
@@Deletirium But if they expand into a red giant phase, wouldn't that allow them to get even bigger without becoming black holes since they are less dense? Is it possible for the core of a star to collapse into a black hole without the whole star collapsing?
@@philochristos There's ideas about primordial stars maybe doing that. I think the hypothetical monsters get called black hole stars. Stars so massive that they survive their own core's supernova. I couldn't explain the details why but they're not expected to be possible since that first generation of stars. But my understanding of the greater driving limit of modern stars has to do with at what mass the collapsing cloud will either blow itself apart due to the heat or form a binary pair instead of a single star.
About 150,000 LY away, and we refer to it's probably going supernova "in the next 100 years." Human language didn't evolve to deal with such weirdness.
While any given star may be a member of a binary system, all giant stars are known to physically pulsate in both size and luminosity. This is seen with periodic shifts in spectral features that coincide with changes in luminosity. The duration of the period is also directly linked to the absolute magnitude of the star. The longer the period, the brighter the star, if I remember correctly.
What erks me is, we are aware of gravitational background. Light curves, and can be slower going through mediums. Doppler effect isn't constant. So... How are we sure about size estimates....?
Stellar astrophysicists have a variety of methodologies for doing this. The LMC is 165,000 l.y. away and they know the spectra and luminosity of the star. Plug these numbers into well tested formulae and they have an estimate. They also look at data from other stars of this spectral type and luminosity class. If you were to watch an astrophysicist show university students exactky how this is done the mathematics alone would be intimidating ...
@douglaswilkinson5700 yeah like I said all theoretical conjecture that gets updated everytime we grow past our antiquated understanding. So the answer is till, we can't be sure, but it's the best guess we have 😂
@@LordAugastus It's not theoretical conjecture at all, and your cynicism is totally unfounded. An entire generation of extremely brilliant physicists, in the early 20th century, knew that hydrogen fusion was the only possible explanation for the energy output seen in stars, and the development of the H-bomb was the first well known example of that knowledge being put to the test. Given what is revealed about the composition of stars through spectral analysis, a tool that's PROVEN to be accurate, we know that hydrogen fusion, and the fusion of still heavier elements produced through stellar nucleosynthesis, are what drives the energy production and evolution of stars. There can be no other explanation. Get over it. You are speculating, in a very disrespectful fashion I might add, about things that are beyond your current level of understanding. However, it's never too late to learn something, if you really want to.
@@LordAugastus Scientists are very specific about exactly what they can and can't confirm, as well as their margins of error. It can be pretty boring reading, but you can find out exactly to what extent it's this guess that you claim.
Concerning your original question about size estimates, there's ALOT about observational astronomy that you know nothing about, and there's no shame in that. I'm not here to start teaching a basic astronomy class, nor is Anton. This isn't the place for it, and Anton assumes that you have at least some prerequisite knowledge of the subject. In short, if we know the distance, temperature, and luminosity of a star, we can place constraints on it's size. If something comes up that you're unfamiliar with, pause the video and look it up, such as with how stellar distances and sizes are measured. There's lots of free stuff to read out there, and some of it's written for the layman.
The most significant thing I have learned from this channel is not to be surprised by any new discovery, since it seems to be almost every week we are hearing of things being observed which were thought impossible. It really puts things in perspective regarding a healthy degree of uncertainty or skepticism. But it is the discovery, not the certainty, that keeps science interesting.
why ive always loved science, we as humans tend to think we know everything, when the truth is there is a vast amount of knowledge we know nothing about and even think impossible
@beta1451 it's closer to the truth to say we know nothing, than everything. The more you know, the greater the cost of new knowledge. Kind of like a video game.
duh it's a big universe. 🙂
@@joemcintyre2090 big doesn't equal incomprehensible.
@@crawkn Absolutely. The more we know, the more we know we don't know. The process of discovery is endless for this exact reason, and it's why science is so fulfilling.
I wish more in science would embrace your initial stance: "It's the discovery, not the certainty, that keeps science interesting". So many scientists are focused on certainty, which while valuable for industry, isn't what advances the field. Only by discovering new and heretofore unknown phenomena can we advance our knowledge.
Anton, you're the Carl Sagan of the internet. Don't ever stop.
Honest-to-goodness, Anton, I hope these videos allow you to do nothing else for money, except make these wonderful wonderful science videos.
Agreed.
I'm sure Anton has a VERY comfortable income from all these videos.
He has over a million subs... I know other RUclipsrs who were able to quit their jobs and just do RUclips full-time when they hit something closer to 100k subs. He's likely pushing a 7-figure income.
@@mNag Yes, I know a RUclipsr who paid for her fine mansion with YT. And she's barely 20 years old.
At 160,000 light years away, the star may have already gone supernova long ago!
I guess that's relatively true.
I'm willing to bet you a million dollars that it just did.
Only in its local frame of reference. It hasn’t gone supernova in our frame of reference.
@@jdlechgiven that Wikipedia says it’s 5 million years old ( at a mass of 25 sol it would only have 3.2 million years ) so it has to be around 20 mass sol for 5.5 million so in effect it either has done or will do in 430,169 years .
@@geoffstrickler Maybe if we get on a bike and ride in the right direction, it will undergo supernova, but we can't undo it by changing directions.
Another really interesting video, thank you Anton
Thank You Anton❣
You truly are A WONDERFUL PERSON🙏❣🌌 Happy to aee you on bluesky🤟
Fascinating! Incredible that we are around to witness all these breakthroughs in the visible universe. These distances are just incomprehensible.
Anton is the biggest star in this astronomical genre.
WOH!!! That's a huge star!!! 😮😂
WHO?
0:57 i thought he said "your wifes cookie" 😂😂
Me too! Do you know what he did say?
UY Scuti @@zanbudd
@ 🙏🏼
Read the comment first' watched vid. and couldn't unhear it.😆
@@sfall616
"objects in telescope are closer than they appear"
If they are indeed inside telescope rather than the telescope's view that might just be true.
Doesn’t it seem like something is literally coming towards earth? Or am i crazy
@@Hatin.ontonio💡
@@Hatin.ontonioWhat? ... Huh?? Yeah no idea what you're talking about but no you must be crazy. Because number 1, the main comment is just a reference to commercials and information to drivers on the road, when looking in your side mirrors or the rear mirror things appear much closer, it refers to why a lot of accidents happen, to be cautious.
As for the telescope thing, if that's what you're talking about then no because they're redshifted first of all, so that alone is a big no, and you can only see them through telescopes that run a certain time for more exposure otherwise they're not visible in real time.
@@FrancisFjordCupola Tell that to rearview mirror manufacturers, grumpy
Everyone, "HOW DID THE START GET SO BIG??!!!"
Star, "I eat McDonalds 3 meals a day, every day!"
Everyone, "That makes sense."
No it only eats McDonald's 6 days a week, on the 7th Day it eats Taco Bell. That explains the gas emissions.
Super Size Me!
Stars must have gotten bigger, in the cosmic past. when, the interstellar medium was still magnetic plasma gas
This is the beginning of an amazing physics rap
The Z pinch on a filament? Two stars nearby already ejected.
@MyCatJeff suspected injective retrospective set of matrices?
Plasma gas has too much energy to contract and form stars. Gas needs to cool down to cold molecular hydrogen (H2) before it becomes stars.
Wel they must have been bigger regardless because everything was closer together, and they didn't live long so they exploded quickly, creating the first black holes, the gas ejected from them then collected around those black holes, creating the first galaxies, within that they then exploded and everything keeps getting smaller and smaller, our sun is a 3d generation star.
We're only at the Very Large Space Telescope. Wait till be build the Extremely Large telescope. The there will be the Massively large telescope, then the absurdly large telescope.
Then we will build the Insanely large telescope. That one will see a matchstick struck at the moment of creation. Which will be really puzzling because nobody predicted it to be a safety match.
Crossing my fingers for the sighting of the guy looking for a circuit breaker at the center of every black hole.
The humongous, extra large, very big, telescope so big it will see the strike on the strike plate....
Some of our current theories are probably too simplistic, based as they are on observations by inferior instrument to what we have today. Now that we can see more complexity, we will just simply have to adapt our theories to what is observed and discard those which don't fit. Anton, your choice of topics allows for very stimulating viewing. Scientifically speaking, we live in exciting times.
WOH! That’s a big star.
Ur telling me they could have named it WHO and chose not to?
You're is spelled You're and you typed ur.
I saw this quoted line online :"Yes, light is a thing: Waves and particles: Light can be analyzed as both a wave and a particle", so that means those are particles of that star reaching us after 160,000 years
I like that you don't say things are impossible when the actual thing is that a simulation failed to depict reality. You used to put it in your titles and I'm super glad you don't anymore. After all science is about discerning truth, right? It was the only thing that fell short of amazingly wonderful in your channel and now I can just bask in the glow of your excellent science communication.
so this star already went SUPERNOVA tens of thousands of years ago, but the light hasn’t reached us yet.
You touch on this briefly, but we're not looking at the star itself. What we see is an oval cocoon of gas and dust around the star. The star itself is about 10 times smaller and would be a bright point in the middle of the cocoon. However, it is too dim or too much obscured to detect.
The explanation of an O-type binary partner seems very strange for a couple of reasons. First and most confusing: an O-type star would have at least 10% the luminosity of WOH G64, and with the remarkable emission spectra of 30,000 K. Even if the surrounding dust were to absorb all the emitted light, its vastly increased temperature should show up as one of the dust lobes being brighter than the other. The second, and less strange, part is that O-type stars have very short life-spans, on the order of 10 million years. If that were the case, this would have to be a recent capture.
It feels to me that it'd be more likely a black hole partner, but that would have very obvious gamma ray emissions so is also ruled out by lack of observed gamma rays near this star.
What a mysterious star! I also can't believe that it could be 3000 solar radii in size, that's unimaginably enormous!
It's worth noting that all giant stars are relatively short lived, so a red supergiant paired with an O type giant isn't actually too far fetched. However, one would think that it would cause at least some IR emissions from the dust torus, even if entirely cloaked. Maybe, maybe not. The 3000 solar radii figure is just speculation of what it's original size may have been, while remembering too that red giants of such enormous proportions are essentially what have been called a 'red hot vacuum', because most of the star's visible structure is very tenuous in nature. The star doesn't really have a well defined surface or limb, as it were. Because of this, placing firm constraints on the radius becomes somewhat problematic. We can only say that at a given color/temperature, at a given distance, and with a given apparent magnitude, the radius should be at least so and so. With objects that are much closer, interferometric (aperture synthesis) measurements can be used to get a much more accurate measurement, but I'm guessing that this one is just too far away. Cheers!
Thank you much for making astronomy understandable.
Man. I love these videos. I can watch them with my kids, too!
All you say and investigate is fabulous ! Thank You 🙏🏻💕
8:15 basically this is not a star , its a irregular galaxy ... most probably small irregular galaxy and very old
I like how you phrased that. Largest star discovered, yet.
Every time we claim to have found the biggest star, another larger one is found afterwards.
star core picks up mass or rotational speed, and the excess angular momentum dynamics cause the upper gases in the atmosphere to not be able to hold on gravitationally, so they get partially hurled away in two symmetric equatorial countervortices? that's my guess for that wobbly instability.
All the great astronomers and the biggest stars, Are in Western Ohio (WOH)
I'm a serious ATM (Amateur Telescope Maker) who has built several large Observatory class telescopes, and I'm an actual expert on Space.
My head is completely full of it .
You make a lot of sense.
"There's always a bigger fish."
I shoulda known that we'd find a star that's larger than even Stephenson 2-18. Just that the mind-melting size of the latter, got me complacent.
I'm always rooting for VY Canis Majoris to end up as the biggest. It's always been my favorite.
I'm more of a cat person.
@philochristos HD 85951 then is it?
@@MisterKnightly Yes!
It's a fleeting thing, though. Stars are only like this during their terminal red supergiant phase while they spew out enormous quantities of their own material.
@JustinMShaw Fleeting, but wonderful.
"Betelgeuse" is NOT pronounced "beetle juice"!!
not with that attitude it isn’t
💫💫💫💫💫
You can trust on delivery from Anton
I saw a video that said they found artificial light on one of the Trappist planets:) It might be a good topic to cover. Wonderful person Tshirts are on sale in the store:)
Thanks Anton :)
>
1:55 This is also a similar problem that I see with these galaxies that are too well formed in the early universe. More likely they are just further away in space and closer in the time line.
Hope you keepin warm up there Anton, space is cold this time of year
I hate this.....I use to hate outer space stuff when I was younger I still hate it. .. but I like your channel you along with alot of other people in media helped be hate less of anything that happens outside our dirt ball called earth.... 2003 and 2006 when I was a teen was really considering ending my life....there was many silly reasons why ... But one of them was the fear of what tv and even family claimed was going to happen to the sun and beyond that soon....I wasted alot of my teen years afraid of outer space. Your channel along with other RUclips channels and me trying to open my mind which I did do as a child helped me think just enough to not do something so stupid and not be afraid of our universe....thank you for making sure everyone who sees your channel knows what you know to not feel afraid about life but instead know better to help your fellow.... Kind.
Another excellant video, Anton. Well done.
Could the odd shape of the gas cloud be because we are looking at it from an angle and not straight on?
The gravitational forces on the extremities of a star that large are going to be so much weaker compare to the central area, that with the fact that the star in the same area will be less dense means it make much more sence that the star wont be a nice round shape and it would be bulgey in places. Dont forget its ejecting mess out too, that would explain the stuff around it, its chaotic so it shouldnt form a stable spinning disk around the star.
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🤘🙂
Basically the current biggest newest thing at the moment because something bigger newer hasn't been detected yet. I like how scientists say tthey haven't been disproved yet they can't prove anything either.
If it's the biggest it's possible for a star to be, isn't it safe to assume it's the biggest there is? I mean any other star that might compete could only be AS big.
@icekangz817 If you knew anything about science, you would know that scientists don't "prove" anything. They use evidence from observations to support or refute theories.
Stephenson 2-18 (aka Stephenson 2 DFK 1) is even larger at 2,150 solar radius. It is a red supergiant, but it borders on the size of a red hypergiant.
fascinating. good input Anton.
I think I'm noticing a pattern here. It seems to go like this: "We don't know yet." "We have no idea," "We're just guessing," & "It could be this, that or the other, but we don't know yet" (It could be anything).
Those who don't say those things never learn.
@@RhinoTheTerrible That's the point. That's all he says.
I remember, as a child, enjoying the Guinness book of records for it's lists of biggest, fastest, strongest. With all the fascinations of space, the race to find the biggest star seems childish until we see that they are growing or shrinking or about to go supernova and otherwise being something much more interesting than big.😊
So if the star is over 160,000 light years away and we're seeing the light as it was 160,000 years ago wouldn't that mean that if a supernova were to happen let's say within the next 100,000 years wouldn't that light from the supernova take time to get to us which would mean that the star already did go supernova and we would just be seeing the light and if you're saying that this sink could go supernova within a hundred years more or less mostly more, the star has already gone supernova over 100,000 years ago. Same with Beetlejuice and other stars like that but Beetlejuice is only 653 light years away so if it went supernova now we wouldn't see it for another 653 years so in 2677 or whatever. That's just an example okay
Pretty much. Everything we see is delayed in the time line compared to the timeline of the actually object.
So it's a context thing. 100,000 years from our timeline or 100,000 years from the stars current time (which we can never see at the moment). Usually they use our timeline :)
Stellar astrophysicists timestamp events when the light reaches Earth.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 Thanks. I thought that was the case :)
I think the OP is attempting to correlate that to a "Now" moment in time for the star as well :)
If a star looses a Jupiter a year in the last 30 years that’s a huge amount of matter accumulating around the star
Its losing mass into space Note the large halo, but that was likely from a super flare. Lot of material leaves since the star is so large in diameter & very hot.
Enough to make beautiful nebulae several light years across after they're done spewing it out.
thanks for another informative video anton
If only we had the technology to realize the Starship Enterprise. Suns, planets, and other celestial objects are many light-years distant. We can discover the largest sun, the Earth similar planets, and other interesting objects, but we will never reach them due to the massive distances!
It makes me wonder how many worlds and possibly civilizations are within the kill zone of the largest star in the visible universe and if they have the capability to understand their predicament. It might be a good place to look to see if we can detect the techno signature of a civilization's mass exodus from the death zone.
Anton you really should mention this is biggest in regards to Radius , not by Mass .
Yes. By mass the star bi253 (O2V) in the LMC has almost 100 solar masses, 1,175,000 its luminosity but only 13.9 times its radius. And since it is fusing hydrogen its also a "dwarf" star.
Supergiants are never the highest mass.
The most massive stars are also the ones that eject matter the fastest through solar winds. So the most massive ones are the ones that just formed, or just merged with another.
But agreed it should be clarified. I've seen people get very confused about this before.
stars are nice ... But Thing "TON 618" scares me
Then google 'phoenix-A black hole'..
@@sinass-s4g i was hoping some one mention that cause i reallllly dint want to
@@sockenpuppe1057 Last I heard, though, those scary things might have played a vital role in the creation of galaxies around themselves. Like their smaller local counterparts could be part of the reason we exist.
Anton I ate way too much pasta at once, please help
I am a little confused. You had said in previous episodes that after 1.4 to 2.5 solar masses, the start will become a neutron start, but this big star has 40 solar mases and it is not a neutron star. Can you make an episode to resolve this apparent contradiction?
Neutron stars happen after collapse (such as in a supernova). The fusion reaction creates pressure that keeps a star like WOH G64 from collapsing. Once that pressure goes and there is core collapse then there are limits to how much mass can be held together. The neutron star is prevented from collapsing further by degeneracy pressure: which has an upper mass limit as you mentioned.
The end result neutron star, or black hole if the core mass is beyond about 3.2 solar masses, comes after the supernova, not during the red giant phase.
I wonder if a high spin rate could cause the stretched formations - we could be looking at it spinwards with the poles at each flattened end. If the star is massive and low density I'd imagine a high spin rate could cause clouds to escape at the equator, with less and less as you go to higher latitudes. That might account for the squashed shape of the clouds.
I could also imagine a scenario where the plasma in the outer layers might pile up due to turbulence creating an imbalance in the star over time - once it reaches a certain tipping point, the entire blob is thrown off creating the large dip in luminosity.
Thanks for great a great entertainment and educational channel.
The partners could be gas giants inside the star, planets don't necessarily get consumed when a star god red giant, the planets often stay in orbit even after spending a few million years inside
LOVE YOU, ANTON!!!
Imagine what we will know 100 years from now and 500 years after that☝🏻😵🧐🤓
Brilliant video
Thanks Anton
Nice video,thanks Anton 🐇👍❤
really awesome video, thank you!! 💙
The star is inflationary
it will devalue gold and other precious metals after the super nova.
I surmise that WOH G64 will only last only until we find better detection techniques.
Hi Anton i know your getting blown up with uap questions but I was curious if that was something you were going to make. Im interested in what your thoughts are on such groundbreaking information
While 160 000 lightyears is a lot it is still pretty much right next to Milky Way. Our own galaxy is about 90 000 ly across. It's might actually be easier to picture it there than in other side of our own galaxy because of less dust etc. in the way. Maybe.
What if the expelled material is not drifting away in a spherical shell, but as a disk (because of the rotation), and we are looking onto this disk at a skewed angle?
Ok so we have:
Betelgeuse
VY Canis Majoris
UY Scuti
Stephenson 2-18
And now wr have WOH G64, how have i not heard of that star yet…
Thank you for going to the effort to use 2160p 60
Maybe a star is forming from the emissions
We still have a lot more to learn about periodic table elements 🎉
And your point is...?
@davidhoward4715 filling the gaps of knowledge in our periodical table is the point in relation to disappearing stars 🌟 jwst tasting process that should not be possible in others. Young metaless galaxies who did not sit idly by billions of years without collapse while surrounded by fully seeded with heavy elements and mature did throughout as far away and upclose as we can see
Standard model is but one part in trouble when it comes to evidence
4:50 I take issue a bit with explaining mass loss of Jupiter (Earth annual) as super significant. considering the mass of Jupiter is not as much as perceived.
I am not saying this is fake, but curious how light can travel 160,000 years without being disturbed on its way and reach us crystal clear
To me it looks like an accretion disk seen from the side.
The first time researchers have been able to take an actual physical image of a star in a completely different galaxy 160000 light years away from us? The nearest galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy at a distance of approximately 0.78 million parsecs (2.5 million light years). Our galaxy is 150000 light years across so...
The LMC is a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. If you lived in the southern hemisphere you would see it regularly. Along with the SMC.
What da math? Exciting. Thanks again for the great video.
I bet the egg shape is because the star became so massive its gravity couldn't keep the star spherical
WOH G64 is also what they said when they discovered it:
“Woah Gee a whole 64 pixels on the telescope!?”
A ridiculously huge thing is still absurdly small in an infinite space!
WOH Dude, that's gnarly...!
I think I listened to you too much. You got me into trouble sir I learned too much. Thank you.
Why is there a limit to how big a star can get?
You have gravity pulling on it and you have fusion pushing it apart , you also have metals ( anything that’s not hydrogen) sinking to the core , at the moment you can’t really get a star bigger then 250-300 masses today , where in this case WOH-G64 is the biggest in regards to radius.
Because if it increases mass past a certain mass/space ratio, it will directly collapse into a black hole without needing a supernova.
Basically if you cram enough mass into a small enough area, you could theoretically make a black hole of any size- that's how microscopic black holes are theorized to form.
I'm sure there's also an availability issue for mass it can add to itself from the surrounding environment.
@@Deletirium But if they expand into a red giant phase, wouldn't that allow them to get even bigger without becoming black holes since they are less dense? Is it possible for the core of a star to collapse into a black hole without the whole star collapsing?
@@philochristos There's ideas about primordial stars maybe doing that. I think the hypothetical monsters get called black hole stars. Stars so massive that they survive their own core's supernova. I couldn't explain the details why but they're not expected to be possible since that first generation of stars.
But my understanding of the greater driving limit of modern stars has to do with at what mass the collapsing cloud will either blow itself apart due to the heat or form a binary pair instead of a single star.
About 150,000 LY away, and we refer to it's probably going supernova "in the next 100 years." Human language didn't evolve to deal with such weirdness.
Evenly, the biggest objects out there can not yet be seen without optical aids.
Great video
Anton:
Is the earth flat or sphere?
Can you please describe how you arrived at either observation? Thank you 🙂
If the star's luminosity changes with a period of 800 days, it stands to reason that a companion star orbits with that period.
While any given star may be a member of a binary system, all giant stars are known to physically pulsate in both size and luminosity. This is seen with periodic shifts in spectral features that coincide with changes in luminosity. The duration of the period is also directly linked to the absolute magnitude of the star. The longer the period, the brighter the star, if I remember correctly.
@@stargazer5784: I didn't realize the changes are so predictable they could be used to accurately determine the star's absolute magnitude.
"this star has been referred to as the Behemoth Star; and because it was discovered by Dr.---" "Behemoth!!!" "...Westerland"
7:54 ... 😏 I know man, there's only 7 million humans on Earth and still not enough room for the ones with a magnitude problem....
The Largest Star is the Sun 😂
.... perspective people, no telescope required
LOL, you are right😂 all is relative🎉❤
2000 solar radii across?
Woh.
Is there a chance that it’s just at a bizarre angle that makes it look like it’s egg shaped but isn’t?
What erks me is, we are aware of gravitational background. Light curves, and can be slower going through mediums. Doppler effect isn't constant.
So... How are we sure about size estimates....?
Stellar astrophysicists have a variety of methodologies for doing this. The LMC is 165,000 l.y. away and they know the spectra and luminosity of the star. Plug these numbers into well tested formulae and they have an estimate. They also look at data from other stars of this spectral type and luminosity class. If you were to watch an astrophysicist show university students exactky how this is done the mathematics alone would be intimidating ...
@douglaswilkinson5700 yeah like I said all theoretical conjecture that gets updated everytime we grow past our antiquated understanding.
So the answer is till, we can't be sure, but it's the best guess we have 😂
@@LordAugastus It's not theoretical conjecture at all, and your cynicism is totally unfounded. An entire generation of extremely brilliant physicists, in the early 20th century, knew that hydrogen fusion was the only possible explanation for the energy output seen in stars, and the development of the H-bomb was the first well known example of that knowledge being put to the test. Given what is revealed about the composition of stars through spectral analysis, a tool that's PROVEN to be accurate, we know that hydrogen fusion, and the fusion of still heavier elements produced through stellar nucleosynthesis, are what drives the energy production and evolution of stars. There can be no other explanation. Get over it. You are speculating, in a very disrespectful fashion I might add, about things that are beyond your current level of understanding. However, it's never too late to learn something, if you really want to.
@@LordAugastus Scientists are very specific about exactly what they can and can't confirm, as well as their margins of error.
It can be pretty boring reading, but you can find out exactly to what extent it's this guess that you claim.
Concerning your original question about size estimates, there's ALOT about observational astronomy that you know nothing about, and there's no shame in that. I'm not here to start teaching a basic astronomy class, nor is Anton. This isn't the place for it, and Anton assumes that you have at least some prerequisite knowledge of the subject. In short, if we know the distance, temperature, and luminosity of a star, we can place constraints on it's size. If something comes up that you're unfamiliar with, pause the video and look it up, such as with how stellar distances and sizes are measured. There's lots of free stuff to read out there, and some of it's written for the layman.
What if the partner was a smaller blackhole, basketball to beach ball sized one? Then over time it just lands in the star itself.
Very large telescope observed very large star, great.
Since early age always impressed about science and the cosmos - but now that am older got the what is the point of all this feeling 😂
Careful sayin the B word, Micheal Keaton might show up
Endless bizarre discoveries make them not so bizarre… they are a design