He's talking about the fastest spinning white dwarf star. They're no where near the speed of the fastest spinning neutron stars (i.e. , the pulsar JO437 spins at 176 revolutions per SECOND).
Someone else pointed out that it's a matter of how you measure speed. Neutron stars are smaller, so it's possible the actual speed of the surface moves slower than this star. That being said, the comments section is essentially a bunch of randos trying to score internet points on sci show.
@@austinshoupe3003 Even though they are small, most neutron stars rotate so fast the velocity of the surface is insane. The surface of the fastest rotating pulsar (716 rotations per second) has a linear velocity approximately 24% the speed of light.
@@HermanVonPetri It looks like their “fastest spinning star ever” claim applies to some subset of objects called stars. Neutron star cores do rotate much faster, and black holes can rotate even faster at nearly light speed. White dwarf cores rotate around the speeds discussed in the video. High rotational speed commonly arises from something large and slowly rotating collapsing to a much small size. High density is a clue that something was much larger before. Collisions and other interactions can add rotation to an object too. Edit: I checked all their sources and they all pertain to white dwarf cores so maybe they meant “fastest spinning white dwarf star ever” but left out the words "white dwarf".
From the abstract of the very first source in the description: "At 24.93 s, the white dwarf in LAMOST J024048.51+195226.9 has the shortest known spin period of any cataclysmic variable star." Yes, it should have been specified that this was the fastest spinning of that specific type of star, but some are acting like there was zero basis for the claim. Turns out a group of a dozen or so people making daily educational videos sometimes make mistakes.
Yeah, but the writing had a long buildup to, "What's the fastest spinning star," so it wasn't just an omission of the category. Something broke down between the research and the writing, I guess. They're still entitled to make mistakes (I didn't pay them for accuracy!), but the error is not as small as you make it.
@@jpaugh64 they said fastest spinning star instead of fastest spinning white dwarf or cataclysmic variable star. Do you consider that a "large" error? I personally don't see it as such because there was some truth to the claim rather than it being entirely inaccurate. Though, I was mainly taking issue with the people (mostly one person) acting like this one error is egregious enough that they can't show this channel to others anymore. Even if we don't agree on how large or small it was I think you'd agree that's a bit excessive, no?
You should clarify that this is the fastest-spinning white dwarf star found so far, as many well known neutron stars rotate thousands of times per second.
Damn I thought scientists were only unoriginal in naming big telescopes in english, meanwhile the Gran Telescopio Canarias is here to prove me wrong. Guess "just name it big telescope" really is an instinct that transcends language.
There is no black and white definition and each new discovery adds to the plethora of "states" and our overall knowledge increases as we gain more and more examples of the things we see. Each of the objects you've discussed and the objects described in the video all can rotate exceedingly fast.
They are the fastest. The fastest known star in the observable universe universe spins 716 times a second. It’s a pulsar named PSR J1748-2446ad. I think when they say “fastest star” they mean more common and regular stars like ones preceding in the main sequence and red giant phases. I don’t think they took neutron stars into consideration because they are less known, and just so ridiculously fast that it’s hard to explain.
I’ve just now scanned a few science articles and none of them consider Ae Aquarii a a possible fastest star in the universe. Not sure where their sources are.
@@Colin.71 It’s just bad. They made a bunch of mistakes back in the recent Black Holes compilation a few weeks ago also. Quality control on the scripts has either slipped or it’s always been this bad but I was never this attentive. 🙁
The Earth used to rotate once a day by definition, but then they went and redefined the length of a day based on a number of seconds with the seconds' duration being defined by atomic clocks.
I think you got that backwards. The clock is defined by the average day. The corrections we add is because days aren’t perfectly timed even with a really accurate average. But without that kinda mathematical averaging, a lot of bad stuff like plane crashes would be really common.
I just calculated the speed of the surface of the star, and it should be moving at about 1600 km per second (1000 miles per second). That is 5.775.524 km per hour or 3.588.744 mph.
Actually, the Earth rotates 360 degrees in 23 hours, 56 minutes (approx.). The 24 hour figure is the time required for a point on the Earth to sequentially point at the Sun, which discounts the Earth's rotation around the Sun. It's the difference between a Sidereal day and a Solar day.
After the star went through its red giant phase and collapsed into a white dwarf, all the nearest planets would have been destroyed or pushed away in the process. Planets farther away would not be affected by how fast the star spins.
We don't expect so, except under very extreme circumstances. Planets should easily become tidally locked if close to their star, but the star's rotation itself should produce too weak an effect to change much.
I don't think so but if one recalls spinning black holes that drag space time in circles then I would think that the same effect would occur near neutron stars
technically the earth doesn't spin once a day. As it processes around the sun it will be at a different point in its orbit at the beginning and end of each day so we don't measure the spin independently, but in relation to the position of the sun.
Yes, the time actually taken for the Earth to make a full rotation is about 23 hours and 56 minutes (23.934 hours). It isn't much different, though, because the Earth doesn't even move a full degree around the Sun in 24 hours (it moves about .9856 degrees).
Im happy we got the Parker Solar probe up there for irrefutable data. Picture these fields on a small scale connecting the earth and Sun as all the energy flows from one to the other & on the grand scale connecting all the galaxies thru that dust and plasma fields as our little system is an intimate part of our universal fields. Geologic Time is a grand stage with repeated solar curtain calls.
Surface gravity increases as something gets denser even tho overall mass and gravity stay the same; as it gets smaller and more compact something on the surface is that much closer to all the different bits of matter exerting their own gravity that makes up the star's. Put another way, if you were "standing on the sun," the matter on the far side is more than a million kilometers away, and that distance reduces felt gravity, while a white dwarf packs all it's mass within several thousand kilometers. Or put a third way, high density stellar objects allow you to get closer to all their mass at once, so you can experience more of the gravitational influence of each particle.
Poisson's equation for gravity is dependent on density, not mass. This makes sense though, since according to Newton's equation, gravitational acceleration depends on both mass and distance from the center: GMR^2. Since we know mass equals density times volume, and for a sphere, volume is proportional to radius cubed, we can simplify this expression into GDR^3/R^2 and from there, into ~GDR.
The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, and given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
This took me a few reads to get but you might be onto something here... In my limited understanding of our understanding of Dark Matter, the constant has always appeared to be Gravity, like a universal force that *all* types of matter obey in some way. ... I mean, I guess that's what the fundamental forces in physics *are*, but the other ones are... a bit harder to really articulate or attribute...
@@ooooneeee Here's a step in the right direction I hope: The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel. And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
you say they can "literally see" the blobs of gas being thrown out into space. I was wondering if there were any photos of this star showing the blobs? Cause if it's data that's being interpreted into what they may see, then they're not "literally" seeing it..
What makes you think that Mars never had tectonic activity? It doesn't _now,_ but in its distant past Mars certainly had volcanic activity and geologic deformation.
If there is a process in space that creates light faster than the speed of light What would that light look like? How would that change if it was a process that created spurts of light faster than the speed of light ? Would it just appear brighter or more steady ?.
Sort of. Ish. Empty space expands, and can expand faster than light over a large area. Light at the front rides it like a wave. But because nothing can really go faster than light and relativism, instead of it going faster, it shifts to a brighter cooler/shorter wavelength.
What about pulsars? Google tells me pulsar PSR J1748−2446ad rotates 716 times per second, as noted by other comments here. Are pulsars still considered to be stars? Good video regardless!
When it is pretty much only speech and text I find the show hard to follow. It is much easier when I can see the animation illustrating the effect you are describing.
Yes. Exactly. And then why talk about pulsars just before talking about J0240-1952 being a White Dwarf?! Pulsars rotate so so so much faster than this WD’s speed.
Wish that "rotation" would have been used instead of "spin". That may be pedantic, but I think for people studying physics it is worth not confusing the the subject of this video with how "spin" is used in quantum mechanics and particles.
OTOH, nobody in their right mind expects subatomic terms in conjunction with astrophysics. Well, unless it's a paper trying to explain how some quantum effect could be responsible for some macro effect.
Im going to join other commenters asking why there is no mention of neutron stars (not to mention black holes) which are generally accepted to be the fastest spinning stars. Seems to be an oversight in Scishows otherwise well produced videos.
So does the fusion of hydrogen from the red star happen all the time and some of it is just pushed away by that force or does gas fall then "explode" and prevent some of the gas from falling down for some time, and then after a while the cycle continues. Like a pulse.
It seems kind of stupid to call it a lawn sprinkler when we don't know if lawns exist outside of our Solar System. Better yet what do these stars actually do to my lawn?
How fast does Jupiter spin? How strong is Jupiter's magnetic field? How many moons does Jupiter have? Earth spins fast, has a strong magnetic field and a large moon. Venus doesn't spin (very slow), has no magnetic field and has no moon. Should how a solar system, Jupiter's system, Saturns system ect. development be reconsidered?
@@General12th This is my logic. If i make almost everything a question and not a statement someone/s might actually try and find the answers. Its passive aggressive. :-/ in a good way.
All scientific names, like Aquarii, come from Latin. The double i is pronounced extending the sound of the first i, like "Aquaree", not Acquari-ai, that sounds very very wrong, other than ugly.
There is a lot of misinformation in this post that makes it very confusing for people following your channel! And the phrase "some of the gas is ejected" is really vague. I could say I was able to save some the house from a fire! That didn't mean I saved the house!
I rate this video positively, seeing the channel and presenter for the first time. He's got good appearance and voice, for sure. Yet I cannot help thinking there is still something missing: can anyone follow such speed of speech, such a deluge of scientific and thus often new information or information one has to have time to digest? I don't think so. And I hear what he says and understand him, yet the constant, relatively monotonous deluge of words feels like he has no spirit, no charisma. He's just a talking machine. I think the creators of these word speed races forgot that there needs to be a listener on the other side, and that the listener doesn't race, but wants to think over what is being said. They completely buried the thinking time and listener's reflection. I bet this issue will get to them only in few years.
He sounds monotonous to you? That interesting. He's always spoken with pretty noticeable inflection and enthusiasm to my ears. He's been one of the 3 presenters of this channel since they started several years ago and most people tend to like him a lot, myself included. I'm sure everyone sort of "listens" in their own way, though, so I can see how some people may come away with a different opinion of the presentation than others. I guess it depends on how you're used to hearing people speak on a daily basis, too. I live in a pretty big, centrally located city so I hear many different accents on a daily basis, so Reid sounds pretty normal and somewhat charismatic to me.
@@semaj_5022 it's not about his accent. That is perfect. It's the uninterrupted flow of words in such a fast cadence that there is no time to digest it. When I compare it to e.g. David Attenborough, it's heaven and hell. I meant my comments to his and their channel's benefit though. Just as a food for some thought.
@@badpanda1532 seems rather than my brain has the speed 0.75. But seriously, as I noted, I could follow him throughout, that's fine, that's not the issue here (it might be an issue with Ben Shapiro though); but enough this, if you cannot grasp what I meant, what sense it makes if I'll repeat it in more detail? It is not my problem anyway. I just expressed what I felt, that's all.
a star that spins twice ever 60 sec! wow! you do know there are pulsars twice the mass of the sun that spin over 700 times a second or 24% the speed of light, right?
0:50 That's actually incorrect: the earth completes one rotation in less than a day because it's also orbiting around the sun. A day is defined as the time between two noons, and for the same spot on earth to be at noon twice, the earth has to spin a bit more than a full rotation
I really hate how SciShow has used a lot more click bait video titles / thumbnails for the past few months. I've actually watched the channel a lot less since they've been doing this.
Wow ☹️ Come on SciShow.. that’s such poor research. “More than twice a minute” is nowhere near the fastest rotation for a star. There’s pulsars out there that rotate 716 times per SECOND. With the compilation clip on Black Holes the other week, I figured maybe it was just because the first video was very old that Hank was saying wrong things. But this appears to be a pattern ☹️ I can’t point my kids at school to this channel anymore when you’re saying false things that are so easy to fact check. What’s happened to this channel?
Well clearly you are teaching elementary. You know the basics of astronomy but not much more. You do realize this channel has an entire research and fact checking team right? You really think they would get something like that wrong? Maybe you aren’t always right hun. What is with elementary teachers and having an ego these days😂
@@nikarthur9996 White dwarfs (which they are talking about here) are also not main sequence stars. Even worse, neither neutron stars nor white dwarfs are actually stars. Both are actually stellar remnants.
@@JohnFKennedy420 Yeah, they do have a fact checking team. Which makes the errors in the video even worse. For reference, the fastest spinning know Neutron Star is PSR J1748-2446ad which rotates 716 times per second, which is once every 0.00139 seconds. That's almost 18,000 times faster than the white dwarf they reference in this video
@@nikarthur9996 But the story was about White Dwarfs, which is also not on the Main Sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (it has its own separate line). Honestly, I'd give SciShow Space a pass here if this was the first error I'd seen recently. But it's not. It's so strange to see Hank being careful and talking about no contributing to misinformation in other venues, only for his channel here to now be misinforming people regularly. I don't believe Hank/John/Complexly are just focused on a cash grab at all. But I'd say H+J are stretched too thin to supervise their managers of their different projects properly, and so there's no-one to ensure those managers are themselves keeping the eye on the ball. I fully accept that it's possible it was the host who misspoke when reading the script off the prompter. But that's a known production problem many channels have had, so the Fact Checker's role should not just include the script but also the final rendered video. Anyway...
Fastest spinning star ever detected at twice per minute? Nope. The fastest spinning pulsars (yes, that is a type of star) spin more than 700 times per second- thousands of times faster. Please do your homework.
He's talking about the fastest spinning white dwarf star. They're no where near the speed of the fastest spinning neutron stars (i.e. , the pulsar JO437 spins at 176 revolutions per SECOND).
But that's also no where near the rpm of a black hole.
Someone else pointed out that it's a matter of how you measure speed. Neutron stars are smaller, so it's possible the actual speed of the surface moves slower than this star.
That being said, the comments section is essentially a bunch of randos trying to score internet points on sci show.
@@austinshoupe3003 Even though they are small, most neutron stars rotate so fast the velocity of the surface is insane. The surface of the fastest rotating pulsar (716 rotations per second) has a linear velocity approximately 24% the speed of light.
اف غ ةة
Wait, didn’t neutron stars rotate at several hundred times per second? Or are we just not counting them when we say “fastest spinning star”?
yeah, sounds like they specifically excluded neutron stars
Technically, a neutron star is a core of a star and not a whole star --- but they should be clearer.
@@cloudpoint0 So is a white dwarf, which is what they are talking about here.
@@HermanVonPetri
It looks like their “fastest spinning star ever” claim applies to some subset of objects called stars. Neutron star cores do rotate much faster, and black holes can rotate even faster at nearly light speed. White dwarf cores rotate around the speeds discussed in the video.
High rotational speed commonly arises from something large and slowly rotating collapsing to a much small size. High density is a clue that something was much larger before. Collisions and other interactions can add rotation to an object too.
Edit: I checked all their sources and they all pertain to white dwarf cores so maybe they meant “fastest spinning white dwarf star ever” but left out the words "white dwarf".
yup, heard the 2 times a second thing, and was like..umm..neutron stars anyone?
From the abstract of the very first source in the description:
"At 24.93 s, the white dwarf in LAMOST
J024048.51+195226.9 has the shortest known spin period of any cataclysmic variable star."
Yes, it should have been specified that this was the fastest spinning of that specific type of star, but some are acting like there was zero basis for the claim. Turns out a group of a dozen or so people making daily educational videos sometimes make mistakes.
Beautifully done! 👏👏
Yeah, but the writing had a long buildup to, "What's the fastest spinning star," so it wasn't just an omission of the category. Something broke down between the research and the writing, I guess. They're still entitled to make mistakes (I didn't pay them for accuracy!), but the error is not as small as you make it.
@@jpaugh64 they said fastest spinning star instead of fastest spinning white dwarf or cataclysmic variable star. Do you consider that a "large" error? I personally don't see it as such because there was some truth to the claim rather than it being entirely inaccurate.
Though, I was mainly taking issue with the people (mostly one person) acting like this one error is egregious enough that they can't show this channel to others anymore. Even if we don't agree on how large or small it was I think you'd agree that's a bit excessive, no?
@@IanGrams People on the internet like to nitpick things into oblivion to feel better about themselves.
You should clarify that this is the fastest-spinning white dwarf star found so far, as many well known neutron stars rotate thousands of times per second.
The fastest spinning neutron stars at the currently know of the Spins with the speed of 70.000 km/s
Excellent presentation! Great info well packaged. Thank you.
Much better than most of your shows. Keep going like this.
Damn I thought scientists were only unoriginal in naming big telescopes in english, meanwhile the Gran Telescopio Canarias is here to prove me wrong. Guess "just name it big telescope" really is an instinct that transcends language.
I was only half paying attention, so when you said the earth spins once a day I was like "wow, that's fast!... wait."
It's a star of perfect size to collapse into a smaller star and spin up as it does like a giant nausias ballerina in the sky, spewing forth fluids...
Naww but the fluids.....
Ballerinas in the sky with diamonds
Catchier title idea: "The Fastest Spinning White Dwarves We Know Explode Repeatedly"
2:20: "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun..."
Pulsars and neutron stars are spinning pretty quick too. I thought they were the fastest when it comes to rotations.
There is no black and white definition and each new discovery adds to the plethora of "states" and our overall knowledge increases as we gain more and more examples of the things we see.
Each of the objects you've discussed and the objects described in the video all can rotate exceedingly fast.
@@bengoodwin2141
Pulsars and Neutron stars are all still stars, just in a different phase of their life sequence.
They are the fastest. The fastest known star in the observable universe universe spins 716 times a second. It’s a pulsar named PSR J1748-2446ad. I think when they say “fastest star” they mean more common and regular stars like ones preceding in the main sequence and red giant phases. I don’t think they took neutron stars into consideration because they are less known, and just so ridiculously fast that it’s hard to explain.
I’ve just now scanned a few science articles and none of them consider Ae Aquarii a a possible fastest star in the universe. Not sure where their sources are.
@@Colin.71 It’s just bad. They made a bunch of mistakes back in the recent Black Holes compilation a few weeks ago also. Quality control on the scripts has either slipped or it’s always been this bad but I was never this attentive. 🙁
This has to be one of the weirdest, yet most wonderful stars ever!
just to add to everyone, fastest spinning white dwarf until it sucks off 1.4 solar mass and goes 1A, unless its throwing enough mass off to avoid this
Reid: "Remember that the white dwarf has run out of fuel, but it is still incredibly dense."
Me: I feel attacked! LOL
Title is so ridiculous and worked on me like a charm
The Earth used to rotate once a day by definition, but then they went and redefined the length of a day based on a number of seconds with the seconds' duration being defined by atomic clocks.
I think you got that backwards. The clock is defined by the average day. The corrections we add is because days aren’t perfectly timed even with a really accurate average. But without that kinda mathematical averaging, a lot of bad stuff like plane crashes would be really common.
I just calculated the speed of the surface of the star, and it should be moving at about 1600 km per second (1000 miles per second). That is 5.775.524 km per hour or 3.588.744 mph.
bingo
bango
Actually, the Earth rotates 360 degrees in 23 hours, 56 minutes (approx.). The 24 hour figure is the time required for a point on the Earth to sequentially point at the Sun, which discounts the Earth's rotation around the Sun. It's the difference between a Sidereal day and a Solar day.
Does the speed of a star's rotation have any effect on the planets that orbit it? Aside from spitting stuff out that could hit the planets of course.
After the star went through its red giant phase and collapsed into a white dwarf, all the nearest planets would have been destroyed or pushed away in the process. Planets farther away would not be affected by how fast the star spins.
We don't expect so, except under very extreme circumstances. Planets should easily become tidally locked if close to their star, but the star's rotation itself should produce too weak an effect to change much.
I don't think so but if one recalls spinning black holes that drag space time in circles then I would think that the same effect would occur near neutron stars
maybe time dilation because of the extreme gravity?
Stars that know how to SPEEN
This sounds like one of them Tom Scott AI generated video titles.
Imagine if you compared lawn sprinklers and your neighbor shows their lawn sprinkler and *whips out comically large sprinkler*
Ejecting gas, okay. I was waiting on the 'weird fusion circumstances somehow produce water.'
Could you please make an episode about the Zhurong rover?
Novas are just white dwarfs throwing up because they're dizzy
This comment cracked me up and made my morning. Thank you for this gem. ♥
@@ShimmerWyn :)
Fascinating that they exist but hopefully they are so distant that when they die spectacularly we don’t suffer from the event !
Suspicious Observers channel on UA-cam discusses this kind of star a lot.
"spun around more than twice since watching this video" jokes on you, I watch youtube vids at 2x speed ;)
technically the earth doesn't spin once a day. As it processes around the sun it will be at a different point in its orbit at the beginning and end of each day so we don't measure the spin independently, but in relation to the position of the sun.
Woo! You get 1 internet point...
@@austinshoupe3003 Yay! I think I'm gonna spend it on another one of these! ua-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/v-deo.html
Yes, the time actually taken for the Earth to make a full rotation is about 23 hours and 56 minutes (23.934 hours). It isn't much different, though, because the Earth doesn't even move a full degree around the Sun in 24 hours (it moves about .9856 degrees).
Fastest pulsar rotates over 700 times per second.
??????? What gives!?
The power of the sun in the palm of my lawn
Im happy we got the Parker Solar probe up there for irrefutable data. Picture these fields on a small scale connecting the earth and Sun as all the energy flows from one to the other & on the grand scale connecting all the galaxies thru that dust and plasma fields as our little system is an intimate part of our universal fields. Geologic Time is a grand stage with repeated solar curtain calls.
The lawn sprinkler that’s secretly a star
That star woke up and chose SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!
You are almost getting there, just a couple more things and you will get there. Keep up the great work.
I wonder how this star would look like if we could see it's current form
"almost everything in the universe spins"
* Scientists side eye black holes *
___________
Of it's type
___________
1:43 this star is made by Sony 😂👌
More dangerous phenomenons
That sprinkler isn't gonna help keep the grass from scorching though....
6:07 Talks about a _White Dwarf_ proceeds to show a *Pulsar* .
lmao you said merry go round but the captions said carousel
?! What about millisecond pulsars ?!
"…correspondingly huge gravities…"? Surely, gravity is dependent on mass, not density. Or did I just miss something?
Surface gravity increases as something gets denser even tho overall mass and gravity stay the same; as it gets smaller and more compact something on the surface is that much closer to all the different bits of matter exerting their own gravity that makes up the star's. Put another way, if you were "standing on the sun," the matter on the far side is more than a million kilometers away, and that distance reduces felt gravity, while a white dwarf packs all it's mass within several thousand kilometers. Or put a third way, high density stellar objects allow you to get closer to all their mass at once, so you can experience more of the gravitational influence of each particle.
Poisson's equation for gravity is dependent on density, not mass. This makes sense though, since according to Newton's equation, gravitational acceleration depends on both mass and distance from the center: GMR^2. Since we know mass equals density times volume, and for a sphere, volume is proportional to radius cubed, we can simplify this expression into GDR^3/R^2 and from there, into ~GDR.
So, idea, stellar flywheel
Eh?
the only good host left on SciShow
The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, and given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
This took me a few reads to get but you might be onto something here... In my limited understanding of our understanding of Dark Matter, the constant has always appeared to be Gravity, like a universal force that *all* types of matter obey in some way. ... I mean, I guess that's what the fundamental forces in physics *are*, but the other ones are... a bit harder to really articulate or attribute...
Please say again in multiple shorter sentences. I'm getting lost in that mega sentence 😅
@@ooooneeee Here's a step in the right direction I hope:
The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel.
And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
Meet the Spy
you say they can "literally see" the blobs of gas being thrown out into space.
I was wondering if there were any photos of this star showing the blobs?
Cause if it's data that's being interpreted into what they may see, then they're not "literally" seeing it..
"Speed of the pulses indicates the speed of the rotation" - that sounds like flawed logic.
Should have titled this "How to Start an Argument on UA-cam "
J0240-1952 is kind of catchy; not very descriptive. I'm pretty sure "rainbird" isn't taken.
Im only watching this so youtube will take it off the list and i can get other videos up.
For those that don’t want to look up how hot 30,000 Kelvin is, it’s about 53,500 Fahrenheit. Frighteningly hot
Is that like 5000c?
how is the stars sprinkling whatever on my lawn?!?! Better yet what is it sparkling on the lawn?!?
It could be a micro black hole near it
how would the sky look like if you can stand on the fast spinning star? everything would be a blur?
darkness
because you'd be dead
yeah or maybe it'll be very bright bcz of the star's luminosity
It repeats ova an ova an ova anova anova anova a nova a nova a nova...
Mars never had technonic plates. So how do you explain Cydonia those are Montens with are formed by technonic plates running together
What makes you think that Mars never had tectonic activity?
It doesn't _now,_ but in its distant past Mars certainly had volcanic activity and geologic deformation.
I'm just wondering about the shape of these white dwarfs.
%#!< Yeah Cataclysmic Variables!
Are we sure about this factoid? The fastest neutron star rotates at 43,000 RPM.
Dig around in the comments. This has been discussed, albeit poorly, throughout the comment section
Beard is the bees knees.
One doesn’t experience self-transcendence, the illusion of self only dissipates.🎈
If there is a process in space that creates light faster than the speed of light What would that light look like? How would that change if it was a process that created spurts of light faster than the speed of light ? Would it just appear brighter or more steady ?.
Sort of. Ish. Empty space expands, and can expand faster than light over a large area. Light at the front rides it like a wave. But because nothing can really go faster than light and relativism, instead of it going faster, it shifts to a brighter cooler/shorter wavelength.
but how much time our sun takes to rotate?
The Sun rotates on its axis once in about 27 days.
0:45 they answer that; "about once a month"
@@WulfgarOpenthroat good call I actually missed that
What about pulsars? Google tells me pulsar PSR J1748−2446ad rotates 716 times per second, as noted by other comments here. Are pulsars still considered to be stars?
Good video regardless!
White dwarfs should not be referred to as "stars".
When it is pretty much only speech and text I find the show hard to follow. It is much easier when I can see the animation illustrating the effect you are describing.
White dwarfs ... Or small hot bodys you say ??🤔🤭🤔🤭
@2:25
Yeah methinks the host of this video should have said the fastest spinning white dwarf not fastest spinning star......
Yes. Exactly. And then why talk about pulsars just before talking about J0240-1952 being a White Dwarf?! Pulsars rotate so so so much faster than this WD’s speed.
Wish that "rotation" would have been used instead of "spin". That may be pedantic, but I think for people studying physics it is worth not confusing the the subject of this video with how "spin" is used in quantum mechanics and particles.
OTOH, nobody in their right mind expects subatomic terms in conjunction with astrophysics. Well, unless it's a paper trying to explain how some quantum effect could be responsible for some macro effect.
The Neutron Star in the Crab Nebula spins at 30 times a second!!!
Cool.
Doing a full rotation in 24 seconds? Big deal. I can spin around like, 4 or 5 times in that time 🤨
i could go faster but i don't want to do my own "lawn sprinkler" impression!
Neutron stars spin faster and have the word star in their name.
Are there any stars that don't spin?
6:18 1% the speed of light
6:34 "lightning fast spin" no, it´s not lightning fast, as just said 16 seconds ago
Lightening fast is used as a phrase here, not literally.
How fast might a black hole spin?
The new math does not care about a correct answer. What color does the star appear to be or did it declare itself a nebula?
Im going to join other commenters asking why there is no mention of neutron stars (not to mention black holes) which are generally accepted to be the fastest spinning stars. Seems to be an oversight in Scishows otherwise well produced videos.
This video oddly doesn’t highlight Pulsars/Neutron Stars for some reason; not even a discussion why their epic-spins don’t count?
So does the fusion of hydrogen from the red star happen all the time and some of it is just pushed away by that force or does gas fall then "explode" and prevent some of the gas from falling down for some time, and then after a while the cycle continues. Like a pulse.
Don't neutron stars spin super fast like a hundred times every millisecond or some s***
It seems kind of stupid to call it a lawn sprinkler when we don't know if lawns exist outside of our Solar System. Better yet what do these stars actually do to my lawn?
Does the universe spin?
Relative to what ?
If the entire universe was spinning, how would you know ?
The data compiled by the Planck spacecraft suggests it probably doesn't.
How fast does Jupiter spin? How strong is Jupiter's magnetic field? How many moons does Jupiter have?
Earth spins fast, has a strong magnetic field and a large moon.
Venus doesn't spin (very slow), has no magnetic field and has no moon.
Should how a solar system, Jupiter's system, Saturns system ect. development be reconsidered?
This feels like an interrogation.
@@General12th This is my logic. If i make almost everything a question and not a statement someone/s might actually try and find the answers. Its passive aggressive. :-/
in a good way.
No dislike no like, but here's one for the algorithm
*UA-cam* have hidden all dislikes on *all* videos.
Apparently mainstream news disliked being disliked, and needed a safe place.
All scientific names, like Aquarii, come from Latin. The double i is pronounced extending the sound of the first i, like "Aquaree", not Acquari-ai, that sounds very very wrong, other than ugly.
Yeah, it's someone else hosting.
sprinklers dont spin. they rotate back and forth. comparing sprinklers to a star spinning are totally unrelated. nor comparable
But neutron stars and black holes are spinning faster
There is a lot of misinformation in this post that makes it very confusing for people following your channel! And the phrase "some of the gas is ejected" is really vague. I could say I was able to save some the house from a fire! That didn't mean I saved the house!
I rate this video positively, seeing the channel and presenter for the first time. He's got good appearance and voice, for sure. Yet I cannot help thinking there is still something missing: can anyone follow such speed of speech, such a deluge of scientific and thus often new information or information one has to have time to digest? I don't think so. And I hear what he says and understand him, yet the constant, relatively monotonous deluge of words feels like he has no spirit, no charisma. He's just a talking machine. I think the creators of these word speed races forgot that there needs to be a listener on the other side, and that the listener doesn't race, but wants to think over what is being said. They completely buried the thinking time and listener's reflection. I bet this issue will get to them only in few years.
Serious question; are you a second language English speaker or of a different accent than the presenter?
He sounds monotonous to you? That interesting. He's always spoken with pretty noticeable inflection and enthusiasm to my ears. He's been one of the 3 presenters of this channel since they started several years ago and most people tend to like him a lot, myself included. I'm sure everyone sort of "listens" in their own way, though, so I can see how some people may come away with a different opinion of the presentation than others. I guess it depends on how you're used to hearing people speak on a daily basis, too. I live in a pretty big, centrally located city so I hear many different accents on a daily basis, so Reid sounds pretty normal and somewhat charismatic to me.
@@semaj_5022 it's not about his accent. That is perfect. It's the uninterrupted flow of words in such a fast cadence that there is no time to digest it. When I compare it to e.g. David Attenborough, it's heaven and hell. I meant my comments to his and their channel's benefit though. Just as a food for some thought.
@@Alarix246 any chance you have the speed at 1.25?
@@badpanda1532 seems rather than my brain has the speed 0.75. But seriously, as I noted, I could follow him throughout, that's fine, that's not the issue here (it might be an issue with Ben Shapiro though); but enough this, if you cannot grasp what I meant, what sense it makes if I'll repeat it in more detail? It is not my problem anyway. I just expressed what I felt, that's all.
a star that spins twice ever 60 sec! wow!
you do know there are pulsars twice the mass of the sun that spin over 700 times a second or 24% the speed of light, right?
Don't most pulsars spin far faster than 2 times a second?
0:50 That's actually incorrect: the earth completes one rotation in less than a day because it's also orbiting around the sun. A day is defined as the time between two noons, and for the same spot on earth to be at noon twice, the earth has to spin a bit more than a full rotation
I really hate how SciShow has used a lot more click bait video titles / thumbnails for the past few months. I've actually watched the channel a lot less since they've been doing this.
Wow ☹️ Come on SciShow.. that’s such poor research. “More than twice a minute” is nowhere near the fastest rotation for a star. There’s pulsars out there that rotate 716 times per SECOND. With the compilation clip on Black Holes the other week, I figured maybe it was just because the first video was very old that Hank was saying wrong things. But this appears to be a pattern ☹️ I can’t point my kids at school to this channel anymore when you’re saying false things that are so easy to fact check. What’s happened to this channel?
Pulsars aren’t part of the main sequence and don’t do nuclear fusion, and are very different from regular stars, which is probably what they meant.
Well clearly you are teaching elementary. You know the basics of astronomy but not much more. You do realize this channel has an entire research and fact checking team right? You really think they would get something like that wrong? Maybe you aren’t always right hun. What is with elementary teachers and having an ego these days😂
@@nikarthur9996 White dwarfs (which they are talking about here) are also not main sequence stars. Even worse, neither neutron stars nor white dwarfs are actually stars. Both are actually stellar remnants.
@@JohnFKennedy420 Yeah, they do have a fact checking team. Which makes the errors in the video even worse.
For reference, the fastest spinning know Neutron Star is PSR J1748-2446ad which rotates 716 times per second, which is once every 0.00139 seconds. That's almost 18,000 times faster than the white dwarf they reference in this video
@@nikarthur9996 But the story was about White Dwarfs, which is also not on the Main Sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (it has its own separate line).
Honestly, I'd give SciShow Space a pass here if this was the first error I'd seen recently. But it's not. It's so strange to see Hank being careful and talking about no contributing to misinformation in other venues, only for his channel here to now be misinforming people regularly.
I don't believe Hank/John/Complexly are just focused on a cash grab at all. But I'd say H+J are stretched too thin to supervise their managers of their different projects properly, and so there's no-one to ensure those managers are themselves keeping the eye on the ball.
I fully accept that it's possible it was the host who misspoke when reading the script off the prompter. But that's a known production problem many channels have had, so the Fact Checker's role should not just include the script but also the final rendered video. Anyway...
Fastest spinning star ever detected at twice per minute? Nope. The fastest spinning pulsars (yes, that is a type of star) spin more than 700 times per second- thousands of times faster. Please do your homework.