Hi everyone, Alex here, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who joined Patreon. Your membership is what allows me to keep Astrum what it is, and not what the algorithm looks for. bit.ly/4anEb5u

@MBSfilms77

6 күн бұрын

I am pretty much a pinned comment

@charlesachurch7265

6 күн бұрын

Thanks again xxx

@jtestaccount2431

6 күн бұрын

love u astrum

@zeev

6 күн бұрын

the second you mentioned doplar shift, i was thinking 'wow, the spin!'. very cool. you didn't explain the overall spectrum , established, of star spinning speeds from low-high for small cores of stars ( neutron/magnetar/pulsar) speeds, to large starts... thing is, also, you well know, stars are like onions, with layers. the bigger and more 'fluffy' the star the more there is an asymmetry of speeds between layers, or at least, the more possible there is big differences. so the core of our sun probably spins much faster than the outside, is my understanding. and this also creates turbulence inside the sun as well. so it's complex. for a star 600 light years closer ( pretty damn close ) , but of such size, my guestimate is there is NOT going to be a resolution to this 'debate' after the analysis is done. we won't know. but if the speed at which it now rotates is too fast, than it's probably obvious nonsense and will be discounted as it already is. my underesanding is that if things too massive spin too quickly, they shed or break apart as the roche limit is functionally 'inside' the thing , as internal mass becomes 'broken apart' and becomes 'external mass'. so a single body can break into 2 functionally separate gravitational bodies. this, however is extremely unlikely without some outside force ( a star exploding usually ....) , so odds are if this spin limit is well defined. there are no new physics going on here. either the star spun up to a very high speed, but not 'break apart' speed, and we've overestimate the speed, or ---our physics are wrong, or our data is wrong. unlikely the physics is wrong. seriously though. this video was great. Also for reference, the earth rotates about itself at .45 km/s --1100 or so mph for the horizon to move at the equator, moon spins at about 100x lower speed at its equator. and the sun? 1.9km/s spin is a fun thing to compare, but then there is also the complexity of reality of onion layers. venus spins UBER slowly and in retrograde , but it's winds are super-velocity and winds are mass, tenuous, but still mass. so great assymetries can exist, particularly so at the final outer boundary. astrum. you're one of the absolute all time best space-astronomy channels. i have watched them all. thank you . thank you and thank you

@lawrencecrocker4870

6 күн бұрын

there are systems with more than just 2 stars as well, perhaps it cannibalized multiple stars XD

youre right, physics SHOULDNT allow it. together we can stop it!

@barbarian1111

6 күн бұрын

😂

@andrewreynolds912

6 күн бұрын

Lmao, the laws of physics are just a concept, not a full on fact of everything and physics is changing all the time

@vandalsavage1

6 күн бұрын

Physics should vote blue

@saumalyasarkar7685

6 күн бұрын

count me in!! we can't allow this...

@KoSXxPotatisbarnetXD

6 күн бұрын

We should make a petition

I hope I live long enough to see the effects of the explosion. I'm 70 years old. I have been watching and waiting for the event, but it just seems to be beyond my view. In my lifetime, I have witnessed comets, the collision of the comet fragment into the surface of Jupiter, the landing on the moon, (most memorable to be sure). The crowning glory to this would be seeing the phoenix of Betelguese.

@123Andersonev

6 күн бұрын

if it did explode, it happened about 700 years ago, so you're just a few centuries too late.

@stevengill1736

6 күн бұрын

Me too....cheers.

@johnt.inscrutable1545

6 күн бұрын

Just keep hanging on. It may well have done its thing long enough ago for you to see it. Seventy isn’t that old.

@ArchangelExile

6 күн бұрын

Interesting... 🤔

@sgtepic4659

6 күн бұрын

Don't worry. I'm also excited. I'm 27, but aware that it might not even happen in my lifetime. I have a feeling you and I will somehow get to experience it anyway!

7:10 Ludicrous Speed is one thing... but we're in real trouble if it ever goes Plaid 😳

@thereasonableconsumer

5 күн бұрын

Just don't stop the ship suddenly without your seat belt on. -The Schwartz

@fredwood1490

4 күн бұрын

Have you ever seen the pictures of the surface of the Sun? Plaid, all over!

@PBeringer

3 күн бұрын

"Plaid"; what? Don't know that one ...

@thereasonableconsumer

3 күн бұрын

@@PBeringer it's a movie reference from Spaceballs

@PBeringer

2 күн бұрын

@@thereasonableconsumer Ahh ... thanks :) I haven't seen that film in over 30 years; I hardly remember any of it, actually. Definitely something for me to rewatch.

My opinion on this topic is that I'm completely unqualified to have one. I look forward to this mystery being eventually solved.

@Mark_Bridges

4 күн бұрын

Yeah, best answer I've read so far.

We don't even know the ecliptic angle of this star. So we can not be sure what plane angle we are even looking at. For all we know we could be looking at the Pole of the star

@kooken58

5 күн бұрын

If we were looking at the pole of the star, we would see very little rotation.

@fuzzlewit9

5 күн бұрын

@@kooken58 Perhaps we are seeing very little rotation, and just a lot of bubbling.

@CraftTasticAnimations

5 күн бұрын

@@kooken58that’s the problem we aren’t seeing much rotational features as evident in this video so that is why I said we might be looking at it from the pole. This star is bubbling and might be giving false readings and illusions.

@CraftTasticAnimations

5 күн бұрын

@@fuzzlewit9that’s exactly where my head is at

@timhyatt9185

4 күн бұрын

if the axis is pointing at us, you would not see the gradient of one side being red shifted, and the other blueshifted. - it would be uniform across the disk (with the "inflating/popping bubbles" being effectively random additions to the surface.

There’s something about the wonder in the tonality of your voice coupled with the fascinating cosmological physics in the topics you and your team chose, that all make for such compelling and rewarding viewing for me. You guys have really honed your craft and nailed it. Keep going!

@moiraatkinson

4 күн бұрын

And don’t ever change to AI navigation 😖

@filonin2

4 күн бұрын

So many thumbs up for the porn bot comment. Lol

Every time someone says "it defies the laws of physics" but they are looking at live data it just means that their physics model is incredibly terribly bad.

@thalastianjorus

18 сағат бұрын

This phrase has always bothered me. "It violates the laws of physics!" You... are... _looking at it!!_

@DerErsteWilhelm

Сағат бұрын

Or the measurements are wrong; things at the edge of our knowledge have the incredible inconvenient attribute to be hard to measure. And our understanding of physics is quite good at being useful to predict how things are going, so any evidence better be of high quality.

Wonder if that's because Alex shouted "Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse!!!"

@Flesh_Wizard

5 күн бұрын

And then the inner solar system gets consumed by Betelgeuse

@7TPdwCzolgu

5 күн бұрын

Beetle juice

@dmitryburlakov6920

5 күн бұрын

I won't ever believe that it's pronounced this way.

@WilliamDearthwd

4 күн бұрын

"...It's showtime!"

@aetherflow

4 күн бұрын

"Hope ya like Italian..."

the oblateness of such a fast rotating star should look hilarious if viewed closer

@KingdomOfSaulo

5 күн бұрын

bro imagine going to betelgeuse ans when you get there it's a fucking plate lmao

@youteubakount4449

4 күн бұрын

@@KingdomOfSaulo flatsunners would be stoked

Methinks we should consult Ford Prefect about this, since it's his home system.

@HarryDirtay

6 күн бұрын

He doesn't like to speak of the great collapsing hrung disaster.

@TheJeremyKentBGross

6 күн бұрын

Jist don't panic amd remember to bring your towel.

@mikekolokowsky

6 күн бұрын

He’d knock back a Pangalactic Gargleblaster and toast the star’s demise. From a safe distance.

@timrogers2638

5 күн бұрын

@@mikekolokowsky - At the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, no doubt.

@keirfarnum6811

5 күн бұрын

He would just say, “don’t panic!” And to keep your towel handy.

If enough observations were made, and with sufficient time in between them, the effect of "boiling" should cancel out and leave us with something very like the true rotation. Since we don't know how the data were collected, we can't really guess what the truth of the thing is likely to be.

@stjernis

6 күн бұрын

My thought as well. I'd like to know what "sufficient time" may be in this case, i.e. how quickly these bubbles form and fall back. Is it on the order of a couple of years? 100 years? Thousands? I'm sure there are physics simulations that would be able to answer that.

@Cr8Tron

5 күн бұрын

"More data samples, please!" is exactly the thought I right away had! Seems rather obvious... But, yet somehow, your comment stands alone on this argument? 🤦‍♂️

I had to rewatch the beginning and pause the video to try and wrap my head around Betelgeuse’s rotation speed. It really puts into perspective the size of the star for me. It’s those kinds of facts that really fascinates me with the universe. Thanks for making such great thought provoking content.

And what we see now is 650 years old. Everything we see the star doing happened 650 years ago.

@huhuruz77

6 күн бұрын

I read somewhere that if Betelgeuse explodes "tomorrow", we will see the explosion in our sky about 100,000 years from now !

@Thefreakyfreek

6 күн бұрын

But sinse noting travels faster than ligt we can basically ignore that

@raoulduke7668

6 күн бұрын

@@Thefreakyfreek so we can just ignore special relativity? I don't think so

@fallendown8828

6 күн бұрын

​@@raoulduke7668he is just saying talking about whether or not something already happened doesn't really matter if we won't be able to observe it for hundreds of years and the state of the stars we observe now can practically be counted as the current state of the star

@mugennojin3513

6 күн бұрын

​@@Thefreakyfreekeverything is relative 😊

I don't think Betelgeuse is there any more, I think it's already gone pop.

@Orvieta

6 күн бұрын

"any day now" in astronomical terms might be 300 000 years away.

@bradley3549

6 күн бұрын

@@Orvieta And simultaneously 300,000 year ago.

@trinomial-nomenclature

6 күн бұрын

It's my understanding that if Betelgeuse exploded/imploded, we would be able to observe it from Earth, with our naked eye, as it would be very bright. I may be mistaken, however, I'm merely relaying what I have heard.

@drgonzo123

6 күн бұрын

@@trinomial-nomenclaturetrue, when it eventually goes supernova, it will be brighter than a full moon, and visible even in the day. I would love to see that in my lifetime

@JasonHebert

6 күн бұрын

@drgonzo123 but (and this is a genuine question, not sarcasm, as I'm not good with this stuff) wouldn't there be no chance for us to see it that bright since it would take 650 years for that light to reach here?

If Betelgeuse is a bubbling star, then two images taken some time apart should look completely different. If it is a rotating star, then they should look the same.

@dario9276santos

6 күн бұрын

Exactly my thoughts, this "mistake" would only happen if they only took 1 measurement, which is never the case

@andymouse

6 күн бұрын

That makes some initial sense but these guys haven't been thinking about it for an hour like you have and will without a doubt thought of this.

@davesmith826

6 күн бұрын

Define 'some time apart'. The 'bubbles' referred to in this video are upwards of a hundred million miles long. It could take a decade for them to form and dissipate. In that same decade, the speed of rotation for a star that isn't 'bubbling' could increase or decrease. I doubt this is a simple matter of taking two measurements so much as it is a systematic review of thousands of measurements over hundreds or thousands of days.

@dudemcguy9293

6 күн бұрын

Rotation - yes if you time it right Bubbling - not if the bubbles come and go in the same places and there's resolution issues to consider with the imagine method

@newfreenayshaun6651

6 күн бұрын

Ever met a bubbling star? Ever seen two images of said star? 'get an autograph?...

How unlikely is it that we are viewing Betelgeuse from a point perpendicular to its axis of rotation? Are we looking at a pole? That spin rate seems pretty unlikely.

@NScherdin

6 күн бұрын

Viewing off normal from the axis of rotationwould cause the apparent speeds to go down, not up. The laregest measurement difference would be when viewing directly perpendicular to the axis of rotation and the equator. Any other angle will have a lower differential.

@willwright2721

6 күн бұрын

The axis of rotation can't be directly pointed at us, since that would mean there would be no Doppler shift.

@newfreenayshaun6651

6 күн бұрын

About as unlikely as your perception being accurate, as well. Size matters. That big ol ball doesn't have to show much rotation at all to be at a space/time rupturing speed at the surface. To scale, that booger is almost the size of.... space.

@luminousfractal420

6 күн бұрын

its a trumpeted warp tunnel. betel is actually about 15mm across its just magnified.

@bluegold21

6 күн бұрын

Very. If we were looking down the axis there would be a marked difference in the speed of the equatorial material compared to the pole-bound material. This issue would be solved a lot quicker if we were actually looking along the axis of rotation.

Any mention of an ambulance siren, all I can think of is Carter Pewterschmidt insulting the people of France 😅

@Vtarngpb

6 күн бұрын

Also, “Ludicrous speed!” 😂

I see star fleets burning on the shoulder of Orion.

@Jamie_Wulfyr

5 күн бұрын

That's exactly what jumped to my mind. Like tears in the rain...

@TRFan26

5 күн бұрын

If only you could see what I’ve seen through your eyes.

@milnez

5 күн бұрын

And he wrote it 😮

@rustythecrown9317

5 күн бұрын

C beams glitter near the Tanhauser gate.

@matthewnardin7304

5 күн бұрын

Ok I'll be the guy... Ackshually the quote was: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."

I really enjoyed this explanation of the surface dynamics and rotation of Betelgeuse, thanks Alex. It just shows how unstable the outer layers of a red supergiant are in comparison to a "settled" outer layer of our own main sequence yellow dwarf star.

I have photographed nebula's constellations planets solar eclipses annular eclipses lunar eclipses. I have seen the transition of Mercury I missed the transition of Venus but that's outside my control The last thing on my bucket list.... a supernova. I just hope I get to see it in my lifetime.

@omni_frame

6 күн бұрын

I‘ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe

@alrightyru

6 күн бұрын

Do you plan to visit Egypt in 2027?

@BuffBuffaIo

6 күн бұрын

@@alrightyruhmm what do you mean

@BuffBuffaIo

6 күн бұрын

@@alrightyruyou’d better not have predicted where and when you can see it go boom

@onecst

6 күн бұрын

Not a supernova but there will be a nova soon

I found your content a few days ago and i just cant stop watching so much good info coming from your channel keep it up mate

@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88

6 күн бұрын

John Michael Godier is another channel that does really good content. Little speculation but a lot of facts. He also does a podcast and has had some awesome names from laureates and PHDs to fellow KZreadrs.

@kryloxgd

6 күн бұрын

@@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88 ill check him out

Wikipedia states: "The star is also a slow rotator and the most recent velocity recorded was 5.45 km/s[17]-much slower than Antares which has a rotational velocity of 20 km/s.[146] The rotation period depends on Betelgeuse's size and orientation to Earth, but it has been calculated to take 36 years to turn on its axis, inclined at an angle of around 60° to Earth.[17]"

Even as a child, and I am two days older than dirt, I was obsessed with Betelgeuse, Venus, Sirius, Mars, and other bright objects. I always wanted to visit those bright places. Anyway, thanks for all you do in keeping us intelligent. I will also add, your voice is so soothing... I could listen to you read the entire internet.

Hi! Just wanted to ask if it's possible to have subtitles that aren't automated? Love your content by the way! ❤

This is the weirdest beetle juice I have never seen..

@jameshatton4405

5 күн бұрын

Was a classic 90s movie and is the result of bug squishing....... And ya can't even drink it 😆

I've heard for a while that Betelgeuse is a non-spherical shape, but had a lot of trouble visualizing how that could possibly look. The simulations and comparisons of Betelgeuse to a giant drop of boiling water finally made it click for me! Thanks for the informative video!

How exactly would a star rotating at 5 km/sec be breaking the laws of physics? A study by the Royal Observatory of Belgium concluded that most stars cooler than F7 generally rotate at no faster than 50 km/sec, while hotter stars -- A-class (white), B-class (bluish-white), and O-class (blue) -- are often rotating faster than 100 km/sec. Hell, Jupiter's rotational velocity is 12.6 km/sec, more than twice as fast as Betelgeuse's observed rotational speed. Looking at blue supergiants, the rotational velocity is even higher. Rigel's is 25±3 km/sec, even though it has an estimated 21±3 solar masses compared to Betelgeuse's 14-19 solar masses. Nothing being stated about Betelgeuse in this video is that extraordinary compared to other stars -- save that it might, possibly, go supernova in the next 100,000 years or so.

@UnitSe7en

4 күн бұрын

This channel is trash. Maybe you just figured that out, too. Glad to have you along. He does a lot better at faking it than most channels do.

Space is just so interesting! Literally like everything is unique up there

@jumi9342

6 күн бұрын

And unimaginably big

@alancliff9208

6 күн бұрын

So bloody huge too!

@brucelytle1144

6 күн бұрын

Everything down here is unique also!

Wait. Do you mean to tell me that we don't understand the universe and physics as well as we think we do? Shocking.

@knutholt3486

5 күн бұрын

The video aims at killing that notion, by flexing standard understanding as much as possible.

@katiekawaii

5 күн бұрын

That's why scientists do science. Because we know that we know very little and are constantly striving to learn more.

@jameshatton4405

5 күн бұрын

Some scientists think that they know more than science does! I'm talking about Neil "the narcissist" Degrassityson...... He'll tell us how wrong we are! It's that f witt that makes me hate being a scientist

@Mark_Bridges

4 күн бұрын

@@jameshatton4405 Really? I'd be interested in hearing specific examples of Neil getting something wrong.

@thaburr

3 күн бұрын

@Mark_Bridges there are many instances. You can easily find these examples online. Neil often overstates knowledge he holds as being definitive. For example, I recall him in an interview definitively stating that WE KNOW the Big Bang happened and it happened in a very particular way. These assertions are now being challenged by observations made by the James Webb telescope. Rather than definitive statements of knowledge, it would be more accurate to say something like, "Based on our current understanding of the universe, X is the best hypothesis for Y."... Rather than making definitive statements that overstate what we actually know. If the average human knows 0.00001% of what there is to know about the universe, then Neil may know 0.0001%. This is an order of magnitude more than the average human. But it's still a drop in the bucket compared to what there is to know about the universe.

I am both so grateful for all the hard work and brilliant minds that have allowed us to learn so much about distant celestial objects such as Betelgeuse, and also so sad that we can’t jump in a starship and see these low-resolution images in person. Thank you for the fascinating video! Captivating as always.

Yet another great presentation! Thank you very much!!!

If its polar mass ejections are 'polarized' then theoretically they could be speeding up the rotation as it ejects mass.

I have two comments. #1: Perhaps Betelgeuse is a triple star with two smaller companions gravitationally locked on opposite sides of Betelgeuse. The blue and red shifts would therefore be orbital speeds of the companions and not rotational speeds. However, this would mean there should be times when there is no blue or red shifts (when the companions are in-front and behind Betelgeuse), so this could be detected with a sufficient long rapid series of observations. Unless, perhaps, the orbital axis prevents the companions from ever being in-front-of and behind Betelgeuse. Nonetheless, a sufficiently long series of observations taken close together in time should be able to reveal these situations. #2: I believe these questions may be able to be definitively solved by means of a different observational technique ... namely occultations. I am not currently at home where I have software that I wrote many years ago to compute all sorts of occulations (of different objects by different objects). But I can describe in simple terms what I'm talking about. The simplest occultation to observe is the occultation of Betelgeuse by the moon --- as the moon passes in front of Betelgeuse and blocks the light from Betelgeuse from west to east. The idea is to take spectra of some prominent spectral lines of Betelgeuse as the moon covers the western portion of Betelgeuse ... then half of Betelgeuse ... then finally all of Betelgeuse except the very most eastern portion. This is obviously best done when the dark portion of the moon occults Betelgeuse (between a 2 day moon and 13-day moon). Slightly more information might be obtained if two observations can be made from locations as far north and south as possible. But to extract a great deal more information we would need to take spectra of other occultations of Betelgeuse --- by other planets and/or their moons, or by earth-orbiting satellites, or by "deep-space" satellites (which would not be very common or easy to predict). It would be great if some of these covered Betelgeuse in a more north-to-south or south-to-north direction. The problem, of course, is that the number of potential occultations. Perhaps the best set of objects to search for might be satellites in geosynchronous orbits. Observations of these occultations would need to be performed from somewhere around 7~8 degrees north or south latitude ... perhaps the coastal region of northern Peru would be best area to try due to its clear and dry weather, excellent sky clarity, and abundance of reasonably high mountains. One difficulty would be preparing and dragging a sufficiently large telescope to a location like this ... or any location for that matter. The advantage of this occultation technique is the ability to directly and reliably measure the spectra of very specific, precisely known portions of Betelgeuse [and any potential companion stars ... and potentially any large planets that orbit Betelgeuse].

@Nomen_Latinum

6 күн бұрын

On #1: Betelgeuse is close enough that any companion stars would be visually distinct to it in the data we're using to find the rotation speed. This would only be a possible explanation if Betelgeuse were on the order of a single pixel on our best telescopes, but it's not. On #2: Occultations can be performed manually by placing an obstruction in the telescope itself - this is called a "coronagraph". But again, the resolution of the data is good enough in this case that this isn't necessary with Betelgeuse.

@maxbootstrap7397

6 күн бұрын

@@Nomen_Latinum : What resolution can you achieve with "your best telescopes" ... in practice? While the diffraction limited resolution is about 1 arc-second for a 100mm aperture telescope and proportionally better resolution for larger apertures ... atmospheric turbulence is rarely small enough to achieve anywhere near the theoretical resolution of a large earth-based telescope. That's why I used to do a lot of projects with occultation observations years ago. I only had substantial telescope time on 1 meter aperture telescopes, but was able to achieve resolutions several orders of magnitude better in some cases (where brightness is sufficient and speed of motion of the occulting object were slow enough). I assume you understand the very different dynamics of the kind of occultations I'm talking about here --- where both the object being observed and the occulting object are far above the earth atmosphere. In these cases both atmospheric turbulence and telescope resolution are irrelevant to the resolution that can be achieved on the observed objects. I have no experience with radio telescopes, so if there are some non-obvious differences maybe I'm missing something that should be obvious.

@Nomen_Latinum

5 күн бұрын

@@maxbootstrap7397 Admittedly I was thinking of optical telescopes when I wrote that comment originally, of course coronagraphy would be completely impractical with a radio telescope array. Concerning the resolution, our current best images of Betelgeuse come from ALMA at a resolution of 18 mas, whereas Betelgeuse itself is around ~50 mas across. This is not enough to resolve anything beyond the dipolar structure currently, but the authors of the convection paper Astrum talks about here argue (using simulations) that a 2x increase in resolution would already be sufficient to rule out the rotation hypothesis. It has already been shown by different authors that ALMA is capable of going down to around 5 mas of resolution at higher frequencies, so we should be able to gather the necessary data as is-though I've no idea what observations have already been done or approved. ALMA is also upgrading its baseline from 16 km to 32 km by 2030, so we should be able to double the spatial resolution again relatively soon.

@Mark_Bridges

4 күн бұрын

@@maxbootstrap7397 Surely Betelgeuse has been observed by Hubble, removing atmospheric turbulence? I haven't looked it up but surely.... If so, nearby companions (near and fast enough to affect our doppler measurements) should show up. Nomen's comment makes sense, if they can measure doppler shift over the star's surface they can see nearby bright companions.

@maxbootstrap7397

2 күн бұрын

@@Mark_Bridges : Yes, a telescope in space is not limited by atmospheric turbulence. However, the absolute best possible resolution of the telescope is then limited by its aperture ... assuming the optical system is diffraction limited (better than 0.125 to 0.250 wave depending on who you ask). Since the aperture is 2.4 meters that means the best possible resolution is 1/24 arc-second which is roughly 1.25e12 meters at the distance of Betelguese according to my back of the envelope calculation. But if that's correct and the diameter of Betelguese is 4.00e11 meters as claimed by Wikipedia (not including the "complex asymmetric envelope 250 times larger than the star), that means that Hubble resolution is about 3 times worse than necessary to resolve Betelguese. Which means ... close but no cigar. However, that is close enough to being resolved that it implies the "triple star" possibility is unlikely ... unless the three stars are very close to each other --- which if true would explain some of the strange dynamic behavior of Betelguese. All the above is why I would propose a series occulation observations, because they would reveal a great deal more about the true nature of the star (or stars). Or so I suspect. I should add that I'm just trying to be helpful here. I have a great deal of experience with designing optical systems and collecting data and observations with telescopes (albeit mostly with telescopes of only 1 meter aperture). But I've done a fair amount of very unusual occutation observations and found those techniques to reveal astonishingly impressive results, though unfortunately they require a great deal of time and effort to perform.

I was there yesterday, they say there's a bug in the latest Betelgeuse updates. They've prioritised to fix

I will bet that its surface is a chaotic turbulent mess. It is obviously not breaking any laws of physics, but challenging our limited understanding of them. I do get a little bemused when people say Betelgeuse is about to go supernova. It could well have done 300 years ago, meaning it's another 350 years before we find out.

Ofc it's not a star...it's a Michael Keaton breakthrough character!

@mike7652

6 күн бұрын

So Michael Keaton is the star?

@aarongreenfield9038

6 күн бұрын

​@@mike7652 No, he's Beetlejuice/Betelgeuse.

@highviewbarbell

6 күн бұрын

@@aarongreenfield9038 but he is a Star though

@aarongreenfield9038

6 күн бұрын

@@highviewbarbell Yes, the main star of beetlejuice

@satanicmicrochipv5656

6 күн бұрын

At least it's not Kevin Costner. The last thing our galaxy needs is another baseball field. .

When an ambulance siren is mentioned, all I can think of is Carter Pewterschmidt disparaging the French people.

About the doppler effect, light's shift is imperceptible not because of its speed of propagation, but rather of the wavelengths of visoble light. If light propagated a thousand times slower, but kept the wavelengths, we still wouldn't be able to notice the shift.

@a.karley4672

6 сағат бұрын

Any school physics lab can demonstrate the redshift of light for you. Amongst other things, it's accepted by the courts as proof of speeding.

Amazing! It's awesome when there is actual technical details of real measurements in these high level space topics.

Really interesting video! Keep shining Betelgeuse!

I can't believe Betelgeuse would have the gall to not obey laws we created.

@kat10ko

Күн бұрын

Lolz

Thank you I love watching and listening to your programs

Cool video, Astrum! Thanks so much.

Ardra or Thiruvathirai or Betelguese star has already become a supernova, the light is yet to reach Earth

@JohnDunne001

6 күн бұрын

Betelguese is over 625 light years away from us and some scientists still think Betelguese is another many millennia from going supernova. It's impossible to know now whether Betelguese has actually gone supernova already. We have to wait and see.

@MisterPerson-fk1tx

6 күн бұрын

​@@JohnDunne001it's also impossible to wait that long. Two impossibles cancel each other out.

@kat10ko

Күн бұрын

Boom!

The red and blue dyed shift are just false colored so you can see them. It's not that much of a gradient. The star is actually boiling and cooling, at a massive size, as it burns through the last of its elements, and explodes. They could just point JWST at it and see the infrared the telescope can detect. It would not see it in color. Then they would have to color it in, as they do.

@octavianova1300

6 күн бұрын

JWST, unfortunately, wouldn't be useful here, since it's so sensitive that directly imaging such a "nearby" star would totally max out it sensors. It would end up being a featureless blob like when you try to photograph the moon with your phone

@owensmith7530

5 күн бұрын

@@octavianova1300Phones photograph the moon that badly? Really? Is there no control on phones to stop them down? (I don't use my phone to take photos, I have a real camera.)

@octavianova1300

5 күн бұрын

@@owensmith7530 it varies from model to model, but generally speaking, phones simply don't have the dynamic range to capture details in an environment of such extreme luminosity contrast

@owensmith7530

5 күн бұрын

@@octavianova1300 And people around me go on about how great their phones are as cameras and why am I still lugging a camera around? (modern mirrorless not something ancient)

@Mark_Bridges

4 күн бұрын

@@owensmith7530 Phones are great as cameras, simply due to convenience and they're good enough for random pics that you don't care too much about. But, if someone you know is arguing their phone gives a better image than your camera then have at them.

5:33 I finally understand angular momentum, I had to play back at quarter speed to ensure I fully grasped the camel, I mean concept, fully grasped the concept.

Maybe its core is sinking inwards and the mass is like the ballerina pulling her arms in. Maybe it’s getting faster. Maybe all supernova do before they blow. And so, they get faster and denser in the middle, but the equator bulges out….you get all those bubbles and changes in brightness. This thing is about to blow maybe huh?

Clearly our physics is wrong.

@MillerVanDotTV

3 күн бұрын

Pure hubris to think that our model is right…

@bobbyhumphrey199

Күн бұрын

Electrical theory is based on an assumption that turned out to be wrong. Still works though lol

We're seeing it now as it looked in 1374 since it's 650 light years away, that's almost 120 years before Europeans found The Americas.

@filonin2

4 күн бұрын

Yeah, and the stuff across from you in your living room is a few millionths of a second in the past. We all know that light does not have infinite speed so far away things are not being seen as they are "now."

@admiralbenbow5083

Күн бұрын

The Vikings landed on Betelgeuse long before that

@a.karley4672

3 сағат бұрын

The Andromeda galaxy (and any suitable astronomers there) are seeing an Earth with _Homo erectus_ tentatively spreading from Africa to Georgia in the Caucasus and Indonesia, and almost certainly China. Not a _H. sapiens_ anywhere. Also, the Toba and some of the bigger Yellowstone eruptions haven't reached there yet.

Very well explained concepts!

Once every twenty years. That is the speed, not 5km/s. You cannot translate angular velocity to linear velocity, as the latter requires an outter frame of reference. So no, it doesnt rotate at 5km/s. It rotates at 18° per year. That is VERY slow.

@Mark_Bridges

4 күн бұрын

"You cannot translate angular velocity to linear velocity" Wrong, if you know or can estimate the radius then you most definitely can. Based on distance, brightness, spectrum etc they have a decent estimate of radius. "Once every twenty years. That is the speed, not 5km/s." Wrong again. The measurements show the doppler shift which is in theory a direct measurement of surface speed or linear velocity. If the measurements are correct, it rotates at 5 km/s at the surface. Estimate the radius then calculate the estimated rotation period from the linear velocity, not the other way around.

@xoangarciasanchez3132

3 күн бұрын

@@Mark_Bridges I am not wrong. You can absolutely calculate all of that but you need Earths frame of reference. For anyone standing on the surface of Betelgeuse (if that was possible) those linear velocity values are pointless, cause theyd never experience them.

@Mark_Bridges

3 күн бұрын

@@xoangarciasanchez3132 "cause theyd never experience them." That's not relevant or true. We don't experience linear velocity on the Earth but we know how exactly how fast we're going. A bit of research goes a long way, you should try it some day. "you need Earths frame of reference" Do we use Betelgeuse's frame of reference to determine Earth's motion around the Sun? No. So why would you use Earth's reference frame for Betelgeuse? A bit of knowledge would also go a long way. "I am not wrong" You want to amend that statement? If not, go do some research and think again.

@xoangarciasanchez3132

3 күн бұрын

@@Mark_Bridges "Do we use Betelgeuse to determine earths motion around the sun?" No, you use the Sun, which is still an external frame of reference. You keep agreeing with everything I say and you dont even notice. If you need me to explain anything to you I will do so politely, just ask :)

To get an accurate reading of rotation speed using the doppler effect, you'd have to know about the axis of rotation. If that axis is pointing directly at the earth, for example, then the rotation would not be captured from earth by the doppler effect.

@timhyatt9185

4 күн бұрын

if the axis is pointing towards us, it would not show the differential gradient across it's surface, with one side approaching, the other receding. it would be more uniform across the disk of the star.

@a.karley4672

3 сағат бұрын

Well done. You have just explained why, when writing papers about rotation speeds, orbital speeds, planetary masses etc, astronomers describe the measurement *multiplied* by a factor of sine(inclination-to-the-line-of-sight). So, masses of planets would be expressed in terms of "M_Jupiter × sin( _i_ )". Complicated matters like multiplication, and worse _trigonometrical functions_ !, are why KZread presenters typically just ignore this literal factor in the results. Reading (or watching) journalism is a waste of effort. Just find and read the papers. It saves time and effort in the long run.

If physics won't allow it, but reality does, physics is wrong.

Really enjoyed this video, even I could understand the science here. Great explanation and visuals :)

This is a great science channel! Thank you for the content.

We should just ask the Betelgeuse aliens what's going on with their star

@ximalas

6 күн бұрын

Do you have their phone number?

@ThatJay283

5 күн бұрын

we'd definitely have to wait at least 1300 years for them to respond tho

@hugh.g.rection5906

5 күн бұрын

i just told them "git gud at stars nubs"

@seffard

5 күн бұрын

You can ask telepathically in an instant.

@ximalas

5 күн бұрын

@@seffard How does that work?

I absolutely love to read headlines like THIS 👍 😂

"the rotation curve doesn't match our expectations". Where have I heard this before...

love being in a time when we start to question physics again because we constantly see new things we have to try and explain

Make video on Triton

@dova4382

6 күн бұрын

There is an old one!

@ameliadiaz8040

6 күн бұрын

How about a video on Tethys, planet Saturn's less dense frozen moon than water? 🪐

0:07 no... stop it... 0:10 DON'T DO IT!!! STOP!!! 0:25 no!!!! you've doomed us all!!! 😭

@itsphoenixingtime

5 күн бұрын

"It's showtime!! HAHAHA!!" - Beetlejuice

I want to think its spinning that fast. Laws were made to be broken, and I love when scientists find new things that slap down our previous understanding!

I would think consistency in the gradient is more important than smoothness

People like Astrum confuse that physics is not how the universe really works, but many theories to try to explain what is happening. So physics doesn't allow or forbid anything.

Ah, theoretical physics. The non-science science.

@filonin2

4 күн бұрын

Should be easy to get into then. What are you waiting for?

As always, excellent information is what you provide in each of your videos, thank you! Here is my question: Shouldn't the cannibalized companion be detected in the images if that were the case? Or would the core of the companion star still be too faint to be detected if that were the case?

Thank you for the video.

Religion has a catch-all phrase to plug every hole and put doubters in their place and keep the faithful happy. 'God works in mysterious ways'. Science needs to come up with a phrase when something doesn't correspond with the laws of physics. Which seems to be happening more and more recently.

day 1 asking astrum to do detailed video on Voyager brothers🎉

@heyspookyboogie644

6 күн бұрын

No. Please god no. Don’t be one of those people that begs for the same thing every day for ages. If the suggestion is popular enough to be worth doing, other people will like your comment. Just begging over and over is annoying.

I am very curious the computed rotational speed when it collapses into a neutron star if it truly is rotating as fast as seems. Would it hold together or be above some limit that even the gravitation of a neutron star could not hold together

Thank You for informative and well edited video. BTW, is there consensus now, how far Betelgeuse is?

If Betelgeuse is so unstable you should be able to measure one of its CME's The expansion velocity would clear up the confusion. It's unlikely but Betelgeuse could be a nebular star. In theory it's when two stars come very close to each other inside a nebular dust cloud the interaction space between the two stars keeps them from colliding. However that back pressure also causes cavitation and it would also make the star look somewhat blurry. Since it's gravity constant would be constantly changing by thousands of KMs/S. A longer telescope exposure probably would not work if this were the case. Multiple focus stacked images at interval to freeze moments in place would be a better option. You would have to figure out the interval first.

I'm imagining Michael Keaton is rapidly blinking in and out of existence since this video came out.

The answer could be a mixture of both factors. An accelerated spin from recent interaction, plus the turbulence, and high activity (which we don't fully understand yet) of a supergiant of this category entering into it's possibly final stages of evolution. I can't wait for the newer data to come forth! This star is a brilliant focus of attention for learning. (no pun intended)

Thanks Asturm team for giving us this video thanks

I'm thinking maybe both scenarios are correct. It appeared from the illustrations that there is a perceived axis of rotation (green line) which should not be evident if only boiling gases are present. It might be rotating at the predictive rate based on mass/size though and that would be harder to detect definitively with the boiling effects ongoing...

This is exactly the kind of thinking that is needed in Cosmology, to take a step back, look at the whole situation including yourself and your tools and methodology, before making grandiose announcements about the state of the universe.

I wish you did longer videos 🙏

This is an intriguing video about the latest research into the supergiant star, Betelgeuse, which I frequently observe at high powers through my large refractor telescope, during the Winter months. I have also taken some interesting photographs, and I would certainly say that my own observations of Betelgeuse do suggest a broiling, erupting, bubble surface, and an uneven, bulbous sphere, I have also observed some blue of the visible electromagnetic spectrum, on occasions, which might be indicative of the fluctuations on the surface of Betelgeuse, as you suggest. The atmospheric conditions have to excellent for this kind of visual astronomy, and it requires considerable, steady, concentration. Thank you for this interesting video.

Did anyone else notice the small detail at 5:23? It’s so cool!

@emptyshirt

5 күн бұрын

I had to watch it a few times, but I think i got it.

Honestly, with Betelgeuse, anything is possible! Everything about this star is just chaotic at best, but I cannot help but marvel at it and with every new thing we learn!

Thank you for posting Alex. As always, a very interesting and well presented video. Two things spring to mind here. If the bubbles of gas are receiving light from the star then re-radiating it then the light received by them will be spectroscopically shifted blue or red depending upon whether the bubble is falling toward the star or receding. Any light re-radiated will also be shifted conversely and the net result will be zero shift. If the gas bubbles are radiating light of their own then of course the explanation is valid. Another possibility is that the star may have a planetary disc in a stable orbit and its peripheral speed might achieve a very high velocity. If that is the case the reflected light from the star from it would be shifted blue and red as seen by the astronomers.

Interesting, maybe it a mix of both theories. It is rotating pretty fast for a star, but maybe not 5km/s, AND is boiling like crazy. So it looks like the axis is changing because it throws out matter in the direction of the rotation. When the bubble comes back it hits the other gas layers, which are speeding up to eject, and "boil" out to every random direction, while beeing gravitationally bound to the massive core. From my tiny knowledge I just can assume this might be a chaotic state that every star could be in if it got the right impact from the right direction. Maybe it might also be more likely to happen with stars close to their deaths because their matter is more dense after fusing them to heavier elements. I mean if the star is already in it's final stages and it suddenly gets very light elements, they will start fusing around the heavier core from the high pressure and make the outer layers boil as the mass didn't have time to collect uniformly. I imagine this beeing like mixing two fuels with different ignition points and injecting them into an engine. One needs a higher temperature in the center of the ignition chamber, while the other one ignites almost instantly before it even reaches the center. (Like gas and diesel in a diesel engine maybe).

Thanks for this interesting space conundrum

I'm drinking a glass of freshly squeezed Betelgeuse right now.

Alex, you're really good at this.

Hi Alex, could you perhaps make a video on where objects in space get their spin from and what causes some things to spin in the opposite direction to most other things.

Considering we can't go a week without some sort of physics-breaking observation, yet nothing ever changes, I won't be holding my breath on this one, either.

Excellent video as always say

Something to think about here... If some "turbulent surface phenomenon" was initially misinterpreted as an impossible and physics defying rotation speed shouldn't we reconsider other stellar observations and interpretations, too, like pulsars, neutron stars and magnetars? Rapid flickering sounds more like an electric discharge phenomenon that doesn't require ludicrous rotation speeds and inventing a novel state of matter that has no experimental proof; remnant of a star that's supposedly made up of only neutrons. What would prevent the neutrons from decaying back to protons and an electrons? How could they spin at +20000rpm with out tearing apart? Sounds more like strobe light flashes in a plasma atmosphere.

@user-ds7uk1ft2x

4 күн бұрын

Try Halton Arp's "Seeing Red" for a theory based on observation, real photos,.

@Kansika

3 күн бұрын

@@user-ds7uk1ft2x Indeed. My last reply seems to have vanished. Anyway, free pdf's and other formats of Arp's works are available free of charge from on-line archives.

There is no inherent reason that a more massive star must rotate more slowly, certainly not directly proportional to it’s mass. It depends on how it gained its rotation, and its size. As the surface speed approached a significant percentage of “c”, then you’ll see relativistic effects of time dilation, frame dragging, and gravity wave losses, but at speeds of 0.01c (300km/s), those effects are under 0.01% (1 - (.01)^2). Size increase also isn’t directly proportional to mass. If density were constant, it would be increase as the cube root of relative mass, but density isn’t constant, it’s not even close. The finding the actual density is much more complex because more massive stars “burn” hotter and faster, thus have a notably larger radius and lower density, but it’s not a directly linear relationship to mass as suggested in the early portion of this video. That aside, 5km/s is surprisingly fast for Betelgeuse. It’s a tiny fraction (~0.00002c) of “c”, so no significant relativistic effects, but that does imply that it’s rotation before it expanded to a red supergiant was on the order of sqrt(100) times as fast, or around 50 km/s before it expanded. Compared to the sun’s surface rotation of just 2km/s, that would have be a fast rotation rate for a star. Not impossible, not even approaching the rates of the fastest known surface velocities of stars in the Milky Way, but fast.

Surely either longer exposures (as is being sought now) or simple stacking of short exposures will smooth out any accidental abberations caused by turbulent boiling of the surface?

That’s crazy, I’ve always wondered how they calculated speed of rotation. Thanks!

Love the videos. I watch everyday!

Terrence Howard says if I say the name of this star 3 times I will learn to divide by Zero

There's something you didn't mention. If it did eat its companion star, we should be able to detect that in its Spectrum and that's provided providing that it devoured the entire thing. If it didn't do that you should know that it has a companion through observations

Man, I told myself that I wasn't going to take a nap today lol

Cool. Thanks for sharing.

Noch eine tolle Präsentation! Vielen Dank!!!