The Fate of the First Stars
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2017
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Population III stars were the very first stars in our universe and far larger than any we can see today. Where are they now? Start your Audible trial today at www.audible.com/spacetime
You can further support us on Patreon at / pbsspacetime
Get your own Space Time tshirt at bit.ly/1QlzoBi
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos! czcams.com/users/timedtext_cs_...
Previous Episode:
Martian Evolution
• Martian Evolution
Soon after the Big Bang, the first generation of monstrously large stars ignited, lit up the universe, and then died. The resulting swarms of supernova explosions enriched the universe with the first heavy elements and LOTs of black holes. They shaped everything that came after. These were the stars of Population III, and they are one of the most enduring mysteries in astrophysics.
Hosted by Matt O’Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd and Alexandra Yep
Produced by Rusty Ward
Graphics by Kurt Ross
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
Comments answer by Matt:
Better & Better
• Martian Evolution
Matt b
• Martian Evolution
Peregrin O’Connor
• Martian Evolution
Saleem Says
• Martian Evolution
David Webster
• Martian Evolution
Special thanks to our Patreon Big Bang, Quasar and Hypernova Supporters:
Big Bang
Shane Robinson
David Nicklas
Samuel Dean Jacintho
Eugene Lawson
Quasar
Tambe Barsbay
Coolascats
Avan & Kyan Griggs
Max Levine
Hypernova
Science Via Markets
Chuck Zegar
Jordan Young
Ratfeast
John Hofmann
Joseph Salomone
Thanks to our Patreon Gamma Ray Burst Supporters:
Justin Lloyd
Conor Dillon
Jared Moore
Michal-Peanut Karmi
Bernardo Higuera
Erik Stein
Daniel Lyons
Jade Bilkey
Kevin Warne
JJ Bagnell
J Rejc
Amy Jie
Dylan Merida
Anthony Caridi
Avi Goldfinger
John Pettit
Shannan Catalano
Florian Stinglmayr
Yubo Du
Benoit Pagé-Guitard
Ronny Polonia
Nathan Leniz
Jessica Fraley
Kirk Mathews
Loro Lukic
Carl P. Corliss
Brandon labonte
David Crane
Greg Weiss
Eric Jackson
"Live fast, die young, leave a space-time warping corpse"- now that is truly metal! \m/
Well, the problem is that they didn't have any metals...
-spy
A _beautiful,_ spacetime-warping corpse. \m/
"Massive stars live fast, die young and live beautiful space-time warping corpses".
Nice one.
Except that, I probably won't call a supermassive galaxy killer black hole beautiful. But then again, beauty is subjective.
Pickle Ri... ok I definitely see why a you are here, in a sense, Rick and Morty is about science and uhh (just practising my psychology)
*leave
Some stars burn out and die.
Others burn out and die with *passion* and make some brand new, way crazier shit.
*SPACE DUST!*
EVEN CRAZIER SPACE DUST!
*Rubs nose* huhh
The sun is a deadly laser
"Daddy, how do stars die?"
"Overdose usually, sometimes suicide."
"It's a harsh reality but someone's gotta do it. Now go wait for heat death, son. First one to spot it gets cake!" Dad walks off to get a beer. Poor kid doesn't know it's trillions of years from now.
@@brokentombot Heard it's like 11 trillion. But it could be longer by mass of the remains.
AFAIK, that's more or less true, though I'd not necessarily call the ongoing fusion reaction a 'suicide', the star is literally doing it to itself, and when it gets too dense due to fusing heavier elements, it dies, either turning into a black hole or neutron star I think after nova (assuming it does). I almost want a tattoo of your joke!
@@brokentombot Meanwhile somewhere a star just can't take it anymore.
Or they might cover themselves in stuff to make themselves look younger. Stellar cougars!
The first stars must have been utterly spectacular and a fantastic sight to behold.
Yea but there would have been nothing in the universe capable of observing them. Shame..
I think that to our eyes they must have been almost black as their output was mostly in the UV region and above.
your comment is a spectacularly unspectacular comment
@@naedolor no
@@randomguy4167 no
The .4g joke at the very end was highly underrated. 10/10
Massive stars live fast, die young and leave beautiful space-time warping corpses. Why everything on this video inspires me to form a heavy metal band?
Loved the "Blade Runner" quotes. And since you could think of those Population III stars as our mothers, you could have called this, "let me tell you about my mother."
"They may have raged from only a cosmic instant at the beginning of time but their influence is still felt across the reaches of space time"
-Matt form Space Time
haha now that's a great quote
Life goals.
So you're telling me that the early universe was a bunch of solar system sized stars popping off like firecrackers?!? I dig it.
"Sadly, no... it's still only .4 G"
Love those kind of jokes
Actually, it's 0.4 g (small G)
Matt is, after all, a funny guy.
I told my students to remember "stars are like cars"... big heavy ones have bad gas mileage and burn through their fuel quickly. It worked. 😀
This channel is so good
BliTzeD It's a gold mine
You mispronounced it. You meant to say " da best".
123 likes and you deserve all of them, if neuralink progresses, then I'll be able to write essays about why this channel is so psychologically awesome because yes, (also the thinking-to text will be named thinking out (now patented)
Nah
@@user-cd4bx6uq1y lmfao _excellent_
Calling the first generation of stars Population III - #OnlyInAstrophysics
ok
Dudealus
Makes sense to me. Pop 1 stars are by far the most populous. Pop 2 less so, Pop 3 stars are "extinct".
Dudealus Pop 1 = First observed
Pop 2 = second observed
Pop 3 = last observed as they are the oldest
calling all other element beside H and He metal #OnlyInAstrophysics
We have never found a star with zero metallicity. So how could they be "last observed," when they've never been observed?
4:13 Blade Runner Tyrell soliloquy reference!
BONUS: HE'S A REPLICANT!
4:18-
Me: "Wtf? His eyes just glowed! How did he...oh yeah, special effects"
It's an allusion to the first Blade Runner movie ("and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy"). The implication in the movie, and picked up here, was that there is a glow in replicants' eyes -- Ridley Scott playing visual mind games.
I like that Metallica font for Metallicity.
:'D
Exzcellion Gamma +1 MetallicA rules
"Metalicity" would be a great name for a Metallica cover band.
Or a city populated only by Metallica fans.
Ironically the most hardcore, burn bright die young crazy huge stars were not metal at all :D
Oh no, the most metal-rich stars are heavy white dwarfs, old, nearly-dead stars at the end of their lives which are now hanging around long after anyone expected, just like Metallica.
Q: Why don't they serve beer at Maths parties?
A: You can't drink and derive...
That might explain why I flunked Calculus the first time I took it.
lol!
But beer is integral to parties!
Don't drink and derive, know your limits!
;)
4:17 Loving the BladeRunner reference. ;)
Very nice production quality !
Matt and this CGI synergizes really well !
My appreciation !
Would you say that population 3 stars are all lost in time...like tears in rain...
I've seen things...
markiic attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion 😍
No, I would not. Nor would that be correct.
Not a fan of Rutger Hauer, I'm guessing.
markiic 10 million years is one helluva moment, but kudos for the quote anyway!
Doc: You only have 100,000 years to live.
Pop III star: :'(((((
Underrated
That bladerunner reference gave me goosebumps
+1
I am not as smart or bright as alot of people who are in this field, but man, I love PBS Space Time. It explains things so well and they really make you think. I try and learn things everyday and PBS Space Time never disappoints.
They died and became a part of us all
.4G!!!
Earth to Mars gravity hahah
that one was clever haha
I know, right :-D
eyeammi: You're off by .01g there. (actually you're right, I forgot that .4g was only an approximation)
That fucking killed me ... didn't expect that
LOL I love the way you joked about 4G on Mars.
Thank you so much for sharing this episode..... of Space Time.
Sapiens: I read the book about the same time you did. I was pleasantly surprised to read Prof. Harari's comment on the various social constructs man invented (gods, politics, etc.), something many historians would shy away from. Great channel, BTW.
4:18
What a subtle death thread from the editor! Respect XD
Please let him live long enough until we know all about our beautiful Space Time :D
That's Blade Runner my dude
best host on youtube
Arvin nash?
At 3:37 with the stars layers on each other is really cool. This would make an awesome background.
1 hour ago and already 233 comments? Woah!
You should share PBS Space Time´s music with us Matt!
Congrats PBS ST rocks!
Is it not possible to look 13.9 billion light years away to try and get at least a glimpse of light from these stars, especially since they were so massive and bright?
myky992 A telescope of that calibre would be incredibly difficult to build.
myky992 Don't forget the expansion of space.
myky992 too far away. when we look at distances that great we can no longer see individual stars, only galaxies
Try standing at one end of a long beach. Then take a pair of binoculars, the best you can find, and look at the opposite end of the beach. Now, just by looking, I want you to count all of the visible grains of sand that you can see.
Same principle with looking at distant galaxies. Let alone the stars within those galaxies. Except, when it comes to stars, you also have to deal with their light emission. You can't look directly at a star, and if it's bright enough, it's going to mask the surrounding stars as well. It's like trying to look at someone who is standing behind a bright light that's pointed at you.
myky992 we need better telescopes first
Loved the Blade Runner reference.
Keep up the great work!!!
I love the music/sound/noise in the first seconds of the vid. It sounds like another world, where things go backwards or sideways or inside-out.
Makes sense... supermassive black holes are a mystery on their own but if these early stars have all collapsed and merged with one another over time it sheds light as to the creation of the SMBHs. Loved the video! I don't know about anyone else but knowing that there's soooo much we don't know it's kind of scary and thrilling at the same time.
Yes!! I agree!!
"sadly, it's only .4G."
BOO! Horrible pun. I plan on using it at the first opportunity. :)
Horrible puns are the best kind of puns xD
That was one of the most beautiful visualizations of the birth of our universe I've ever seen. I want to cry 🥺
This is awesome: I feel like I can finally glimpse the long term evolution of stars. I always wondered how some stars reach fusion threshold at vastly different masses! PBS Space Time rocks.
The generation number seems backwards to me. The Sun should be a generation 3 star since it came third, while the earliest stars should be the generation 1 as they came first.
Martin Heermance Same for me
It was the first observed, though...so it being a Pop 1 makes sense.
Billy Rigby Now it really makes a sense. Thank you for answering.
Thanks for replying.
Be careful, the Sun is a Generation 3 star, but is a Population 1 star. Population refers to the metalicity, while Generation refers to... well... generation, like us humans. The Sun is the "child" of a Generation 2 star which itself is the "child" of a Generation 1 star, which itself was probably a Population 3 star. Because scientists are bad at naming things.
Stars are awesome. Cosmology and Astrophysics is awesome. These videos are awesome. This channel is awesome. You are awesome. Thanks so much for uploading content like this to CZcams!
Someone in editing had fun with easter eggs this episode ;)
Wow. Just a great job. My new favorite show for months now. Thanks guys, you're the best.
I guess we all leave space-time warping corpses...
Pop 3 Star: "Now listen up son, in my day...we didn't have all these fancy metals. You 1Gs today with your carbon, your calcium, your lithium...shiiiiiaaatt, in my day all we had was hydrogen and helium. Now we paved the way for you youngins to get goin! So you better pay some respect."
Pop 2 Star: "Better listen to him, Pop 1. He's an OG star and he knows what he's talking about."
Pop 3 red dwarf on the side: stuff changed, but we stay around
P-III stars would have had a tiny amount of lithium. Something like 1 out of 100 billion Big Bang fusion reactions produced a lithium and even fewer produced a radioactive beryllium that decayed into lithium within a few years.
I wish you could make episodes more frequently. I binge watched every episode space time has done and now it's really hard to wait. I love everything this channel does and selfishly want MORE!
This is one of the few channels where I watch ads in full. Keep up the great work!!
Even if all population 3 stars are long dead, why can't we find them when looking at the distant universe where the universe was still at its infancy??
sdfgdg sdfgsdfg good question
sdfgdg sdfgsdfg Because they're just that old
I assume it is due to the universe being denser at the time, meaning more light will be absorbed per unit of distance traveled, on top of having to travel further / for a longer time. Add to that that the expansion of the universe means that the light is red-shifted a massive amount, so the amount of energy we would receive is insanely small - probably well outside our current capability to detect and do proper data analysis on.
Matt did say that they do see Evidence of these stars when they look at those old galaxies in the distance. But thats too far away to do any science on individual pop III stars.
There are several things possibly preventing us from seeing it. If the bigger ones of those stars only happened to be around for, let's say, 10-20 million years at the beginning of the universe, then we would need to look for stars that are so far away, that the expansion of the universe itself might be too fast for the light of these stars to bridge the gap between us and them. Conversely, as was pointed out in the video, it's quite possible that just no small stars of that population might have ever formed and thus, obviously, none of them would be close enough to observe them despite the expansion of the universe or, if just by random chance one or two of those red dwarf pop 3 stars happened to form, then there's a good chance that they are outshined by the other, bigger pop 1 and 2 stars in their respective galaxies, due to how far their galaxy is away from us.
There's also another possibility, that the video alludes to, if you think about it: If the supermassive blackholes in the center of any galaxy are really the cores of these absurdly massive very first stars, then maybe, just maybe, the remaining pop 3 stars simply can not be found inside galaxies, but are actually true wanderers of the void and good luck finding an extragalactic red dwarf wandering through the universe.
Will the James Webb space telescope be able to help in the search for population 3 stars?
Well, considering that they only lived for couple million years and formed very early after Big Bang, I think it's very unlikely to find direct evidence of them, not to mention see one. The red shifts would be massive.
They hope so, the detection of population 3 stars is one of the mission goals they list, or at least in words to that effect, I remember it saying something like 'to see how the first stars and galaxies formed' or something, which basically means 'find population 3 stars', I guess with the added caveat of 'or whatever weirdo things the universe decides to have instead to mess with everyone's heads dark energy style'
I was wondering the same thing since the JWST is supposed to help us see "the dark ages"
Thought the same thing. I bet the probability is still incredibly low...
We might be able to see the spectra of whole galaxies at the incredible distances needed to see that far back in time, but can we pick out the individual star spectra against their host galaxies?
4:13 The light that burns twice as bright, a quote from Blade Runner.
This is the only channel that answers my existential questions
Its not really an important point but why did they name the stellar generations backwards? It would be more intuitive if the first stars were Population 1, the next generation Pop 2, modern ones Pop 3 etc
It's based on metal content. Population 1 stars have the most metal, Population 2 stars have less, and Population 3 stars don't have any. It's like first, second and third place in a race.
I can't believe Matt didn't put on a "Metallica" T-shirt for this episode. Why did he not do it?
Wow, this host is excellent at making complex concepts understood - keep up the great work!
This is my favourite space time video so far. Amazing quality and content! Plus I love a smart aussie
You said "religion" on the internet.
Brave.
I can't tell the difference between scientists and priests etc, they both tell us to believe in things we can't see,touch or hear but we should have faith and believe what they say,
there both religious!!!
Paul Kehoe No, science has actual physical proof, religions have a book you just need to believe
TheMiner1501 Astrophysics have no physical proof that is a misconception. For instance how can it be tested the actual temperature of a star you cannot put a thermometer into its core. These are hypothesis based on highly complex maths invented to try to explain what we can see and detected from the universe. They are highly educated guesses but guesses nonetheless.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
@@artonline01 LOL you fucking moron. You pathetic ignorant lump of genetic failure.
Well-done episode!
I've been waiting for this explanation for years! Thank you!
It would be awesome if you could do a video on the whole timeline of the universe. A large scope overview would be great to give reference to all of this super cool info.
Never have i ever clicked on notification faster!
Galaxy: “I have the largest bulge!”
Shaggy: “Are you challenging me?”
ok
Shaggy: unleashes 5% of his strength.
I am watching your videos for a very long time (when you had still less than 30K subscribers, I think). Thanks for providing this great educational effort to increase people's understanding of cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics. I would love to see an episode on plasma cosmology, if you ever get the time. :)
Most salient among many salient PBS Space Time presentations. Thank you.
IN THE FATE OF THE STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARS
What would a population 3 stars spectral type be? And wouldn't we be able to observe their massive supernovas billions of light years away and use spectroscopy to get the emission spectrum?
Dollar DNA well isn't that what we're looking for?
+Dollar DNA _"The spectrum would contain only hydrogen and helium signatures."_
It will also show the products of fusion in the stars, such as C, N, and O.
The main problem is that a supernova shows you what the star has , which is always full of heavy elements, ESPECIALLY if it's a large star. What we'd get is a spectrum full of iron from the core as well as all other elements formed during supernovae. What you want is light from a star and at the distances involved even entire galaxies are quite dim.
thank you for your video! I've always thought that every black holes at the center of every galaxy we're formed just like that, though I never read or seen anywhere anything about it and this video just confirmed what I always suspected! Great content, always so interesting, keep up the amazing work you're doing love the show!
Beautiful graphics. Great episode as always.
First stars reboot themselves and recreate in 3 consecutive cycles. Each cycle is around 75 galaxy's revolutions.
game of thrones @1:18
It would have been majestic to see the early universe, with clusters of stars going supernova, throwing gamma-ray bursts in all directions. The greatest light show ever made :)
A tip of the hat, Sir, to your excellent Bladerunner reference!
If population 1 is 2-3 percent, and pop 2 is .1 percent... What do we call the star between 1-2 percent?
Population 1.5? Or stars can't form with that amount of metals?
YoungTheFish you are pop.1, your mother is pop.2, your grandmother is pop.3. you cant fit anything in between pop.1 and pop.2
Ричард Санчез Thanks Rick.
Ричард Санчез 20% accurate as usual, Morty...
Star formation is not a discrete process and human gens. doesn't have gaps like in the video. I think they made a mistake in the video, that's all. Edit : forgot a word.
Как оно?
François Lecomte Spacetime making mistakes? BLASPHEMY!
At 1:15, does anyone else see a Wolf?
House Stark
Had to pull out a thirty-five year old VHS out to be sure I got it. Very nice. Tyvm.
Love the longer format!
But what about the next generation of red dwarfs? There seems to be a trichotomy when it comes to stellar generations. We have three types of stars: A) massive stars that are extremely short lived, B) main sequence stars, that are moderately long lived and C) red dwarfs, which are extremely long lived. For the first type, when the first generation ends, it might lead to any of the three types. For simplicity, let us consider that the second generation consists of type A stars as well. These too will be very short-lived and hence will spawn another generation pretty quickly. In essence, by the time the first generation of type C stars (red dwarfs) comes to an end, type A stars will have completed millions of generations. The analogy is almost biological. In fact, we could consider the red dwarfs that are formed from the second or third generation of type A/B stars as "hybrid" ones and those that are formed from the second generation of type C stars as "pure" ones. Hmm. A graphical representation of this would be really interesting. However, upon closer inspection, I see that red dwarfs aren't capable of "reproducing" because unlike the other two types, red dwarfs do not eject material out as they die. So there's no possibility of new star formation from the remnants of the first generation.
I'd also like to point out that "pure" type A stars evolve the fastest, since their lifetimes are so short. And with every successive generation, more and more heavier elements are formed until eventually, during star formation, the core is already full of iron. At which point the life of the star is now zero. As soon as it forms, it explodes into a supernova. Meaning that "pure" type A stars will eventually evolve into neutron stars and black holes. But what of type B stars? Since most of them end in planetary nebulae and white dwarfs, they will ultimately evolve into white and red dwarfs. But wait. They too get more and more metallic with every passing generation and thus their lifetimes too will get shorter and shorter like with type A stars.
On the one hand, your comparison of stellar generations to biological generations in general is very nice. However, your description of what follows got muddled by confusing metal content with metal formation. Having iron does not make a star go nova. MAKING iron does.
It's the process of iron-fusion that sucks energy out of the star, reducing the outward explosive/temperature force, causing it to collapse under its own gravity flow and then re-explode as a nova, like bouncing off its own center as the collapse energy makes runaway fusion events. Everything heavier than iron gets made in that brief, intense, internal collision with itself.
If you re-watch the video, you will notice that increasing the initial metal contamination actually makes for more, smaller, longer-lived stars. In this way, the universe does "cage up" a certain amount of heavier elements, but collisions/merging of stars and galaxies also creates later-generation explosions (like type 1-a supernova) that re-scatter some of those elements into new star formations.
Thus, over time, the universe will have fewer big stars as the average initial metallicity increases. It will have many more smaller red-dwarf type stars exactly because the INITIAL average metallicity will increase. Once you have a red dwarf, it's there to stay unless it hits something else, because its lifespan is greater than the current age of the universe, hundreds of times over.
If you want to evolve and/or sustain life in the long run, look to stars like the recently famous Trappist-3 system. It will be around after 100 of our sun's generations have gone by, and the universe will have more and more of them, with more and more time for them to evolve and sustain life.
Eventually, it will be almost all red dwarfs and black holes, on time scales of trillions and quadrillions of years. Our universe is still in its "youthful exuberance" stage where big loud stuff happens all the time. Eventually, it will grow up and quiet down to a dimmer but steady cycle of life.
This is an interesting and complex topic. Naively we might assume that star formation is constant, a spectrum where dying stars can mix with forming ones. However this is not the case; star metallicities DO tend to cluster into three (Well TWO) classes because star formation itself happens in three environments.
The first is 'protogalactic', population III stars that form before or with galaxies. Long-lived stars are difficult to form here making them rare. PIII red dwarfs MIGHT exist but we don't expect to see many, they can be safely ignored. So many billions of years after their formation even the slightly more reasonable PIII sunlike stars should pretty much be gone.
The next stage of star formation is 'galactic'; occurring when galaxies first form. This usually involves a 'burst' of star formation that 'lights up' the galaxy and drives off its hydrogen, cutting off star formation. These are population II stars and we see sunlike and red dwarf PII stars in many galaxies. We do NOT see PII heavy stars very often. Most are dead.
Galaxies will, left alone, remain quite quiet and we do see 'undisturbed' galaxies that consist only of old stars. But they can be 'reignited' by merging with other galaxies and clusters, remixing their gas and causing a fresh wave of star formation. Our galaxy is large and has been consuming smaller clusters for some time, giving us lots of PI stars. In fact looking at our (and many other) galaxies we can discern to large populations of stars, 'old red' and 'young blue'. You'll often also hear of 'star forming regions' in galaxies, the entire galaxy does not produce stars evenly or all the time.
Because of these factors populations work well as 'clusters' of stars. There are in-betweens but they tend to be rare.
Stellar metallicity is limited by a few factors. Notably metals tend to form solid objects, which do not collapse in the same way that gas does. This means that there is a bias towards lighter elements when a star forms. Later distribution of metals is more even; the smallest stars are entirely convective, they don't form cores, metal or otherwise so increasing metallicity is only going to have a small impact on their lifespan. Larger stars are also well mixed by the time a core forms; you will not find a star starting its life with an iron core, the iron will be distributed throughout. Recall that it takes massless light millennia to reach the surface, massive atoms face much more resistance and the forces of diffusion. As such again increasing metallicity has a minimal impact.
In fact the biggest factor is availability of gas clouds; these are easily dispersed from galaxies by the same forces that seed them with metals; it seems likely that the last stars to form, low mass red dwarfs, will have metal contents that don't even approach a quarter of their mass. Their lifetimes will be diminished, but not drastically.
Hi there, Gareth, glad to see you're still out there! Being what I am, I also found Feynstein's notion of stellar biology interesting. Looks like we were typing responses simultaneously (I'm up late "across the pond").
Thanks for bringing up convection as a life-extender for stars -- I didn't see an efficient way to address it in mine. Now, if we could just stir up our sun the right amount once in a while, we could keep this planet for functionally forever. Instead, it looks like we will have to make good on the exploration idea, and get life off this rock to continue in the greater dynamic of the cosmos.
+Gareth Dean +animist channel Thank you for the interesting replies. However, may I point out that in general, different elements do not mix so well in large structures? I don't know about stars but during the formation of the earth, there was a segregation of elements. Heavier elements like iron and nickel sank to the very bottom and thus formed the core while lighter elements such as aluminium, silicon floated to the surface and formed the core. I imagine that something similar happens during stellar formation as well and thus it seems to me that if a nebula contains enough iron, then during star formation, the iron will form the core and effectively the star will skip its entire lifetime and go supernova directly.
Fictitious ideas like religion. Shots fired lol. pew pew
nihongometal
An easier way to disprove them is to simply use any "miraculous" event from any religion and give it a current context. If they can't believe you were talking to God through a burning hedge on the corner of your block, what makes that any different than something that was written a long time ago? If they do believe you... 'God said to give me all your earthly positions.' ... oh wait... several religions did that one already. That's not really sustainable anyway. It's hard to find the village idiots willing to do something that stupid... just tell them 'God said 10%.'
Let me start out by saying that I'm an atheist so I don't get bombarded by load of angry neckbeards.. Just because there are multiple ideas or theories doesn't make them fictitious. Take the multiple interpretations of quantum physics for example. A tip for the future; if you ever find yourself able to "disprove" something be sure to scrutinize your own ideas with the same or, preferably, more intense line of thinking.
Begging for attention. Sad attempt
Casual people: Hard, shiny things are metals.
Chemists: "Well you see, metals are all conductors of electricity at 0K, but you see at different pressures some substances can transition from..."
Astronomers: YOU ARE A METAL (by weight).
Had to pause the video - that Blade Runner reference @ 4:13 was TOP FREAKIN' NOTCH.
Little stuff like that makes the quality go from fantastic to stellar!
Definitely a fan-boy Easter egg for us true believers.
I heard that thanks to metalicity discover, scientists also discovered a new quantum field. It's called the "James-Het" field, and interacts with interestelLAR'S objects.
ok... i'll leave now...
"Religions, Nations, and money"...……………..Three very much non-fictitious ideas.
Three ideas that are not fundamental to the universe. Humans came up with all three, none are fundamental.
@@TheClintonio Guess I'll tell my landlord I'm no longer paying rent because money is fictitious
@@BanoffeePie45 not being fundamental does not make them nonexistent.
I love watching these videos before bed. Does the trick every time lol
Awesome and so clearly presented.
explain this: how do humans evolve to have such kickable balls? checkmate atheists!
the alternative is that God made us with kickable balls for some malign reason
Have you seen his attitude to sex? Of course he built humans that way.
"our unique ability to invent and believe in fictitious ideas like religion.." oh man I love space time. waiting for the triggered Christians to show up in the comments.
Wesh I think that religious people don't watch these videos as they contradict with their deluded beliefs
Religious people can love space time too. I missed that part, but I loved the explanations of the evolution of the universe in how the metals were made and how they affected the stars that came after. The creation story is a parable, not a literal truth. Most of us look to science for the literal truth just like you.
Wesh "...and money, and nations". Enjoy waiting "for the triggered Christians". Or enjoy Harari's book and realise he credits these beliefs for the existence of human society.
Plot twist: You can actually be religious and yet still accept science as reality.
Seriously, I don't know why people can't get this idea through their thick skulls. Perhaps it's because they have about as much cognitive dissonance as the people that actually refuse to believe in science.
It's usually not as bad as that. With the people I know anyway, they usually think that way about religious people for one of two reasons. Sometimes they can be people who used to be surrounded by religious people who were overly fundamentalist or literal, and then they can be a bit stubborn because of their experience, but they can put it aside while you're doing something else together, in which case they can see you as separate from the people they used to deal with. Or, they can just be surrounded by people who also think that and they're saying it because they think it's normal, in which case when they meet new people face to face they can easily see the difference.
So many amusing moments. The Metalicity logo was great. But the "4G" groaner at the end nearly made me spit out my coffee.
This is still the best astrophysics channel on CZcams. By a parsec.
pre 1kview club
Ah :) This was worth the wait guys
There were tiny traces of lithium that formed when the first nuclei were able to stick together. I assume Pop II stars only include those that have too much lithium and/or contain noticeable amounts of heavier elements.
"David Webster asks: whether there's 4G coverage on Mars... Sadly no it's still only 0.4G..."
Nerdom at its best. 👏🏽👏🏽
first english-speaker science host that pronounces the latin words supernova & supernovae in the correct way: thumbs up!
but metallicity is spelled with two Ls..
Still the best science (physics/astrophysics) show here on CZcams. The naming scheme of Pop 3 stars is rather un-intuitive but makes sense if they were the last to be "found" in some regard.
Please have consistent volume throughout the video. When it changed to the audible ad it got significantly louder, booming throughout my house.
... and my favorite physics joke: Shroedinger and Heisenberg are pulled over by the CHP. The patrolman asks Heisenberg if he knows how fast he is going; he replies, "No, but I can tell you where I am." "Oh a wise guy," says the cop. He tells them to open the trunk, and hollers to the passengers: "Hey, do you know you have a dead cat in here?" Replies Schroedinger: "I do now!"
It still seems like we'd see some. Looking through space is looking through time. We've seen some truly ancient things in the distant universe, so I'm surprised we've never seen any. I wonder if heavier elements were produced in the Big Bang.
4:20 Sweet Tyrell quote!
Nice touch with the reflecting eyes.
Loved the gravitation joke at the end