The Brown Dwarf Debate
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 03. 2018
- Thanks to NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) project and the Space Telescope Science Institute for supporting this video.
This video is about the line between Brown dwarfs and gas giant planets (aka super Jupiter's): does it exist? Is it the deuterium-burning threshold? Behavior? Metallicity? Formation? Or is there no meaningful scientific distinction, and are brown dwarfs and giant planets really all on a spectrum with no clear line between them?
REFERENCES
Giant planet and brown dwarf formation arxiv.org/abs/1401.7559
Exoplanets versus brown dwarfs: the CoRoT view and the future arxiv.org/abs/1604.00917
Defining and cataloging exoplanets: The exoplanet.eu database arxiv.org/abs/1106.0586
A Definition for Giant Planets Based on the Mass-Density Relationship
arxiv.org/abs/1506.05097
Spatial differences between stars and brown dwarfs: a dynamical origin? arxiv.org/abs/1403.7053v1
Hints for Small Disks around Very Low-Mass Stars and Brown Dwarfs
arxiv.org/abs/1705.01952
VLA observations of the disk around the young brown dwarf 2MASS J044427+2512 arxiv.org/abs/1707.07197
Support MinutePhysics on Patreon! / minutephysics
Link to Patreon Supporters: www.minutephysics.com/supporters/
MinutePhysics is on twitter - @minutephysics
And facebook - / minutephysics
And Google+ (does anyone use this any more?) - bit.ly/qzEwc6
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
Created by Henry Reich - Věda a technologie
2:05 Regarding metallicity: It should be made clear that "metals" in astronomy means any atoms of atomic number higher than 2, including nitrogen, oxygen, etc., in whatever phase - that is, any matter other than hydrogen and helium. (It seems to me it would have made more sense to invent another word for the category, but they didn't.)
they could call them compound elements or something since all the atoms are made through fusion
2nd period elements is a little clunky. Stardust? Since it mostly comes from supernova debris and then accretion disks.
@@SnoFitzroy Helium's also made via fusion, so no.
There is a word called metalloid
@@SnoFitzroy No
"I wanted to be a shining star in the darkness, but no such possibility exists for a brown dwarf." --memoirs of a failed star
I’ve got news, brown dwarfs can collide with each other
Everybody is a brown dwarf in their own special way.
czcams.com/video/PRjr8IBumq4/video.html watch this ...sooo funny 😂😂
im literally brown and a dwarf
that's so deeeeep man !
No.
You or your way are not special.
Stars: made from *space dust*
Brown Dwarfs: made from *even crazier space dust*
i read that in bill wurtz's voice
Should probably be the other way around.
Sadly brown dwarfs aren't as much of a DEADLY LAZER.
czcams.com/video/PRjr8IBumq4/video.html watch this ...sooo funny 😂😂
Humans: made of space dust thrust upon our ball of dirt and water from billions of kilometres away, from the very core of dead stars. We have becaome crazier than any space dust around.
What no sheep or cats? surely Henry can explain how brown dwarfs form in masses of cats somehow.
FUN FACT: A ca big enough to use the Earth as a ball of yarn would immediately collapse to a brown dwarf under its own gravity. Doing so would heat it to being red hot.
At least we had meerkats :)
@@garethdean6382 a ca you mean cat
Yes, my typing is not the best I'm afraid. But I'm working to make it butter.
@@garethdean6382 oh no i hope your typing doesn't turn into a milk product
Probably my favorite part (even though it was brief) was the fact that gas giants have have more metals in them compared to brown dwarfs. It really ignites my imagination.
Well, we cant all be stars
The door is that way
Somebody once told me
WazzupKMS
😢
The Furious Nacho
Omg 😂
The Furious Nacho
Good one
Doesn't matter how many episodes I watch, the animation they use (would you call it animation?) never gets old. It's one of the reasons I watch, I love seeing them drawing out what they are explaining.
i'd call it illustration, or drawnimation lol
so it doesn't matter how hard they failed, its only important that they DID fail, and no amount of re-branding will remove their failure.
such is life
If we throw a few brown dwarfs at eachother they'd turn into a star, right?
There's still hope for them :)
@@mattalevine unity is strength
Like Dark Souls
That was a great explanation! I had no idea...thank you. I love learning this kind of thing.
When you scrolled deuterium across the screen, i imagined that one guy who did the history of the earth and japan singing it
This has been on my mind a lot, thanks for the video!
Please more astrophysics and quantum physics!!! Thank you, love the channel! :)
Nice I love your channel. I love your stop-motion-like style
"They aspired to be stars... and fell short!" Whoa... right in the middle of feels.
I really liked this episode, feels like a good ol minute physics video.
Not that I don't like the others, longer videos, but this one was good!
Aww "failed star", making me feel bad for the little guys. It reminds me how sorry I felt for Pluto being demoted to a dwarf planet.
You have too much empathy, maybe?
You feel sorry for an inanimate object for being what it is, and for another inanimate object for its change in definition?
I'm not saying what you feel is wrong, its just sorta weird :)
Well it wasn't demoted, it was grouped under objects that were more like it. In other words, it fit in better in its new group than the old. If celestial objects had feelings, Pluto probably feels happier.
The Primeval Void True! Big fish in a little pond!
_ escapee what's wrong about it?
When explaining gets this interesting and simple learning gets beautiful.
That was a really nice sponsor integration. It felt like it was still part of the main video as opposed to an outro like most sponsor spots
Thanks. Been wondering this for a long time, first time anyone has explained it (even if some debate remains).
The best video in entire www to explain the brown dwarfs! Brilliant!!!
Super Jupiters? No no, Supiters.
Someone had to say it!
I wonder if that would be what scientists would name gas giants made of exotic matter with sparticles and such.
This is the reasons most people call them super-Jovian.
Suptuns
Hey Henry, can you also do a series on quantum mechanics?
hasn't he done plenty?
Very very nice video, many thanks!
You're supported by to JWST project? That's awesome!
You mean the Tyrion Lannister debate?
Another great video from the master. Ty Henry much
Great video on an interesting topic.
excellent, lucid, mind blowing. loved it.
im so pumped for JWST
good job on space science!
Funny thing about MinutePhysics videos, the original version is almost always worth watching twice over. I wish later iterations would aspire to the same content density.
Thanks Henry! I never even knew that there was a debate, probably because brown dwarfs are outshined (pun intended) by stars and stellar remnants. It's good to know that, as arbitrary as deuterium burning is as a distinguishing characteristic, it is still a useful rule of thumb.
Vampyricon why is it arbitrary?
Yonatan Beer I thought Henry said it seems like an arbitrary criterion.
I was expecting another Quantum Physics video, but this was good, too.
Nice! Can two brown dwarfs collide and become a hydrogen burning star? Specially since they can orbit in pairs
Yes they can, and it'll be the main cause of star formation in the degenerate era
This was a Stellar video :3
Awesome video!
What about the series on special relativity ??
yeah
What about the droid attack on the Wookiees?
Awesome video! I think planets are awesome !! Thanks.
"In the end, it doesn't even matter"
Its fitting that thid video is sponsored by JWST because today, day im watching this, JWST has just finished fully deploying and is on its way to L2. Excited for the science it is gonna create!!
Can't wait for the JWST launch next year!
That Deuterium animation at 3:26 was slick.
⭐ Thank You!
Astonomy and astrophysics just keep uploading videos on these topics
I can't wait for the James Webb telescope launch
I'm convinced, I now subscribe to you definition
I don't know if the end is just a motivational message to all brown stars
'Metallicity' is a new favorite word.
So basically, brown dwarfs are like college students.
They affect adults (stars) more significantly than children (gas giants) do, but they aren't adults. They're similar to children in some ways, but differ in others.
Also, there's apparently quite a bit of debate on whether they're entirely different than children (since they're independent, sort of) or if they're basically grown-up children (judging by the amount of people who get drunk on weekdays at my uni, they have a point).
Also, college students wish to be adults just as brown dwarfs wish to be stars. Jeez, who knew living independently was so hard?
Where this model starts to break down though is in the fact that college students aren't failed adults (not yet anyway). Rather they are at the beginning of becoming adults. Brown dwarfs, on the other hand, have had the opportunity to become stars but failed and will never see that opportunity again (unless a K3 civilization comes along and starts dumping extra matter into them). So college students may be more like young proto-stars in the early stages of their formation before they have ignited. While brown dwarfs may be a bit more like Marty Mcfly's uncle Joey.
great video
Great drawing skills
At 2:16 you talk about metallicity. The idea is interesting. Though I think that the term metallicity in astronomy generally is used to refer to any element that isn't hydrogen or helium, not just "metals"
Thank you! I can’t tell you how often this issue has led to my humiliation at parties!
Something that's overlooked in the converstation a little bit, what makes sense to people less familiar with astronomy. I think the formation argument is the one which should hold the most weight, because it makes fairly intuative sense to anyone. Planets are things that orbit stars (and formed from their leftovers), whereas something floating in the void like a star but less bright, is a failed star. The only hiccup would be the odd planet without a star at all, which while rare does seem to happen.
Nice dude
Fire🔥🔥🔥
Every time I learn something else about the JWST the more badass it becomes
The conditions you posted were mainly dependent on the differences in the process of formation for brown dwarfs and planets
There must be some overlap we could exploit
Stars: Keep dreamingBrown Dwarves: Yeah, right...
Brilliantly cleared a kinda complicated concept.
I agree with your last assessment that BDs should be categorized based on if they can be considered "failed stars". This means, if we find a potential exo-planet that ends up being a BD, then it won't be a planet in that system and the system will be instead considered a multiple star system. There might be other typical planets in this type of system, but we know that planets in multiple star systems aren't as common or as stable in those systems. But is the controversy only limited to BDs circling other "real" stars, or does it extend to other BD systems as well. After all, Scholz’s Star is called a star even if it is BD, and it has another companion that is also a BD. It makes no sense to call either of them planets.
Can you make on CPT theorem and Parity violation??? Anyway
Great video with two string guitar music...
I like this five-minute Physics videos.
Can you make a video on what charge fundamentally is.
Some of these arguments fall short when considering that stellar multiplicity is a very common thing. And in a way, "things orbiting other things" or "forming around athor things" also forms a blurry spectrum.
Could you do a video about quasars? I’d like to see something about them in a way I can understand.
yayy my favorite class of space object!!
Bill Wurtz made a small appearance it seems.
This then has me questioning the opposite circumstance: What if the accumulation of leftovers from star formation managed to form a body capable of fusing hydrogen? Would we be able to differentiate this brightly glowing planet from just another star? (I'm guessing from the examples it might be a strangely metallic star.)
If a star is bright enough to fuse hydrogen, the light output pushes all other mass away from the star, especially lighter molecules, which would prevent further additional star formations.
There is an interesting problem that my coworkers came up with a few years back. It was this, "Brown drawfs are really hard to find out in space. NASA finds out that there is a lone brown drawf the size of Saturn on its way to collide with Earth. We have a 20 years before that happens. What do we do? What can we do? Do we do nothing?"
Its an open question and I think my answers was some how collapsing into a black hole so it would evaporate due to hawking radiation (assuming hawking radiation)... The answers weren't meant to be the most practical.
Any society that has the ability to collapse an ENTIRE PLANET down into a black hole does not need to worry about runaway planets colliding with them, they could probably move entire stars just for fun.
This would seem legit as a documentary about my life
In case anyone was confused, "metal" in astronomy terms means any elements and compounds above helium - not just shiny hard chunks of stuff. To astronomers, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, everything is a metal except for hydrogen and helium. When you look at a planet with an atmosphere, a solid core, maybe some rocks or plenty of gas, there's a lot of stuff that isn't hydrogen and helium, whereas stars have an overwhelming amount of hydrogen and helium.
finally i wasn´t late to a minutephysics video
Hopefully more and better telescopes can come online as the cost of sending stuff to space lowers. If nothing else, more pretty pictures! (I know there's much more than that)
but its much harder to confirm that any one brown dwarf is such because to see how it likely formed isnt always possible. deuterium burning can be estimated from mass so its much more convenient
Barnesrino Kripperino but by that standard you can easily mistaken a super cooled brown dwarf from a super-jupiter chilling seemingly alone.
Metalicity can be determined with spectroscopy mass ratio and orbit radius and others are really easy
We don't even agree on what are dwarf planet
Just look at the emmision and absorption lines. Planets are more metallic and BD's have star like metallicity.
But you can't determine a spectrum if the object is too dim and cool, and you cannot determine a mass ratio or orbit radius if the object is alone, like an ejected rogue gas giant. On the other side, a brown dwarf can still exist in a planet-like orbital radius, and can have a planet-like mass ratio if its companion star is a big star.
May be in the comments but what is deturium? I know now but i looked it up. Interesting topic. Keep up the good work.
It's not actually important for the video, but he still put a remark about it on screen for a few seconds around 0:15
Special realitivity video
good vid bud
There is a process in which a "failed star" can become a star. The hydrogen burning temperature is much higher than that of deterium, and that's why these stars can burn deuterium but not hydrogen. However, some brown dwarf babies can burn their deuterium and heat up just enough to ignite hydrogen in their core and form a little long lasting red star. And I think that's beautiful, a failed star that has a second chance.
I think it would be cool to call them Jovian Stars! Even if they're not really stars.
Thanks
how cool is it that that JWST sponsored his video?
If they only launched JWST when they originally said they would.
This debate would have been finished years ago.
Hey. I love this channel and I have a question. I’ve seen the Nike commercial where they get the earth to spin by running. Obviously this isn’t realistic, but theoretically, if you run, Isaac Newton says the ground will be pushed. However, your mass should also tug the earth in the opposite direction due to gravity. So, even by the smallest distance, which way would the earth move?
I'm waiting for part 3 of Special Relativity..
i kinda feel bad for brown dwarfs
(i know they are failed stars that dont have feelings but i kinda want to support them)
One way we might distinguish if these are planets or stars is if they can go supernova, wether this is from the dwarf collapsing in on itself or a binary brown dwarf system colliding
Just because brown dwarves don't look different when they fuse deuterium it doesn't mean that it isn't a good cutoff. Location seems even more arbitrary of a definition
about time
Next do a video about neutron stars
Simple definition:
There are rocks and gasballs. rocks are pretty varied in size and then gasballs can be small big or huge.
It's a definition-debate.
Gracias, es una duda que siempre tuve después de ver 2010, odisea 2. Y ahora veo que todo está en el origen de formación, y por supuesto en esa línea del deuterio.
¿Podríais hacer un vídeo sobre la proporción existente de estrellas binarias y estrellas únicas (..o incluso triples o más) que hay en el universo conocido? ... Y también si podéis explicar cuáles o cuántas de ellas son ambas estrellas estrellas ó estrellas fallidas, ..o si lo normal es que sea una auténtica estrella brillante (en el espectro) y otra menos, ... .. o ¿cómo? :D
A presentation like this should present both sides of the ongoing planet debate, not just that of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). The IAU definition was adopted by just four percent of its members, most of whom were not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers, and was rejected by an equal number of planetary scientists in a formal petition. These planetary scientists, some of whom presented their alternate, geophysical planet definition to the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference in 2017, reject the notion that an object has to clear its orbit to be a planet and consider dwarf planets to be a subclass of planets--just like dwarf stars are a subclass of stars, and dwarf galaxies are a subclass of galaxies. The geophysical planet definition, which is as scientifically legitimate as the IAU's dynamical definition, defines objects first and foremost by their intrinsic properties rather than by their location. If an object is not a star itself and is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, according to this definition, it is a planet, regardless of whether it orbits a star, orbits another planet, or floats freely in space. www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2017/eposter/1448.pdf
A thing that just came to mind;
How much would the displacement of water (from equator to poles) affect the length of days during the ice ages?
Brown stars burn out all deuterium after some time, meaning they live less than red dwarfs
Seems to me the 'failed star' criteria is the best cutoff. If it formed from a proto-planetary disk around a star-like object (star, brown dwarf, etc.), it is a planet. If it formed from collapsed from a gas cloud (without a massive central object, such as a star or brown dwarf), and is not a hydrogen-burning star, it's a brown dwarf. Now, one thing that could complicate this is if a proto-planetary disk could be massive enough to potentially produce a star (after a primary star had already fromed), in which case massive gas balls formed in them could also be 'failed stars'.
Just a quick note: in astronomy any element other than hydrogen and helium is considered a "metal". "Metallicity" refers to the mass ratio of these heavier-than-helium elements in the star/dwarf
calling them "gas balls that aspired to be stars then failed" is just too real for me sksksk
Please make video on what charge fundamentally is