How Smooth is a Neutron Star? - Sixty Symbols

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 5. 11. 2020
  • Featuring Professor Mike Merrifield from the University of Nottingham talking about neutron stars and pulsars.
    More links and info below ↓ ↓ ↓
    More videos with Mike: bit.ly/Merrifield_Playlist
    Our "sister channel" about astronomy is Deep Sky Videos: / deepskyvideos
    The (multi-authored) paper we discussed: arxiv.org/abs/2007.14251
    Visit our website at www.sixtysymbols.com/
    We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
    And Twitter at / sixtysymbols
    This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham
    bit.ly/NottsPhysics
    Patreon: / sixtysymbols
    Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran
    Editing in this video by James Hennessy
    www.bradyharanblog.com
    Email list: eepurl.com/YdjL9
  • Věda a technologie

Komentáře • 1,3K

  • @skyegreytv
    @skyegreytv Před 3 lety +1300

    3 pages of authors: "Smooth."

    • @alimanski7941
      @alimanski7941 Před 3 lety +78

      Coming from a field where papers usually have 2-3 authors, at most, that screenshot of the paper gave me a solid chuckle

    • @petrouvelteau7564
      @petrouvelteau7564 Před 3 lety +33

      If this is a significant enough finding, they're all gonna have to share the prize as well.

    • @crackedemerald4930
      @crackedemerald4930 Před 3 lety +18

      spiny bal is round

    • @jasonremy1627
      @jasonremy1627 Před 3 lety +21

      Everybody gets to type one letter.

    • @MrAlRats
      @MrAlRats Před 3 lety +11

      Some fraction of those authors made no contribution to this particular area of research. Anybody who is working on improving any aspect of gravitational wave detection will be listed on every paper published by the LIGO-VIRGO collaboration. However, someone who is currently working on reducing noise sources or doing simulations of future interferometer configurations or developing novel search algorithms for detecting signals, etc. will generally have made no contribution to any results being published now because there's a time lag between the research being done to improve the detectors and the particular detections being made as a result of those improvements.

  • @shadowsfromolliesgraveyard6577

    Who knew that neutron stars were the friction-less spherical cows this whole time.

  • @Thoran666
    @Thoran666 Před 3 lety +801

    "Smooth as a pulsar" should be a saying.

  • @IMortage
    @IMortage Před 3 lety +364

    "I'll put it on my bucket list."
    "Best to put it last."

    • @DavidOfWhitehills
      @DavidOfWhitehills Před 3 lety +8

      "You wouldn't enjoy it".

    • @jonathanallard2128
      @jonathanallard2128 Před 3 lety +7

      That's the best thing about this part of the list, no matter if you put it in the beginning, middle or end of your list, whatever the case, it will be the last for sure.

    • @yendorelrae5476
      @yendorelrae5476 Před 2 lety

      Yeah...he would have been spaghettified long before reaching the surface of a neutron star!

    • @nativeafroeurasian
      @nativeafroeurasian Před 2 lety

      So where on the list are black hole and walking Mars in a T-shirt?

  • @tanishthangavel1475
    @tanishthangavel1475 Před 3 lety +1362

    I like the fact , there are no bgm ,no intro music no nothing . Simple , Clean and Educative . (Yet not boring). Noiicee . Hard to pull of these kinda vids and u guys are nailing it.

    • @D1ndo
      @D1ndo Před 3 lety +14

      Well yes, but the intro music of PBSSpaceTime is dope. Hard to pull that off as well.

    • @renendell
      @renendell Před 3 lety +20

      It helps when the content is raw knowledge from people with tremendous expertise.
      No need to package it really

    • @ConstantlyDamaged
      @ConstantlyDamaged Před 3 lety +9

      @@renendell See LockPickingLawyer's videos for a similar vibe. The intro is "Hello, I'm the lock-picking lawyer, and today we're..." 2-3min videos are the norm for him.

    • @voidremoved
      @voidremoved Před 3 lety

      they dont know wtf they are talking about though so it cant really be called educative. In the future their ideas will be laughed at and forgotten

    • @tanishthangavel1475
      @tanishthangavel1475 Před 3 lety +15

      @@voidremoved Bro/Sis..... Any ideas now will always be laughed at in the future . It is the mistakes what we do now would pave way for future ideas.
      As long as they provide valid information to this point of time in our lives (the present) , its always educative 😇 atleast for me (My opinion) .
      Cheers!Have a great weekend 😁

  • @mrnice4434
    @mrnice4434 Před 3 lety +145

    "...at least a Neutron Star can do stuff a Black hole is just black"
    *sad Black hole noise*

    • @michaelperry1210
      @michaelperry1210 Před 3 lety +17

      Not so fast, a black hole is a private party but we’re not invited

    • @Eric_Pham
      @Eric_Pham Před 3 lety +15

      michael perry more like a party you can never leave

    • @nielsunnerup7099
      @nielsunnerup7099 Před 3 lety +6

      @@michaelperry1210 We are invited, though. We just can't leave.

    • @jarzez
      @jarzez Před 3 lety +15

      @@nielsunnerup7099 *Hotel california starts playing*

    • @lazyman7505
      @lazyman7505 Před 3 lety +4

      Yeah, other than breaking all physics they really do nothing much :)

  • @captainoates7236
    @captainoates7236 Před 3 lety +317

    Being able to measure a deviation of a hairs breadth, or the lack of a deviation in this case, at however many light years we are talking about. Now that's what I call resolution.

    • @yellow01umrella
      @yellow01umrella Před 3 lety +2

      It still tells us nothing about anything.

    • @Totalinternalreflection
      @Totalinternalreflection Před 3 lety +70

      @@yellow01umrella well that’s not true is it.

    • @jareknowak8712
      @jareknowak8712 Před 3 lety +11

      Yep, its out-of-this-world impressive!

    • @the1exnay
      @the1exnay Před 3 lety +44

      Dolphin Man
      Big discoveries in science are built upon tinier discoveries. Now while they try to learn more about neutronium or nuclear forces or quantum gravity they can dismiss any theory which doesn't predict this smoothness. That's the sort of science that might result in advanced materials like room temperature and room pressure superconductors or even greater technologies.

    • @DanielTaylorOCMD
      @DanielTaylorOCMD Před 3 lety +31

      It's not a true measurement but a conclusion made by way of the speculation that if a neutron star had topography it would be detectable as gravity waves. Since the waves are not detected the inference is that the star is perfectly symmetrical, hence, smooth.

  • @TheIdeanator
    @TheIdeanator Před 3 lety +607

    Science: "How smooth is a neutron star?"
    3 pages of scientists: "yes."

    • @cubfanmike
      @cubfanmike Před 3 lety +14

      These important issues they MUST make videos on. This is my favorite. My second favorite is, 'What would happen if you changed one of the universal constants?'

    • @andrewrivera4029
      @andrewrivera4029 Před 3 lety +2

      TheIdeanator your tax dollars at work!

    • @thelazarous
      @thelazarous Před 3 lety +17

      @@andrewrivera4029 Much better than blowing up kids

    • @echoesman3439
      @echoesman3439 Před 3 lety

      @@cubfanmike Interesting things, probably. The universe might just not work out, or work just a bit different, like a meter (which is the length of 297 something million, maybe trillion atoms put side by side.) Being different from ours, and stars forming a bit more easily.
      I dunno.

    • @cubfanmike
      @cubfanmike Před 3 lety +1

      @@echoesman3439 The most scientific part of your comment was the 2 word short answer. Scientists should keep reminding themselves, it's about the search not the pontificating on CZcams

  • @Eye1hoe
    @Eye1hoe Před 3 lety +162

    Brady nailing the "questions I was just about to ask" department again! Great video

  • @chilling_at_pontiff
    @chilling_at_pontiff Před 3 lety +193

    That is horrifyingly cool . The inside of a neutron star can "slosh around" faster than the outside.
    Imagine the physics going on in there

    • @ericeaton2386
      @ericeaton2386 Před 3 lety +8

      Maybe

    • @ethanbuttimer6438
      @ethanbuttimer6438 Před 3 lety +1

      How can the neutrons even manage to stay together at this pressure?

    • @ethanbuttimer6438
      @ethanbuttimer6438 Před 3 lety +5

      Ooh there are quark stars too

    • @DeFraans
      @DeFraans Před 3 lety +12

      @@ethanbuttimer6438 they are only hypothetical for now ;)

    • @forloop7713
      @forloop7713 Před 3 lety

      Wouldnt the frictiin between the layers slow the neutron star down

  • @cr42yr1ch
    @cr42yr1ch Před 3 lety +293

    Neutron star diameter: ~20km (2x10^4m)
    Hair's width: ~100um (1x10^-4m)
    Smoothness factor 1/5000000000
    1kg Si sphere diameter: ~10cm (1x10^-1m)
    Si atom diameter: ~0.2nm (2x10^-10m)
    Smoothness factor 1/2000000000
    So about the same!

    • @Nomen_Latinum
      @Nomen_Latinum Před 3 lety +85

      That's crazy! Though keep in mind the smoothness described here is an upper bound, in reality neutron stars might be much smoother still.

    • @sk8r536nb
      @sk8r536nb Před 3 lety +6

      What it you compare the errors? In the neutron star case, it's likely closer to the x-sigma std dev of the neutron radius, in the Si ball case, it's closer to the std dev of an Si atom, practically? Or the electron shell thickness?

    • @Nomen_Latinum
      @Nomen_Latinum Před 3 lety +22

      @@sk8r536nb In the case of the neutron star, the error would come from the precision at which these measurements can determine an upper bound-not from the radius of the neutrons themselves.

    • @joachimneumann5295
      @joachimneumann5295 Před 3 lety +12

      ​@@Nomen_Latinum I think the Si atom diameter is the local smoothness. Since errors can accumulate, the out-of-roundness value (peak to valley on the radius) is much larger, about 50 nm. --> the neutron star wins. What do you think? See also my comment above for my calculations.

    • @Nomen_Latinum
      @Nomen_Latinum Před 3 lety +22

      @@joachimneumann5295 In that case, you're completely right! Though keep in mind, this video is not saying a neutron star is perfectly spherical. In fact, I'd expect it to always be wider at the equator than it is at the poles (oblate spheroid). So in a sense, the out-of-roundness value of a neutron star is determined by its oblateness, not by its smoothness, making it hard to compare. The best way to compensate for this would probably be to correct for oblateness in either case, but I don't know enough about neutron stars OR silicon spheres to comment on that :)
      Another related thing to keep in mind is that this paper -technically- only shows that neutron stars are radially symmetric; for all we know (and to be clear, I don't) they could have ripples or quakes going up and down between the poles in perfectly symmetrical fashion.
      All that said though, it seems very likely that the neutron star is indeed the smoother object :)

  • @cruz1ale
    @cruz1ale Před 3 lety +57

    Professor states an absolutely mind boggling fact
    "Huh."

    • @schallundrauch2378
      @schallundrauch2378 Před 3 lety +4

      Yeah, had to listen to it twice to enable my brain comprehending it.
      First time: What?
      Second time: Whhhhuuuaaaaaat?!?!

    • @ADDuk19
      @ADDuk19 Před 3 lety

      Love this thread, I thought the same as you crucci and did the same as you Schall.
      I think my brain had a short circuit when he said this, absolutely amazing.

  • @StreuB1
    @StreuB1 Před 3 lety +340

    I could listen to Prof Mike speak about a cardboard cereal box. The man is just epic. Same with Prof Copeland. Both are giants.

    • @rkenny4822
      @rkenny4822 Před 3 lety +11

      Love him too, he’s got a very approachable style given the subject matter.

    • @christiananderson6761
      @christiananderson6761 Před 3 lety +10

      Copeland could talk about a shite he’s has and I’d sit and listen in awe.

    • @onbored9627
      @onbored9627 Před 3 lety +3

      Yes they are all really cool professors. Who's the guy with glasses, a little more full face than this professor. I like him too.

    • @leif1075
      @leif1075 Před 3 lety

      What hw said at the ending was confusing..what ondorect effect is he talking about?? The wabes..but that's notnindriect..and the whole video he says neutron stars are perfectly smooth and their spin is perfectly symmetric but then at the end he throws in the fact that their soun is Not summetric due to magnetic fields they have..that's mind of contradictory..didnt amyoen else catch this?

    • @ThisIsSolution
      @ThisIsSolution Před 3 lety

      Captain crunch isn't bad either

  • @blink182bfsftw
    @blink182bfsftw Před 3 lety +16

    Love that you say you don't know the answer to some of the more creative questions instead of BSing! My favorite teachers did that

  • @theapocilip
    @theapocilip Před 3 lety +38

    If you touch a neutron star, you become the neutron star lol.
    Compared to a neutron star, we are basically empty space.

    • @TlalocTemporal
      @TlalocTemporal Před 3 lety +2

      Even if you only had a teaspoon of neutron star, it would rip you to pieces, then plummet to the center of the earth.

    • @p3el_
      @p3el_ Před 3 lety +4

      @@TlalocTemporal no, it will explode because there will be not enough pressure to keep it's form

    • @TlalocTemporal
      @TlalocTemporal Před 3 lety +3

      @@p3el_ -- Well assuming it didn't do that. It's a less useful metaphor if all it does is explode into nuclear radiation.

    • @p3el_
      @p3el_ Před 3 lety +6

      @@TlalocTemporal reality is often dissapointing

    • @Petr75661
      @Petr75661 Před 3 lety +6

      so it is the ultimate solvent

  • @markzambelli
    @markzambelli Před 3 lety +20

    When I was younger people often mentioned the outer crust of a Neutron Star would be a thin smear of iron with little mountain ranges a millimetre high... guess that's out.
    So how does this new constraint affect the notion of star-quakes in a cracking crust causing some Neutron Stars to experience timing glitches as their spin rates are altered? These are fascinating objects indeed.

    • @pflaffik
      @pflaffik Před 2 lety +1

      Most things like these are based on commonly accepted theories, but rarely turn out to be facts after new big discoveries are made. Its safe to assume that neutron stars got so rough surface that you can sandpaper an old table in 2 nanoseconds from a billion miles away.

  • @smokeyjam1405
    @smokeyjam1405 Před 3 lety +20

    IDK how ive been following numberphile and computerphile for years, but only stumbled across sixty symbols a few months ago...
    as a physics student this is now my favourite of your channels

    • @hansmeiser32
      @hansmeiser32 Před 3 lety +1

      dude - it's Numberphile.

    • @smokeyjam1405
      @smokeyjam1405 Před 3 lety +2

      @@hansmeiser32 i was a lil baked while writing the comment, fixed it

  • @antivanti
    @antivanti Před 3 lety +34

    I find neutron stars more awesome (literal use) than black holes in a way because you can still sort of grasp them intuitively just on a mind blowing scale. Their density is so intense that a star quake on the surface where matter shifts less than you snapping your fingernails past each other releases such immense energy that it could absolutely devestate any plants orbiting the star...

    • @danguee1
      @danguee1 Před 3 lety +7

      Why would plants orbit a neutron star? We haven't come even close to demonstrating the existence of life anywhere other than earth....

    • @antivanti
      @antivanti Před 3 lety +10

      @@danguee1 hahah... Because auto-incorrect 😢

    • @markpinsker3121
      @markpinsker3121 Před 3 lety +3

      Venus Fly-trap?

    • @ThaBeatConductor
      @ThaBeatConductor Před 3 lety +6

      My favorite factoid about neutron stars is the strongest "earthquake" we ever recorded scored a 23 on the Richter scale, which is strong enough to destroy pretty much everything in a 10 light year radius. It came from a magnetar having a fit.

    • @jdlessl
      @jdlessl Před 2 lety +2

      Black holes are boring even in a mathematically sense! There are only 3 things you can know about one: its mass, its charge, and its spin. Any two black holes that have the exact same values for those are functionally identical. Honestly, they're even less 'interesting' than a single baryonic particle (e.g., a proton or neutron), which have those same figures and at least have component quarks.
      There's a fascinating, if somewhat dated novel (Dragon's Egg) about life, even intelligent life, evolving on the surface of a neutron star. Their matter doesn't run on molecular chemistry, but instead nuclear interactions. The Cheela, as they're called, mass about the same as a human, but with the local gravity of 67 billion g's, they're about the size of a sesame seed. Goes without saying, they're all terribly afraid of heights.

  • @balintnk
    @balintnk Před 3 lety +15

    Watching prof Merrifield for years now, yet when he gets really into it, as a non-native, I still concentrate like on nothing else. Love these vids, keep them coming. :))

  • @rykehuss3435
    @rykehuss3435 Před 3 lety +44

    Some mistakes and points of interest:
    0:55 Not all pulsars are neutron stars. Some pulsars can be white dwarfs.
    0:59 We can see non-pulsating neutron stars as well. Many have been identified.
    1:41 The fastest rotating pulsar we know of spins around 716 times per second. Not even close to a thousand.
    1:45 Maybe I'm being pedantic here but "several times mass" implies more than 2x. The Tolmann-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is only for non-rotating neutron stars. That range is 2 to 3 solar masses. The most massive known neutron star with an accurately measured mass is 2.14 solar masses.
    5:13 Its not nuclear forces that are pulling everything to a smooth symmetrical shape. Its gravity. Neutron degeneracy pressure and repulsive strong nuclear force resist gravity from imploding the star into a black hole (or a more exotic type of matter)
    5:50 Yes it is rounder than what humans can make. The roundest man-made object is Heason Technology 5-axis manipulator. Its a silicon ball of exactly 1kg, 94mm diameter with less than 50 nanometer roundness delta. A neutron star of 20km diameter with a roundness delta of 50 micrometers (the width of a human hair) is two orders of magnitude smoother than that silicon ball if we assume the silicon ball roundness delta is 40 nanometers.

  • @sandwich2473
    @sandwich2473 Před 3 lety +26

    The amount of energy these things have is beyond comprehension.
    Absolutely mind boggling.

    • @karlandersson4350
      @karlandersson4350 Před 3 lety +2

      I just comprehended it! Wuz easy dude....im not impressed at all.

    • @dColorOfBoom
      @dColorOfBoom Před 3 lety +4

      @@karlandersson4350 ok Galactus🧠

  • @ristopaasivirta9770
    @ristopaasivirta9770 Před 3 lety +186

    "Is it cold? Is it hard?"
    No... the real question is:
    "What does it taste like?"

    • @thesteve4235
      @thesteve4235 Před 3 lety +31

      It tastes like Neutrons, duh.

    • @tomgucwa7319
      @tomgucwa7319 Před 3 lety

      So what if I pick up a neutron star metiorite ? ...I'd be cooked like plasma ,right ?

    • @Kotsugi_
      @Kotsugi_ Před 3 lety +8

      @@tomgucwa7319 I think the entire planet would be cooked

    • @pinstripedzebra
      @pinstripedzebra Před 3 lety +4

      Yellow of course.

    • @UberAlphaSirus
      @UberAlphaSirus Před 3 lety +3

      Probably like a pulsar.

  • @J_Lag
    @J_Lag Před 3 lety +38

    "A hair's breadth" considering that mass density of a neutron star is extremely dense, doesn't surprise me that a "hair's breadth" amount would create that phenomenon.

    • @davidschneide5422
      @davidschneide5422 Před 3 lety +8

      He should've mentioned that a hair's breadth more in any region would contain as much mass as the moon.

    • @Parasmunt
      @Parasmunt Před 3 lety

      @@davidschneide5422 It would be wrong though. The mass of a moon in neutron star matter would be about 100 metres across.

    • @NoSkillsNoFun
      @NoSkillsNoFun Před 3 lety +3

      @@Parasmunt it really depends on the numbers you use I guess. I played a bit with them (not too math savy though) and used 1*10^9kg/m³ for the mass of the outer layer of the neutron star, there, our moon (7,346*10^22kg) would occupy exactly 1km³, which is way way more than 100 meters across.
      for the hair thing, I calculated 7,5*10^-9kg, so 7,5 microgram, using a hair with a width of 100 mircometer and a length of 10cm. Went with V2*ρ1/V1=ρ2, not sure if right. V2 being the volume of the hair, ρ1 the density of the neutron star on surface level, V1 the volume of the neutron star.
      Correct me if I'm wrong please, it might be, just getting back into this stuff.

    • @BeKindToBirds
      @BeKindToBirds Před 3 lety

      @@Parasmunt but added to an entire neutron star already would make a very small addition to the overall diameter

    • @TheRealBanana
      @TheRealBanana Před 2 lety

      ​@@NoSkillsNoFun For the hair, I don't think you need to divide the whole thing by the volume of the neutron star. We just want to know how much the volume of a hair weighs if it had the density of a neutron star which I think should just be V2*p1. I tried this and with a volume of the hair of 0.0000000007854m^3 (0.0001m diameter and 0.1m length) I got a weight of 785.4g using the outer layer density you gave and that does seems more correct. Ben from Applied Science made a video about a DIY microgram scale and in that video he said his eyelash weighed in at around 35-40 micrograms.
      Edit: Also for the volume of the moon in neutron star density. Rearranging the equation for density gives volume = mass/density. Using this, the volume of the moon at neutron star density would be V= (7,346*10^22kg) / (1*10^9kg/m³) = 7.346*10^16m^3 or in kilometers 73,460,000 km^3. Thats pretty dang tiny when you consider the moon's volume is actually 21.9*10^9 km^3. It's only 0.33% the size! A sphere of that volume would be about 520km across.

  • @briankrohnke1569
    @briankrohnke1569 Před 3 lety +4

    The love and dedication from Mike for astronomy and Physics is inspiring, thanks for the videos :)

  • @BradBo1140
    @BradBo1140 Před 3 lety +4

    That concept is so hard to imagine. I’m jealous of the physicist that can grasp it mathematically. The amazing smoothness.

    • @pflaffik
      @pflaffik Před 2 lety +1

      They did create the concepts and have to present them as facts, doesnt mean they are. Lots of todays astrophysics are partially based on widely accepted theories, the room for error is immense. We live in a dark age, we base our understanding of the creation of the universe on obvious lies like inflation theory, our understanding of QM is that it is random and “mysterious, nonsensical”, clear misconceptions but we lack the undiscovered sciences that are required to explain it. Scientists otoh seem to be happy with the giant holes in knowledge.

    • @BradBo1140
      @BradBo1140 Před 2 lety +1

      One thing we all have to agree on is there is something there sitting in that little piece of space. And our primitive understanding with what knowledge we have so far of matter is that it fits these theories that those physicists and mathematicians believe. We are literally communicating right know with devices that have been developed with that knowledge. Basically, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably a duck.

  • @gnarlykoala
    @gnarlykoala Před 3 lety +2

    Great start of the weekend, thanks guys!

  • @D-711
    @D-711 Před 3 lety +1

    I'm a big fan of the more extended questions format. Great video.

  • @omgitguy
    @omgitguy Před 3 lety +50

    Professor Merrifield explaining that we would be able to detect if an object 20km across, weighing several times more than our sun, many light years distant, were deformed by a hair's width.
    Brady: "Huh."

  • @pafnutiytheartist
    @pafnutiytheartist Před 3 lety +14

    The "This 1200+ people helped us not detect the gravitational wawes. Here's what we think about it." paper.

  • @scorpia3215
    @scorpia3215 Před 3 lety +2

    Great questions from Brady and wonderfully explained by Professor Merrifield

  • @danielwylie-eggert2041

    Really really love this channel. Thank you so much for sharing your professional insights with us!

  • @lukefreeman828
    @lukefreeman828 Před 3 lety +23

    With the explanation in the intro, am I correct in understanding that a pulsar is a matter of perspective? In as much as *my* position in the universe relative to a neutron star determines whether it’s a pulsar or not?

    • @massimookissed1023
      @massimookissed1023 Před 3 lety +16

      1:06 if the magnetic field axis is *not* aligned with the rotation axis, it's a pulsar.
      (Imagine if the magnetic field axis *_was_* aligned with the rotation axis, the neutron star wouldn't be sweeping its beams across the universe, they'd just point without sweeping.)

    • @massimookissed1023
      @massimookissed1023 Před 3 lety +13

      As for our perspective, a neutron star may be a pulsar, but if it's not sweeping across us, we wouldn't know it's a pulsar.

    • @ObjectsInMotion
      @ObjectsInMotion Před 3 lety +17

      We have reason to believe that the vast majority of neutron stars don't have aligned magnetic fields and so almost every neutron star is a pulsar to at least some observer, the problem is until we become space-faring, we cannot confirm which if any neutron stars don't pulse and which are just not aligned with us. Until then, we might as well only call the ones we can absolutely confirm as pulsars "pulsars" and everything else just neutron stars.

    • @j_ro
      @j_ro Před 3 lety +4

      if a neutron star pulses in the intergalactic medium, but no on is around to see it, is it a pulsar?

    • @TOOMtheRaccoon
      @TOOMtheRaccoon Před 3 lety +1

      @@ObjectsInMotion
      I agree, was the same with rotating black holes, today science presume all black holes rotate, tens of years ago they were more uncertain about it.

  • @dAvrilthebear
    @dAvrilthebear Před 3 lety +10

    That's smooth!)
    Ok, jokes aside, this is really a great episode and it's mind bogging how "gravitational waves astronomy" allows us to measure how smooth an object is hundreds of light years away with such precision.

  •  Před 3 lety +2

    Thanks for this video and for doing this remotely. 🙏

  • @yendorelrae5476
    @yendorelrae5476 Před 2 lety

    I really appreciate your presentations...excellent, entertaining, and spot on info from the professors I so respect and look up to in awe.

  • @BIOHAZARDXXXX
    @BIOHAZARDXXXX Před 3 lety +8

    Something about an astrophysicist saying "I don't know" is really humbling.

    • @XavierMathewsEntertainment
      @XavierMathewsEntertainment Před 3 lety +1

      Yes. When he said that I was kinda disappointed, however they need to say it more instead of acting like they have all the answers. I rather be disappointed than lead astray with silly theories.

    • @phyvo
      @phyvo Před 3 lety +2

      @@XavierMathewsEntertainment Every time an expert says "I don't know" there's an opportunity for a writer or poet to imagine something new.

    • @luchisevera1808
      @luchisevera1808 Před 3 lety

      That's because they actually don't

    • @briandeschene8424
      @briandeschene8424 Před 3 lety +1

      This is why Science (capital S) endures and religious dogma does not. The former admits not knowing everything while searching for ultimate truths. The latter claims to know all ultimate truths while never seeking enlightenment.

  • @trymbruset3868
    @trymbruset3868 Před 3 lety +4

    I remember in a course I took covering an introduction to astrophysics we did a group project on Magnetars (neutron stars with magnetic fields that are completely bonkers), and I read a little bit about the space surrounding these things and the theorized matter inside the crust. It would be very interesting to see a take on these things, as the last I read was some theory that the pressure inside the crust is enough to cause a high-temperature Bose-Enstein condensate of sorts, which is wild.

    • @pflaffik
      @pflaffik Před 2 lety

      And then all the girls in your area wanted to sleep with you. Thats awesome!

  • @gves2
    @gves2 Před 3 lety +1

    Mike is a great professor and explains things so elegantly. Thank you very much for these videos. Mike you're doing a great job, really enjoy how you see the universe

  • @SlowToe
    @SlowToe Před 3 lety

    Enjoyed that chat. Thanks gentlemen.

  • @DrakiniteOfficial
    @DrakiniteOfficial Před 3 lety +25

    Marvel: "Avengers: Infinity War is the greatest crossover event in history"
    Scientists:

  • @TWJfdsa
    @TWJfdsa Před 3 lety +5

    I always wanted to know about Gravitational-wave Constraints on the equatorial ellipticity of millisecond pulsars!

    • @Pauly421
      @Pauly421 Před 3 lety +1

      Me too! Was the first thing I thought of this morning

    • @beastmaster415
      @beastmaster415 Před 3 lety +1

      😂😂💯👍🏾

  • @mustafa1912
    @mustafa1912 Před 3 lety +1

    Spectacular subject. It’s great to hear ligo and vergo doing even more interesting observations.

  • @wesieboy56
    @wesieboy56 Před 2 lety

    enjoyed this discussion immensely

  • @KyleGersbach
    @KyleGersbach Před 3 lety +13

    This was a cool read! I've got a couple of mentors which currently work with LIGO. One of them specifically work with continuous gravitational waves (like those from millisecond pulsars).
    The fact that we have a chance to detect changes in spacetime caused by a lop-sided spinning ball with more than the mass of the sun is seriously mind blowing.

  • @RoGeorgeRoGeorge
    @RoGeorgeRoGeorge Před 3 lety +31

    So many authors it will be legit to write FIRST in that research paper.
    :o)

    • @proloycodes
      @proloycodes Před 3 lety

      lol

    • @doodlevib
      @doodlevib Před 3 lety

      I believe the LIGO-VIRGO collaboration lists publication authors alphabetically for all-collaboration papers like this, so name order is not hierarchical.

  • @marksimpson2321
    @marksimpson2321 Před 9 měsíci

    I live how many times Professor Mike M says 'we don't know' . Neutron stars are amazing!

  • @markusjacobi-piepenbrink9795

    Very clever questions! Wonderful video!

  • @somethinglikethat2176
    @somethinglikethat2176 Před 3 lety +62

    Fun fact: The earth is actually smoother than a billiard ball. In size adjusted terms of course.

    • @hillaryclinton2415
      @hillaryclinton2415 Před 3 lety +13

      And Kansas IS flatter than a pancake..

    • @sillysausage4549
      @sillysausage4549 Před 2 lety +1

      Not true, OP. Just another urban myth

    • @tylisirn
      @tylisirn Před 2 lety +2

      @@sillysausage4549 Tolerance of a regulation billiard ball is +/- 0.005 inches which on scale of Earth would be +/- 28 km. Marianas Trench is -11 km and Mt Everest is +8.85 km. Depending on how you define the zero level, the equatorial bulge (42.6km) will either fit within the 56 km tolerance band (if you define the zero level in the middle of it) or take the Earth out of round. Either way, Earth as smooth or smoother as a billiard ball, but not necessarily as round.

    • @CheeseOfMasters
      @CheeseOfMasters Před 2 lety

      @@brianoconnor4269 Earth is very smooth, just a very smooth potato.

  • @ratherstupidthanboring5979

    I remember a colleague said a person gave him a ride to place and he included that guy's name in the paper too

  • @aetherseraph
    @aetherseraph Před 3 lety +1

    The audio is excellent Proffesor Merrifield.
    Thank you
    Edit: would love a series on non black hole stellar remnants, magnetars, strange stars, quarkstars etc

  • @PilatesGuy1
    @PilatesGuy1 Před 3 lety

    Thanks, guys. Very fun and interesting. Great job. More, please.

  • @henrytang2203
    @henrytang2203 Před 3 lety +8

    I'm gonna reference those 3 pages of authors as blah et al.

    • @busybillyb33
      @busybillyb33 Před 3 lety +4

      al is like the best scientist ever because his name is referenced on almost every paper - zefrank

  • @paullamar4111
    @paullamar4111 Před 3 lety +17

    What about "quakes" on neuron stars? Does the roundness change briefly and then settle back to perfectly round?

    • @garethdean6382
      @garethdean6382 Před 3 lety +8

      The oblateness can change, especially as the star's spin slows. The star remains smooth ans symmetrical but becomes more spherical and less flattened.

  • @Glitch315
    @Glitch315 Před 3 lety +1

    I remembered some numbers from a couple of Veritasium videos that explained how the smoothest object we have made, when scaled up to the size of the earth, would have about 14 meters between the tallest mountain and the deepest valley. And only 5 millimetres on a neutron star.
    So if we scaled up a neutron star to be the size of the earth: ~6,400km(earth radius) / ~10km(neutron star radius) = 640
    So a neutron star is about 640 times smaller than the earth.
    So we can multiply the tallest mountain height on a neutron star(5mm) to get the height of the tallest mountain if the neutron star was scaled up to the size of earth(640x): 0.005*640=3.2m
    This means that a neutron star is about 4 times smoother than the roundest object we have ever made. (14 / 3.2 = 4.375m) and about 5000 times rounder than the earth itself.
    That's quite impressive that we can get so close to matching the smoothness of such a massive stellar object.
    *note: I am not a mathematician, so feel free to do your own calculations as I could be way out here.

  • @Phyrostyxx
    @Phyrostyxx Před 3 lety +1

    Professor Merrifield brightness shine with this very smooth explanation.

  • @Guru_1092
    @Guru_1092 Před 3 lety +3

    STROKE THE STARS BRADY! FOLLOW YOUR DREAMS!

  • @robfenwitch7403
    @robfenwitch7403 Před 3 lety +5

    Neutron Stars Declared Unstrokable by Eminent Professor!

  • @TheMg49
    @TheMg49 Před 2 lety +1

    Really interesting stuff. Thanks 👍

  • @Fade2Black907
    @Fade2Black907 Před 3 lety

    Thanks for the upload.

  • @Zorro9129
    @Zorro9129 Před 3 lety +6

    I bet we could use this smoothness as some sort of standard for measurement.

    • @jonathanallard2128
      @jonathanallard2128 Před 3 lety +2

      Here we are selling the smoothest silk! Try our 0.0012 pulsars silk! Or our elite silk, 0.0025 pulsars!

  • @janmelantu7490
    @janmelantu7490 Před 3 lety +39

    Oh dang getting interference from the actual Insturments’ electricity that’s wild

    • @vincentpelletier57
      @vincentpelletier57 Před 3 lety +12

      Happens quite often, 60Hz noise or signal is almost always linked to the power grid somehow. As an undergrad, I was working on a project where I was monitoring some detector using an oscilloscope. The signal I was getting had a 60Hz noise component which started at around 9am, stopped at 5pm, and took an hour break for lunch. I don't know what the source was, but obviously some human operated equipment in a nearby room :-)

    • @danieljensen2626
      @danieljensen2626 Před 3 lety +6

      Yeah, if you ever look at the raw output of an antenna+amplifier in most frequency ranges you'll find that our world is full of electrical noise. 50-60 Hz is the worst because that's radiated by power lines, but you can get 120 Hz directly from lights, and some fluorescent lights also have switching frequencies around 30 kHz (discovered that for myself recently when we thought a new instrument we were building was broken, but I figured out the noise went away when we turned off the lights). High frequency electronics can also be sensitive to local capacitance, i.e. you can affect them just by waving your hands around near them or wiggling some wires around.

    • @z_yt_96
      @z_yt_96 Před 3 lety +2

      Most astrophysics observations have to take this into account along with many other types of noise.

    • @mozfynfqcu6668
      @mozfynfqcu6668 Před 3 lety

      "I'll put it on my bucket list."
      "Best to put it last."

  • @monty28j
    @monty28j Před 3 lety

    another great video! I love all the graphics

  • @michaelglynn2638
    @michaelglynn2638 Před 3 lety

    Great questions. Great answers. Enjoyed that thanks!👍

  • @EyesOfByes
    @EyesOfByes Před 3 lety +3

    5:48 ZEISS Group made ASML's flat mirrors for EUV lithography. Quote: *"Scale one of these mirrors to the size of Germany, and the biggest bump that you'd find on their surface is just 1 millimeter high"*

    • @Biomirth
      @Biomirth Před 3 lety +1

      So like, really rough compared to a Neutron star. (Actually, it's impressive that it is within a couple of orders of magnitude of a Neutron star; Very cool).

  • @yashagarwal8249
    @yashagarwal8249 Před 3 lety +19

    I would love to know how the angular momentum is conserved when something slows down due to emitting gravitational waves. Anybody know?

    • @KyleGersbach
      @KyleGersbach Před 3 lety +23

      You're right! The gravitational waves themselves carry angular momentum away from the system!

    • @Biomirth
      @Biomirth Před 3 lety +3

      @@KyleGersbach Newtonian physics just can't catch a break.

    • @Pauly421
      @Pauly421 Před 3 lety

      Hmmm

    • @ozzymandius666
      @ozzymandius666 Před 3 lety

      Its not conserved in open systems.

    • @watsufizzi
      @watsufizzi Před 3 lety

      Theres no conservation of energy/momentum in GR. Theres a local version of it though...

  • @mahid4756
    @mahid4756 Před 3 lety

    Here i am back to watching another sixty symbols vid but this time i am a University of Nottingham Students myself!!!
    Really enjoy all of these videos!
    Cheers.

  • @SofaKingShit
    @SofaKingShit Před 3 lety

    The scientist has mastered the art of talking really quickly whilst somehow not being completely exhausting to listen to, at least for an old bloke like me. Even as l write this l can still remember a lot of details about what he said. Nice.

  • @saswatsarangi6669
    @saswatsarangi6669 Před 3 lety +3

    That rotation looks weird though
    Edit: now I remember the axis about which it rotates and the light beam is not coinciding,

  • @jonnyjazzz
    @jonnyjazzz Před 3 lety +4

    Wouldn't the Frame Dragging from such pulsars still emit Gravitation Waves?

    • @garethdean6382
      @garethdean6382 Před 3 lety +4

      That's a much smaller effect and why we're not currently looking for rotating black holes this way.

  • @Agnes_Noby_sir
    @Agnes_Noby_sir Před 3 lety

    such a great concept for a video!

  • @FredStam
    @FredStam Před 3 lety

    So back in your Tardis professor... greetings and thanks for your explanation

  • @jackbeyda835
    @jackbeyda835 Před 3 lety +7

    the heartbeat of the universe

  • @agmessier
    @agmessier Před 3 lety +4

    So do gravitational waves have angular momentum?

  • @RNG-999
    @RNG-999 Před 3 lety +1

    This was a rad video!

  • @kevinmccarthy8746
    @kevinmccarthy8746 Před 3 lety

    WOW, I love you guys, great show. Kevin from sunny Mexico.

  • @splitzable
    @splitzable Před 3 lety +6

    We do need a LIGO in outer space!!
    The amount of clean readings will be huge! And a good companion to JWST!!

    • @KyleGersbach
      @KyleGersbach Před 3 lety +8

      We're working on that right now!
      It's called the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). It's current schedule puts it in space in 2034

    • @volbla
      @volbla Před 3 lety +5

      @@KyleGersbach Yooo. That is awesome. I'm gonna put a bottle of champagne in my fridge right now!

    • @UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ
      @UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ Před 3 lety +1

      Absolutely. Space LIGO would be amazing.

    • @GaneshNayak
      @GaneshNayak Před 3 lety +2

      Oh man waiting for it .. 2 at diff axis, 100s of km apart. We can probably detect anything and also find whole new things happening in the universe. Hope the scientific community prioritize this

    • @Niosus
      @Niosus Před 3 lety +1

      @@KyleGersbach wow, 2034. I thought we were much closer after the successful LISA Pathfinder mission.
      Do you have more details on what exactly makes it take 15 years to build these spacecraft? JWST has taken forever because the incredibly complicated unfolding mechanism. By comparison LISA seems to be a relatively simple experiment. The tolerances to make the interferometry work must be absolutely tiny...

  • @Xeno87
    @Xeno87 Před 3 lety +52

    Let me guess: Very.

    • @_abdul
      @_abdul Před 3 lety

      Almost

    • @LFSmania
      @LFSmania Před 3 lety +8

      very smooth is an understatement

    • @gigastrike2
      @gigastrike2 Před 3 lety +3

      If objects are rough because their molecular structure supports hills, then you have to imagine what an object would be like when the forces applied to it omnidirectionally are so strong that it breaks down not just the molecular structure, but the atomic structure as well.

  • @adityakhaprelap
    @adityakhaprelap Před 3 lety

    These animations are beautiful.

  • @jthunders
    @jthunders Před 2 lety

    Tres cool, thank you

  • @science.and.beyond
    @science.and.beyond Před 3 lety +6

    How smooth is a black hole?
    Infinitely smooth.

  • @mimzim7141
    @mimzim7141 Před 3 lety +3

    no equatorial buldging when rotating so fast?

    • @moikkis65
      @moikkis65 Před 3 lety +1

      That does happen but it's still symmetrical

    • @Covenantt666
      @Covenantt666 Před 3 lety

      I don't think so. The gravitational pull is so strong that it's probably gonna be a perfect sphere. But I'm not sure.

    • @zapfanzapfan
      @zapfanzapfan Před 3 lety

      If it is rotating 1000 times a second then the equator is moving at 20% the speed of light.

  • @Parasmunt
    @Parasmunt Před 2 lety

    Utterly fascinating, what an interesting man that Professor is and i marvel at how well he explains this science. Would have liked them to discuss Starquakes.

  • @thanesgames9685
    @thanesgames9685 Před 2 lety +1

    A couple of questions:
    1) Wouldn't the insane magnetic fields around these things be expected to interact with the matter in the neutron star if there was any kind of charge at all?
    2) If there isn't any charge at all, why is it producing a magnetic field?
    3) shouldn't we see things slamming into neutron stars with some frequency? Even if they tend to clear out their immediate environment at birth, every once in a while they should run across some kind of debris that would slam into the surface at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Granted, it probably wouldn't come close to the mass of a neutron star, but that much momentum ought to show as something, shouldn't it? A temporary ripple of asymmetry?

  • @arturhellmann9138
    @arturhellmann9138 Před 3 lety +6

    Those guys can measure a spinning ball the size of a city, lightyears away by the precision of a human hair, yet I manage to buy way to much floor because I am to dump to measure the room.

    • @beeble2003
      @beeble2003 Před 3 lety +2

      But they haven't measured the size of the sphere to that precision! They've figured out that, however big it actually is, it's within a hair's breadth of being a perfect sphere.

    • @briandeschene8424
      @briandeschene8424 Před 3 lety

      We bought too few tiles to finish a shower stall. And when we went back for more it was discontinued and unavailable. Having too much is better. :-)

  • @Veni-Vidi-Viktor
    @Veni-Vidi-Viktor Před 3 lety +3

    How about energy loss by frame dragging of space due to the immense gravity and the neutron star's rotation?

    • @volbla
      @volbla Před 3 lety

      Does that radiate energy? I've never thought of it. I just think of frame dragging as gravity doing its thing, but that could be completely wrong.

    • @Veni-Vidi-Viktor
      @Veni-Vidi-Viktor Před 3 lety

      @@volbla I think it uses up some energy from the neutron star's rotation, but I see no reason for radiation by frame dragging space near the star. I can't prove if and how much energy this would use up, unfortunately.

    • @cleon_teunissen
      @cleon_teunissen Před 3 lety +1

      To my knowledge there is no gravitational wave emission associated with frame dragging.
      Professor Mike Merrifield mentions in the video that gravitational waves are associated with change of the gravitationalf field that is noticable at any distance to the source. Example of a violent event without emission of gravitational wave: perfectly symmetric implosion. While that is a very violent event, it does not change - at distance to the source - the magnitude or direction of the source's gravitational field. Hence no emission of any gravitational wave. Frame dragging does have chirality, but at any distance to the source the magnitude and direction of the gravitational effect is free from acceleration.
      The LIGO interferemeter detects a change when there is a transient expansion/shrinking of one or both of the arms of the interferometer. The frame dragging of a spinning gravitational mass isn't transient, it's constant.

    • @volbla
      @volbla Před 3 lety

      I'm thinking of it like this: A massive body just sitting still in space has a gravitational field, because that's what mass does. Having a gravitational field doesn't cost any energy.
      Similarly, a spinning body also has frame dragging, and that's simply what the gravitational field of a spinning body looks like. The only way that would cost energy is if spacetime inherently had something akin to friction.
      Does spacetime have something like friction? I have no idea. Never heard of it ¯\(ツ)/¯

    • @Veni-Vidi-Viktor
      @Veni-Vidi-Viktor Před 3 lety

      @@cleon_teunissen Since physics isn't quite my playing ground, I try reasonable "kitchen school" argumentation. I'm not looking at generation of gravitational waves in my initial question. A (unlikely to exist) non-rotating massive body does its gravitational thing to space: I assume this doesn't consume energy from the massive body, can't explain why.
      Frame dragging having chirality is an interesting point. I don't think frame dragging propagates any gravitational waves, but again can't explain if and why not. Generating gravitational waves must consume energy, simply because this is what is observed, well rather modelled, by the gravitational observatories.
      Still I can't wrap my head around that frame dragging by rotating massive bodies should come "for free"

  • @robsmith400
    @robsmith400 Před 3 lety

    This a video that tickles the brain exceptionally well.

  • @patrick247two
    @patrick247two Před 3 lety

    Thank you.

  • @RonJohn63
    @RonJohn63 Před 3 lety +6

    The Earth is smoother (but not as round) than a billiard ball.

    • @voodoojedizin4353
      @voodoojedizin4353 Před 3 lety

      The earth definitely not Smooth, we have 30,000ft mountain's and deep sea trenches miles deep.

    • @RonJohn63
      @RonJohn63 Před 3 lety +3

      @@voodoojedizin4353 pay attention: I wrote smoothER. Which means that it's not perfectly smooth.
      But it IS very smooth. Extremely smooth, in fact.
      How can the Earth be considered smooth when it has 2 mile deep oceans and 6 mile high mountains, you ask? *SCALE,* that's how.
      The Earth's (average) radius is *3960 Freedom Units.* A six mile high mountain is only 1.5% of 1% of the radius of the Earth.
      That's very smooth.

    • @M.-.D
      @M.-.D Před 3 lety +1

      @@voodoojedizin4353 I think what is being suggested (not sure it is true) is that compared to the radius/circumference the deviations of altitude on Earth are proportional smaller than what occurs on a billiard ball. If so, the statement would be true. Likely the relevant information to make a conclusion would be online.

    • @aleksapetrovic7088
      @aleksapetrovic7088 Před 3 lety +2

      @@voodoojedizin4353 watch vsauce

    • @RonJohn63
      @RonJohn63 Před 3 lety +2

      @@M.-.D that's exactly right.

  • @MusicalRaichu
    @MusicalRaichu Před 3 lety +5

    neutrons are electrically neutral so where does the magnetic field come from?

    • @Goheeca
      @Goheeca Před 3 lety +2

      A Neutron has no electric charge, but it has a magnetic moment.

    • @abarbar06
      @abarbar06 Před 3 lety +2

      At about 7:00 there's a cross section of the neutron star, there are charge particles in the interior, motion of this material can produce a global magnetic field.

    • @TheReligiousAtheists
      @TheReligiousAtheists Před 3 lety +1

      Same as asking "If a current carrying wire is neutral, where does its magnetic field come from?"

  • @selfawaredevices
    @selfawaredevices Před 3 lety

    insightful!

  • @davidgillies620
    @davidgillies620 Před 3 lety +1

    I think it's true to say that in order for a rotating body or system to radiate gravitational waves its gravitational field must have at least a quadrupole moment. So an axisymmetric body won't radiate, as stated here.

  • @Yora21
    @Yora21 Před 3 lety +5

    I would assume most of the authors have no idea this paper exists.

  • @kadourimdou43
    @kadourimdou43 Před 3 lety +19

    What creates the magnetic field, if they’re made of Neutrons?
    *All Pulsars are Neutron Stars, but not all Neutron Stars are Pulsars. What’s creating the difference?*
    Edit: Energetic Electrons in the atmosphere???

    • @kanekekun2584
      @kanekekun2584 Před 3 lety +2

      Someone answer this plz

    • @FedericoAOlivieri
      @FedericoAOlivieri Před 3 lety +7

      As far as my google-fu tells me, they aren't completely made of neutrons. They have some amount of protons and electrons and these are what causes the magnetic fields

    • @RoboBoddicker
      @RoboBoddicker Před 3 lety +12

      Neutrons are made of charged quarks, so a neutron has a magnetic moment, even though its overall electric charge is zero.

    • @nineinchwhales
      @nineinchwhales Před 3 lety +8

      Neutron stars have several layers beyond just being blob of neutrons, comprised of; iron nuclei, electron gas, and a mixture of superfluid neutrons and electrons - I'm not sure of the exact composition as it's not my field, but the short answer is that it's a very complicated mix of condensed matter.

    • @noahbliss1589
      @noahbliss1589 Před 3 lety +9

      Neutrons have a magnetic dipole moment from the charged quarks they are made of

  • @saswatsarangi6669
    @saswatsarangi6669 Před 3 lety +1

    Exactly that feel is an important component like how the surface looks like etc feels like

  • @BigyetiTechnologies
    @BigyetiTechnologies Před 3 lety

    That hair's breadth fact blew my mind

  • @massimookissed1023
    @massimookissed1023 Před 3 lety +15

    5:40 _"Smoother than a billiard ball."_
    Planet Earth is smoother than a billiard ball.

    • @massimookissed1023
      @massimookissed1023 Před 3 lety

      @Hose2wAcKiEr , Earth's radius is 6,400km, with mountains & trenches being ±9km.
      That's smoother than a billiard ball.

    • @ericeaton2386
      @ericeaton2386 Před 3 lety

      That’s a misconception based on a misinterpretation of billiard ball regulations. Vsauce explains it in the video “How much of the earth can you see at once.”
      The billiard ball is actually smoother

  • @MonochromeWench
    @MonochromeWench Před 3 lety +6

    papers with that many names would be why the Nobel prize has the rules it does.

    • @MrAlRats
      @MrAlRats Před 3 lety +1

      Some fraction of those authors made no contribution to this particular area of research. Anybody who is working on improving any aspect of gravitational wave detection will be listed on every paper published by the LIGO-VIRGO collaboration. However, someone who is currently working on reducing noise sources or doing simulations of future interferometer configurations or developing novel search algorithms for detecting signals, etc. will generally have made no contribution to any results being published now because there's a time lag between the research being done to improve the detectors and the particular detections being made as a result of those improvements. Many who actually contributed to producing the latest results will also have left the collaboration to work elsewhere.
      In my opinion, whenever a Nobel prize candidate is chosen, they should in turn be required to nominate others who they think directly contributed to the research that they are being awarded the prize for. Limiting the number of recipients to just three is unfair.

    • @busybillyb33
      @busybillyb33 Před 3 lety

      Can they not award the Nobel Prize to the LIGO-VIRGO team as a single entity rather than individuals? They've done it for the Peace Prize I believe.

  • @heroicrockstar
    @heroicrockstar Před 3 lety

    I have been fascinated by neutron stars, magnetars and pulsars for years, absolutely amazing objects 👍

  • @WildBillCox13
    @WildBillCox13 Před 3 lety

    Liked and shared. Thanks for posting.

  • @livinlicious
    @livinlicious Před 3 lety +3

    Wow, it never occurred to me that a perfectly symmetrical object would NOT emit gravitational waves.
    It would be like a "no-friction" (very loosely used word!) interaction with spacetme. Ofcourse it would not emit. Fascinating.

    • @mustafa1912
      @mustafa1912 Před 3 lety

      He is saying It could be radiating gws but we may not be able to detect it. It does radiate lots of electromagnetic stuff though.

    • @ObjectsInMotion
      @ObjectsInMotion Před 3 lety +1

      It's almost the same reason why a charged particle moving at a constant velocity doesn't emit radiation, only when it accelerates is light emitted.