A Red Giant with a Neutron Star at its core: The strange world of the Thorne-Zytkow Object

[@luckylmj]

2:17 Minor correction: Iron fusion *can* happen, it just uses more energy to do so than is released, unlike every lighter element.

[@WinVisten]

Like eating celery?

[@markburton5292]

Correct and that is why the heavier elements are only created in novas and super novas.

[@orppranator5230]

@@WinVisten Lol

[@joytim5974]

True

[@TheNerdsFromHell]

beat me to it

[@WinVisten]

Why doesn't the neutron star rip a tunnel through the red giant as it plunges its way in? I was originally going to ask why the neutron star wouldn't shred it, but then I remembered how huge a red supergiant is, that even a neutron star's extremely strong gravity probably wouldn't be able to shred one.

[@kevynhansyn2902]

Only thing the Neutron star would do is feed off of the Red SG. There would be a tail involved. There's a video somewhere out there. But Science and astro physics are Wierd and this video and others can lead to many things in the outer space.

[@nigelft]

Quite possibly yes ... As you state, correctly, the sheer size (and even possibly mass ...) of a Red Supergiant would be way more than a neutron star can handle ... ... but, then again, that depends in the neutron star. Neutron stars fall under separate categories of their own, with the most familiar being rotation powered neutron stars, that like light houses, emit pulses of radiation in direct line of sight of the observer (pulsars); or those known to have unbelievably strong magnetic fields (magnetars). To give some idea of the later, the strength an astronomical body is correlated to that of its geomagnetic field, measured, as per any other magnets, in terms of something called its magnetic flux density, or Tesla (after Nikola Tesla). Earth's geomagnetic field is in the order of 30 - 60 micro Tesla ( 30 - 60 × 10^ -6 T), whilst a magnetar can be ~10⁹ to 10¹¹ T (or over one Giga Tesla ...) ... ... but even then, again, given the sheer size that a red Supergiant can be, up to the same diameter as the Earth's orbit, or much bigger, means even with such an extraordinarily large magnetic field, relatively speaking, the area of affect around the neutron star would be comparatively small ... and any material may collapse behind it, leaving just a void around the neutron star ...

[@JebediahWantsToDie]

The star is "liquid"

[@PLNTGMING]

@@JebediahWantsToDie no its plasma,

[@Wm7forthewin]

The gravity of the red giant star returns it to a spherical shape, filling any holes.

[@ReflectiveLayerFilm]

Black Hole animation was really cool.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you, I rather like it myself. I intend to use it whenever I get the chance

[@Turboy65]

Now imagine, what would happen if the internal neutron star were a magnetar?

[@sam21462]

Let's get really wacky. I see no reason that the partner star could not have collapsed into a black hole. So what would happen if a red supergiant engulfed a black hole?

[@atraxisdarkstar]

@@sam21462 Those are called Quasi-Stars.

[@jacplac97]

So in a certain way, these objects are like little brothers of quasi-stars.

[@APopov]

Keep on doing these videos! One minor suggestion: at 0:42 mark it is a bit hard to understand cross-section of star because you used the same material for inner and outer parts of star.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you for your comment and for watching the video. I used a sphere for the star, when really, a circle would have been better on reflection, but thank you for the feedback.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

​@@LearningCurveScience Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS what is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AND the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Indeed, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. Great. By Frank DiMeglio

[@borisbadaxe9678]

Soft and chewy on the outside, hard and crunchy on the inside!

[@GinHindew110]

I mean, that is cool and all, but i was expecting an explanation of how a red giant behaves, if the neutron star remains stable at its core As in, if the red giant explodes, and leaves a neutron star behind, maybe the neutron star inside the red giant would cause some weird conditions to form while the red giant is still alive, maybe dissipating, instead of exploding, or being absorbed into the neutron star, creating some kind of white giant Two stars colliding and exploding is kinda standards, i guess i was too hyped

[@jacobcoopermogil2683]

I was thinking the same thing.

[@coopergates9680]

I was also expecting that a type II supernova could leave at least half a solar mass behind surrounding the neutron star. The question is, since that neutron star is no longer undergoing fusion reactions, what stops the outer layers from collapsing to it? Accretion of bits of leftover hydrogen onto the neutron star than then fuse?

[@Resetium]

Minor nitpick with the process of neutron creation: Aren't protons usually red in most atomic models, with neutrons being either gray or blue?

[@julianemery718]

It's nice if the colours were consistent for clarity, but I don't think it matters as we know what the colours represent, and he explains which is which anyway.

[@Resetium]

@@julianemery718 that's why it's a minor nitpick.

[@meaningoftheunicorn]

great video, never heard of this before

[@ScienceP]

I discovered your channel recently and I am addicted. Keep up your fantastic work!

[@pineapplepenumbra]

Great video and comments.

[@bme1]

Superb description and video 👍

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@VortexGuy69]

The star name is "HV 11417"

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

I keep hearing that large starts fuse hydrogen, then helium, then carbon and other stuff. But don't those phases overlap a lot? Or are they really a lot more distinct than I imagine? IAC what determines these things? I'm pretty sure this isn't a stupid question, so PLEASE don't waste my time with an obviously stupid answer. Just saying.

[@nigelft]

All main sequence stars, like our Sun, go through most of its life, fusing hydrogen into helium, with the extra energy released as what we experience. But even then, stars have a finite store of hydrogen. Once that store is depleted, then helium starts to fuse together, with the cycle repeating it self until it hits the 'iron limit'. Whilst it is possible to fuse iron together, the energy to do so is far greater than what is avaliable. So whilst there is a small amount of overlap, generally speaking, as depletion results in very small levels left, it's generally accepted that hydrogen fusion to helium, then helium fusion to the next element, it happens in phases, with a small amount of overlap between phases, rather than 'hard' cutoff points ... As for what is used to determine what phase a star is in, that depends on its emission/absorption spectrum; a hydrogen 'burning' star would have spectroscopy of hydrogen emission/absorption, which will move over into the helium and so forth ... Given the distances between here, and observable stars, whilst the physics means a more gradual shift, it only appears more sudden due to the time it takes for the change in emission to reach us ... [Something I learned decades ago is that "there is only one stupid question, and that's the one you never ask ...", meaning it is better to ask, and risk being labelled as ignorant, but at least finding the answer, than to sit in silence, and _be_ ignorant ...]

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

@@nigelft All right, so I guess the gist of your answer is that that there isn't all that much overlap. Which is worth something. I'd still be interested in some more quantitative detail, if anyone has any. I would also expect that, since light from a star takes millions of years to move from the core to the surface, any transition would get smeared out by various effects, and even an instantaneous shift would not look fast at all from the outside. I do think there are stupid questions, but not nearly as many as those that are thought of as such. In most cases, a stupid question would be one where you're not interested in the answer. I don't mean a rhetorical question, but one where you really are pretending to ask a real question, but have already pre-judged the response.

[@somerandomdude8837]

@@ronaldgarrison8478 DISCLAIMER: This is what I understood from sources that might have been wrong, outdated, or I could have just misunderstood the info. Also this is propably tremendously oversimplified. They do not overlap much, as when, for example, the hydrogen is fused into helium, the helium won't fuse as the temperatures are too low for that. Then, as there is almost no hydrogen left, the giant forms, and now, because of the increased pressure, the core will get hotter (but also smaller), so it will start fusing the helium it produced. By that point, however, almost all of the hydrogen has been already fused, and all the hydrogen that wasn't fused will be in a cooler layer as it is way less dense than the helium and the carbon and oxygen it produces, forming layers areound the stars, where only the most inner one will have the temperatures to support fusion. I hope this helps :)

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

@@somerandomdude8837 Sounds like a pretty good explanation. Thumb up. And I must say, it all sounds quite tidy for something that hot and violent.

[@somerandomdude8837]

@@ronaldgarrison8478 thx, but about the order part, remember that what I wrote is a huge oversimplification, so it might be a bit messier

[@1pcfred]

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!

[@Zorro9129]

Love that reference

[@cookycandy4]

i thought iron fusion could happen, and that its common for a dead star to leave carbon behind?

[@LearningCurveScience]

Carbon is lighter than iron. When elements lighter than iron fuse, they release energy. However, the elements iron and heavier will consume energy when fused. This means that elements heavier than iron are only formed in supernova explosions and other cataclysmic stellar events. This is called the iron peak.

[@mperlatti]

Wouldn’t a super giant star with a neutron star inside still wobble due to the orbit of the neutron star? Yes. Yes it would…

[@egay86292]

stars "lives" do not end with supernovae; they can persevere as discrete objects for eons, possibly eons of eons. please do a video.

[@the_bi11iona1re7]

why is the sun shown as yellow its shown to be white from space and be an aqua like colour if you see it's wave length

[@LearningCurveScience]

I tend to do the sun and yellow simply because of convention. You are quite right, Our sun although described as a yellow dwarf is actually on the hot side of yellow tending to white

[@the_bi11iona1re7]

@@LearningCurveScience it's more of an aqua colour tending to be more blue than yellow if you see it's colour spectrum, white happens around 4700 kelvin

[@alkh3myst]

You don't want to be on a planet in this solar system.

[@strpe9701]

“Space is big” “The chances are vanishingly small” Space being huge af would increase the likelihood of this happening

[@orppranator5230]

It’s kind of a paradox. The bigger space is, the more things that are out there to collide with each other. But also, the lower the chances of any individual thing colliding with anything else.

[@strpe9701]

@@orppranator5230 I was thinking more along the lines of space being theoretically infinite makes the chances of everything happening 100%

[@orppranator5230]

@@strpe9701 Well that’s what I’m saying, with the first part of my comment.

[@strpe9701]

@@orppranator5230 the chances of me understanding that the first time are 100% but not in local space apparently

[@animehair05silently88]

Space is big *compared to how much stuff is in it* which is still a lot but still

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

cool theory

[@dard1515]

Reminds me of the kill ball from halo

[@jamesbanq3660]

Gosh I love love love your channel,,,,,,, you got no idea. Thanks for following your heart

[@augustagajoshestep]

Very interesting. Didn't know about this one.

[@Deciheximal]

Molib-dinum? THAT'S how you pronounce mahlee-bend-ium? You're breaking my world here.

[@ValkyrieofNOLA]

Emily Levesque did a great lecture on stellar evolution at the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics on weird stars and it’s one of my absolute favorite lectures ever! I am so obsessed with astronomy and astrophysics but I regret not studying it in college, and instead studying Cell and Molecular Biology. I should have majored in physics or something related to astronomy… but thanks to KZbin I can still learn and enjoy all the developments and discoveries!

[@NoMoreNarrative]

Soo...when will anyone continue to entrrtain the audience about the source of gravity? It is called a force still? Correct? Has anyone thought about looking at the issue as if it is pressure? As if we are contained in something? Like a fish in water. It has been a long while since high school physics, but "gravity" pushes down. Down is toward the most dense area of matter from a human persoective on earth. We are also contained withIN an atmosphere. Turn pressure up or down then implosion or explosion of a human is potential, but yet we say gravity holds us on earth by pushing down. Where i am lost is how can one think we are compressed from all sides as well as be crushed from above. Would that not imply two variables, each with its own effect applied, occupying the same space, assuming the scale and laws of physics perceived from a human standpoint? So using the term gravity confuses me since if the atmosphere for a human is equivalent to what water is to a fish, then gravity would have to be pressure applied to the atmosphere. Yet if space is curved then that seems to imply a surface of some kind. Yet space is what we live within this dimension. So if it is a surface the earth is on then what is earth and this surface contained within to apply pressure to the atmosphere? Unless space is a medium, such as water, surrounding the planet on all sides compressing. In which case gravity would be a false effect or force we perceive as humans. This really may not deal with the vid, but i need specifics to fully understand. If there is no definition of gravity including all aspects, even the source, then all these theories and science and math is moot. Speculation. Conjecture. Someone more knowledgeable please explain i ask. My brain is frying from confusion.

[@markmanning2921]

if a star is made of plasma then there are NO ELEMENTS just the components of elemtnts. stars are liquiuid, not plasma, not gass

[@sam21462]

Let's get really wacky. I see no reason that the partner star could not have collapsed into a small black hole. So what would happen if a red supergiant engulfed a black hole?

[@keeperofthedarksides]

Thumbnail reminds me of The Scratch from Homestuck.

[@sillydkitty]

oh a THEORETICAL object? gee, thats new!

[@jd4200mhz]

the biggest problem with quantum singularity, is that they are still apart of our univers, which means they are not infinite small, and yes iron fusion can happen, but it has not been theoretically proven since the early univers, even before the soup of metter was thin enought to let light appear, please be more precise

[@robbie8142]

There is something in the way you speak which includes humility, patience, kindness and wonder. All those qualities talking about stuff I like equals a very happy listener. Thankyou soooo very much! 👻🚀

[@tomwhone9804]

ITA, they have excellent voice, inflection, timing, etc.

[@robbie8142]

@@tomwhone9804 Hello. Thanks for your reply AND are you saying that the voice was of a BOT!? Blow me down with a feather! Are you sure my friend, Tom Whone?

[@will2217]

If materiel from the companion star (red giant) came into contact with the neutron star, would that not cause matter to rush to both poles of the neutron star causing another nova explosion? I mean, how could it get that deep inside the companion start before exploding? You just said one ounce weights as much as a mountain. I'll assume the neutron star is rotating very rapidly, so if anything, we should see it as a quasar right? Exactly how can any object just be wondering around in space? I thought every thing in space is revolving around something else in space.

[@gert-janbonnema]

"one ounce weights as much as a mountain" That's your brain on imperical system...

[@tommycoen5715]

where would the center of mass fall if this was a binary system in one went supernova leaving a neutron star and a red where was the center of mass be closer to the neutron star or the red supergiant

[@userminer2280]

i remember when u had 5k you should have 70-100k at least

[@CHarris1066]

Nice video. Background music @ 3:20?

[@blam320]

An object such as this could hypothetically be formed in the Early universe, in a process similar to the hypothesized "Black Hole Stars" which are assumed to be the origin for supermassive black holes in the galaxy.

[@whendarknessfalls6969]

Iron is the "ashes of nuclear fusion"

[@MarcelNL]

You really have a huge teaspoon.... :-)

[@winningsmilefan4888]

How it didnt died yet??!????

[@gregoryfuller1136]

What?

[@danyael777]

Earned a sub today, good work o7

[@LearningCurveScience]

o7 and thank you

[@piotrd.4850]

Soundtrack in background is annoying.

[@cabbageboi6365]

Whats the name of the song at 2:00?

[@Juice-chan]

Great content. Keep up the hustle and you will make it. Have you looked into the Veritasium Channel? They make great thumbs and titles that make people click without being click bait.

[@loldiers3238]

Hustle culture is poison.

[@raptorschamps2099]

Nice, thanks

[@falapadieu]

You can say this is the (probably) living nerf-bot of the primordial Black Hole Star....

[@Parasmunt]

Where did the iron and heavier elements on Earth come from? Another star that lived out it's life previously?

[@gregoryfuller1136]

Yes. Which is also why we and everything around us is basically star dust.

[@denissavgir2881]

Superneutron star

[@alessiobassguitar]

Very good video!!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@tygerbyrn]

Subbed! Thank you for the good learning. Looking forward to more videos. Ad astra pro terra.

[@Thatlaserlady]

The Sun Is Yellow

[@Gopherbee]

How are they able to determine the chemical qualities of these stars that are so astronomically far away?

[@animeemail8902]

Different elements each emit different specific wavelengths of light when releasing energy. By measuring which wavelengths appear in a given light source we can determine which elements are present and which ones are not. Look up Atomic Spectroscopy for more information.

[@lucasbachmann]

Those little black lines in the rainbow at 6:58 mark are caused by chemical elements absorbing the light at those unique points. Which then tells you what chemicals are in the star.

[@akiyajapan]

We don't even know what's inside our own earth and yet people are claiming to know some crazy stuff about other "planets and stars." Some just can't come out of the cave.

[@katraena5225]

Im pretty sure we know its mostly just more rock down there..

[@userminer2280]

Not sure about the rates of fusion but it might be for the lower bound limmit of stars since helium -100k years> carbon -a few centuaries> neon -a few years> oxygen -months to silicon> and a day to iron

[@LarryPhischman]

Actually iron fusion does happen, but it releases less energy than it takes to initiate by a small percentage. So every iron fusion event saps heat out of the star’s core. You can have a trillion trillion iron atoms fuse every second. Less than a day after the first iron atoms are created through silicon fusion, the star’s core cools exponentially until it collapses.

[@jebes909090]

that red giant is trying to go ssj2

[@luthermcgee3767]

At last, a video on the subject of the TZO ( Thorne Zytgo Object).

[@RainbowLovingRainbow]

Binary systems far outnumber single star systems, like ours.

[@rizalriddick1690]

Today I learnt something new

[@rolandmeyer3729]

Could a precious metal star ever form naturally?

[@Charly6666666]

ATARI VCS !!

[@FuSiionCraft]

It's a good video ! If I can point ONE thing wrong, just for the sake of it : The Sun is white

[@pcriged]

Can you back that assertion up, and while you're at it, please define "white" light? I can't exactly point to white on a color spectrum.

[@Mernom]

If you want to know more about the details of the mechanics of the birth of a neutron star, the video 'when stars outshine galaxies' is the only one I found that actually explorers the fine details.

[@coopergates9680]

It doesn't make sense when people say there is a ricochet in a type II supernova. What the collapse could shove the outer layers with is the immense flood of neutrinos formed within around a tenth of a second from the protons and electrons reacting.

[@nicholasaustin6823]

Star☀️

[@turgidbanana]

Is it supernova or supernover?

[@LearningCurveScience]

erm supernova I believe

[@dreamyrhodes]

Btw we should stop drawing red super giants as just red balls. They often don't have a clear surface, they more look like violent blobs of gas

[@jannis11]

noIce

[@crawkn]

How very disappointingly anticlimactic, we are expecting to hear that the TZO has been confirmed, only to find that it may not have been. However the phenomenon of red giants swallowing stars and other massive objects isn't really controversial, so it seems irrational to doubt their existence, even if not unequivocally confirmed by observation to date.

[@DjVortex-w]

One would think that since the mass of the merged star has increased quite significantly, it would affect is size, temperature, etc.

[@TheGuruStud]

Why? Neutron star is tiny. It's only the size of a large metropolis.

[@DjVortex-w]

@@TheGuruStud It's not the physical size, but the mass.

[@satanofficial3902]

"Transformation from a higher mass state to a lower mass state is considered stunning and brave. But there may be much more to it than just that these days. In the realm of questioning and critical thinking, unicorns and pixy dust travel across the universe to involve silicate solutions in Thorne-Zytkow objects to achieve the desired results of safe and effective dog fur. It is an undeniable pleasure for the modern individual to shapeshift into flying poodles. Break dancing showdowns still have to get done in a timely manner. The implications are huge. You will find new ways to say thank you this week. It’s the coming of the age of reason and it’s like watching a flower blossom. Vacuum decay is happening time and time again, changing the mass of neutrinos. It’s not your imagination. Dogs playing poker remain passionately dedicated to increased scientific transparency with equal treatment to all who exhibit a high water content. You should watch out for crocodiles in Australia since the Higgs field affects the mass of particles. It never ceases to amaze me how black holes never forget to become ice cream with activated charcoal." ---Albert Einstein

[@bloodmooncomix457]

I challenge anybody to say that "God" is boring! 🙏😅🤯😬😱😵‍💫✝️

[@noobier9790]

Like a proto star but less

[@myleftnut3934]

Well technically a neutron star is just the core of a bigger star so it kind of already has a neutron star inside it.