Betelgeuse looks a lot stranger than we thought, and physics shouldn't allow it

[@astrumspace]

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

[@MBSfilms77]

I am pretty much a pinned comment

[@charlesachurch7265]

Thanks again xxx

[@jtestaccount2431]

love u astrum

[@zeev]

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

[@lawrencecrocker4870]

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

[@gerald-gs2vh]

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

[@123Andersonev]

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

[@stevengill1736]

Me too....cheers.

[@johnt.inscrutable1545]

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

[@ArchangelExile]

Interesting... 🤔

[@SgtEpicc]

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

[@highviewbarbell]

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

[@barbarian1111]

😂

[@andrewreynolds912]

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

[@Nookdashiddole]

Physics should vote blue

[@saumalyasarkar7685]

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

[@KoSXxPotatisbarnetXD]

We should make a petition

[@bluewind7988]

That visual of Betelgeuse's surface violently boiling is a whole new level of cosmic horror I never thought I could experience

[@silentedict4256]

Indeed. Especially considering it's so large it would expand near Jupiter's orbit. Imagine those giant "bubbles" the size of planetary orbits....

[@CerealExperimentsMizuki]

When was that part in the video?? I didn't see anything scary.

[@jacobdadow8720]

Horrifying in a cool way tho right? 😂 😮

[@christianriddler5063]

Almost gives me the same feeling that monster waves in the North Atlantic do.

[@steven2183]

@@silentedict4256 Whenever I need a heavy dose of existential angst I think about super massive black holes.... sure , jupiter's orbit is impressive for a star....but the schwarzschild radius of the largest known black hole extends out past neptune...~1300 AU ..... that's 40x the distance between the sun and neptune..... even typing this right now has me aghast at how absurdly massive that is....

[@Markfr0mCanada]

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

[@Mark_Bridges]

Yeah, best answer I've read so far.

[@noahgoodwin392]

you don’t need a degree to try to make sense of the world. it’s okay to theorize, even without an astrophysics education. being said, these are theories not facts. but most scientific discoveries were theories or accidents trying to answer theories. so if everyone just thought about the universe maybe we would gain some new perspectives that we’ve never heard before.

[@ronjon7942]

Wait, you can DO that??

[@Herb.]

⁠@@noahgoodwin392You are so right! I believe every human has something to input in the overall quest for understanding. I personally have done a lot of research into redshift and feel like it’s every misunderstood. Look into plasma/electric theories and some of these “breaking the laws of physics” problems begin to have more plausable non-breaking explainations!

[@noahgoodwin392]

@@Herb. thank you for the rec! i will definitely check that out

[@EvilOttoJrProductions]

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

[@MrHistorian123]

Because Betelgeuse is so large, its surface gravity is extremely weak, so extreme turbulence is to be expected.

[@terminusfinity009]

​@@MrHistorian123its falling apart it might already be turning into a collapsing gas cloud

[@MrHistorian123]

@@terminusfinity009 And what model of stellar evolution supports that suggestion? I'm all ears.

[@terminusfinity009]

@@MrHistorian123 its dieing

[@MrHistorian123]

@@terminusfinity009 Betelgeuse is indeed in the final stages of its evolutionary process, but uncertainty over its exact mass mean that its final fate is unclear. If it has less than 15 solar masses, it will explode as a type IIP supernova and its brightness will rival the full moon for a few months.

[@TehKhronicler]

This is a scary chaotic behemoth of a star. Elite Dangerous was a game that let you experience just how absurdly huge it is, there's a primal terror we tiny beings experience in the face of it, but there's also an incomprehensible majesty to it, like with all celestial objects, but this one be huuuuuuuge.

[@ashir555]

Elite Dangerous do a better job at scaling the huge dimension of JUST our own galaxy.

[@GojiMet86]

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

[@Flesh_Wizard]

And then the inner solar system gets consumed by Betelgeuse

[@7TPdwCzolgu]

Beetle juice

[@dmitryburlakov6920]

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

[@WilliamDearthwd]

"...It's showtime!"

[@aetherflow]

"Hope ya like Italian..."

[@snowkracker]

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

[@rubidiumeater]

4:20 france jumpscare

[@swayIo]

TW: Hon hon hon

[@Flesh_Wizard]

oui oui baguettes

[@sideeggunnecessary]

FRANCE

[@TheGlitch93]

As a german, thank you for the warning

[@kevinschier8765]

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

[@thalastianjorus]

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

[@DerErsteWilhelm]

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

[@iroquois46]

Mean they don't know it all like they try to make us believe😂. I think the hardest words for scientists to say, is they don't know

[@BiTdotPNG]

​@@iroquois46I don't know where you got this from. Scientists always say they don't know/understand everything, that's why they study stuff, improve their models and such. Y'know, like scientists. The only people who say they know everything are people who are trying to sell you stuff, charlatans, or both.

[@jonnylawless6797]

Seriously lol. Like, "are you sure about that? Cause it's happening right now."

[@S1nwar]

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

[@KingdomOfSaulo]

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

[@youteubakount4449]

@@KingdomOfSaulo flatsunners would be stoked

[@E.T.S.]

Betelgeuse is like blobs of thin gas/plasma on the outside. Due to its size and relatively low gravity you probably won't see anything significant. In Space Engine there are simulations, from incredible distances those stars resemble giant cauliflowers. The inner sphere is probably oblate, but angular momentum is not as fast as on the outside,

[@S1nwar]

@@E.T.S. yeah i mean if it were spinning as fast as falsely assumed and was normal otherwise

[@Titanic-wo6bq]

@@KingdomOfSaulo ah yes, Mesklin.

[@pseudonayme7717]

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

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

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

[@mikekolokowsky]

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

[@timrogers2638]

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

[@keirfarnum6811]

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

[@keirfarnum6811]

@@TheJeremyKentBGross Aaahhhh...! Great minds and all that... 👍🏻

[@robertmacpherson9044]

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

[@stjernis]

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

[@Cr8Tron]

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

[@Ipwnpwnage1337]

I was thinking the same thing. I have a hard time believing the astronomers didn’t take this into account, but maybe the problem of sensor availability limited the amount of data they could gather. Would be really helpful to know the expected period of these turbulent bubbles. I would think that another observation with a different pole orientation would disprove the rotation theory, but that’s only if they’re able to determine the absolute orientation of the rotational pole.

[@wyrdean_9649]

@@stjernis I'd have to imagine that those bubbles happen more on the scale of months, definitely not thousands of years, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to (potentially) measure a cycle of bubbles like was shown in the video

[@irgendwieanders2121]

0:26 ...and then he had said Beetlejuice 3 times...

[@lazyvincy13666]

Doesn’t it have to be unbroken though? If I well remember, it only had effect if said three times in a row, without any other words in between.

[@zapx1239]

Indeed! You must say the word 3 times spoken unb- *gunshot* gtfo with your trendy internet song, 3 times in a row, you have to say it 3 times in a row

[@bensoncheung2801]

69th 👍

[@richardwilcox3643]

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

[@thereasonableconsumer]

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

[@fredwood1490]

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

[@PBeringer]

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

[@thereasonableconsumer]

@@PBeringer it's a movie reference from Spaceballs

[@PBeringer]

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

[@MrGezz66]

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

[@NoNo-xh7ru]

Everybody knows it likely already went supernova. It’s just inconvenient to say in conversation “oh sweet, this star will soon send light our way indicating it already went supernova.” Accuracy yields to brevity if everyone still understands the message.

[@lepperkin]

@@NoNo-xh7ru likely? really? it probably wont happen for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

[@joenoodle6914]

@@lepperkin wheres your phd little bro

[@lepperkin]

​@@joenoodle6914 I may not have one, but I'm also only 18. However, given that I've studied space for 6 years with thousands of hours of research under my belt, I'm still somewhat qualified. Also, it only takes a Google search. Betelgeuse COULD have exploded already, it would just be INCREDIBLY unlikely. It's more likely that it will be another 100,000 years before it goes supernova. The commenter was claiming that Betelgeuse has LIKELY already gone supernova, which is factually inaccurate, leading to me pointing it out.

[@joenoodle6914]

@@lepperkin dont care

[@JazzDogTraveler]

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

[@_KnuXles]

I love pointing the planets out to my daughter on the walk over to her mother's. She always asks me if she'll go to Jupiter and be an alien one day. I tell her there's nothing stopping her. Glad videos like these exist so I always having something cool to teach her

[@JanBackstrom-ot2dw]

Tack!

[@theworstwizard]

You all have such smart comments and here I am thinking about how much the model of Betelgeuse at 0:50 looks like an omelet

[@drka21]

That is by far the smartest comment!

[@jdlech]

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

[@huhuruz77]

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

[@Thefreakyfreek]

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

[@raoulduke7668]

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

[@fallendown8828]

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

[@mugennojin3513]

​@@Thefreakyfreekeverything is relative 😊

[@highlander723]

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

[@omni_frame]

I‘ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe

[@alrightyru]

Do you plan to visit Egypt in 2027?

[@Mintmite]

@@alrightyruhmm what do you mean

[@Mintmite]

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

[@onecst]

Not a supernova but there will be a nova soon

[@motjuste8549]

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

[@NScherdin]

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

[@willwright2721]

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

[@newfreenayshaun6651]

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

[@luminousfractal420]

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

[@Ominousheat]

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

[@btgardener39]

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

[@UnitSe7en]

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

[@TheJadeFist]

It doesn't violate physics, obviously it can't if it's really happening. It's just that it would have had to be spinning like a neutron star speed earlier (which can become whole fractions of light speed) in it's life and then expanded into this massive super giant. Which who knows, maybe that's exactly what happened or something similar, maybe it used to be one and swallowed up another star that's still swirling around it.

[@orchidahussuhadihcro9862]

Something just sounds wrong. 5 km/s on the surface sounds fairly ordinary, considering the diameter is so much more huge than the one of the sun. I don't have all the physical hindsight behind it, but it seems intuitively unremarkable.

[@ittaiklein8541]

Just 100,000 years ?! That's ok, I'll wait. I hope it does in just half that time, so I don't need to wait that much...

[@psymar]

​@@TheJadeFistThat doesn't sound right? Its *angular* momentum would slow with expansion, but the surface speed would be the same, the reason the angular momentum drops is you have the same surface speed but the circumference is larger.

[@bencremy]

I beg you, everyone attempting to communicate science: stop with the clickbait titles. Stop with the "this rewrites everything" stop with the "physics shouldn't allow this."

[@Z0RR0Z]

clickbait=views=money simple equation

[@estamnar6092]

I wouldnt call this title clickbait... That star has been a scientific curiosity forever, its so big it should, according to physics, already be a black hole, but isnt. Its a pretty crazy star.

[@bencremy]

@@estamnar6092 which only means we don't understand it fully. It doesn't mean all of physics as we understand it is incorrect.

[@estamnar6092]

@@bencremy lol. lmao even.

[@bencremy]

@@estamnar6092 gottem.

[@foamheart]

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

[@dario9276santos]

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

[@andymouse]

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

[@davesmith826]

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

[@dudemcguy9293]

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

[@newfreenayshaun6651]

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

[@francispalmer9737]

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

[@Orvieta]

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

[@bradley3549]

@@Orvieta And simultaneously 300,000 year ago.

[@trinomial-nomenclature]

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

[@drgonzo123]

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

[@JasonHebert]

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

[@aeronsongerson2416]

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

[@Iskelderon]

That's the beauty of astrophysics, we've barely scratched the surface of what's to learn!

[@davidanderson6706]

I like the fact that you dont ignore scientists are looking at a blurry visual and trying to understand rather than its a complete Hi definition model and assuming an exact discription. Very important info

[@hazzard_destroyer]

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

[@jumi9342]

And unimaginably big

[@alancliff9208]

So bloody huge too!

[@brucelytle1144]

Everything down here is unique also!

[@ErnestRobinson-v1f]

Betelgeuse was always fascinating but looking at the images of the boiling surface is more than a little disturbing. If the rotational speed is that great then the trajectories of the bubbles away from and then back to the surface should also be pretty high and the spectral shifts should surely be apparently moving at a different rotational speed than the surface?

[@xaviermcgettigan8968]

5:38 me to the ice skater: girl look out there's a sun behind you!

[@garyfilmer382]

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

[@soupdragon151]

Sure because a home telescape can see just as much as the most powerful in the world and you can see it boiling away when noone else can

[@garyfilmer382]

@ I am in no way suggesting that I can see the same detail as a large, professional, observatory telescope can see, you misunderstand me. I am suggesting that, according to my experience, using a large aperture refractor, with very good ocular pieces, at magnifications of between x 250 - 300, ( the reason I am not recommending very high magnifications, is because of ‘star glare’). Betelgeuse did not present itself as a perfectly even, round disk, and that the colouring of the star, was not evenly distributed the same, over the disk of the star. I am suggesting that it’s worth taking a long look, over the duration of an hour, or more, with frequent short pauses, and with adjustments to the focuser as and when necessary. I am suggesting that this observing is done not on any night that Betelgeuse is visible, but only on a night of exceptionally clear sky, with good atmospheric conditions. Try taking photographs, and see what the results are, as I have done. I urge others to do the same, to see what their results of observing are, rather than just accepting written opinions, which seem to suggest that it’s hardly worth trying at all. I would be interested in hearing from any other person who has observed Betelgeuse, particularly through a refractor telescope, of five to six inches in aperture.

[@dragolath62]

Betelgeuse was my favourite star, from when i first got a pair of glasses, and when i got my first telescope. Jupiter was very close to Betelgeuse, about the same as it is right now! Watching it dim over the years did make me question if it was really that bright when i first recognized it. Glad I'm not losing it, and i really hope to see a supernovae in my lifetime!

[@JeevasJerico13]

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

[@user-yy6cy4nn8o]

Beetle juice hater detected!

[@letusreasontogether1168]

5:26 - I don't think that is how angular momentum works. If a rotating object expands, the surface velocity should remain relatively constant while the rate of rotation decreases. Expanding stars probably have a few other factors to add in, like internal particle friction and fluid currents, that may decrease the surface velocity to some extent, but not by the factor of expansion.

[@Vtarngpb]

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

[@Vtarngpb]

Also, “Ludicrous speed!” 😂

[@Pretermit_Sound]

Oh yeah, the “two gay guys having sex” joke? Or something like that? 😂

[@gilmijar]

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

[@a.karley4672]

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

[@douglasstrother6584]

"The Sun is an average yellow Main Sequence star." Amen! Let's hear it for "boring"!

[@kryloxgd]

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

[@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88]

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

[@kryloxgd]

@@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88 ill check him out

[@kryts27]

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

[@patbrennan6572]

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

[@filonin2]

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

[@admiralbenbow5083]

The Vikings landed on Betelgeuse long before that

[@a.karley4672]

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

[@christianblanchard783]

When I was a kid I used to look out one eye and see red and the other I’d see blue, not a huge difference but like the warm and cool setting on your photo editing app but no where near the intensity. Literally just enough to notice

[@jassonword6200]

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

[@mike7652]

So Michael Keaton is the star?

[@aarongreenfield9038]

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

[@highviewbarbell]

@@aarongreenfield9038 but he is a Star though

[@aarongreenfield9038]

@@highviewbarbell Yes, the main star of beetlejuice

[@satanicmicrochipv5656]

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

[@maxbootstrap7397]

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

[@Nomen_Latinum]

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

[@maxbootstrap7397]

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

[@Nomen_Latinum]

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

[@Mark_Bridges]

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

[@maxbootstrap7397]

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

[@MusicFromNowhere]

I'll bet Betelgeuse has already eaten all of its planets.

[@Rhonda-yb5io]

Our true level of understanding the universe around us is in its infancy because the methods of observation we have perfected so far concerning stars relies in analysis of another phenomenon's interaction with it and has to be measured second hand, as it were. No real time data or plans for data soon.

[@BikiniBottomBankRobber]

Well tbf I’m not so sure how close a human could get to a star to make astute observations 🤭

[@TheSolarGuyJK]

Everytime I watch your videos, I'm left in awe of what the universe really is. I still think that we're alone in the universe, and that once human limits are pushed towards interstellar travel, we will then become multiplanetary, multiversary and live in different galaxies. At the moment, there is no where else that can support humanity and life as we know it.

[@taifun442]

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

[@kat10ko]

Lolz

[@victorvirgili4447]

More like laws we’re figuring out. Except gravity, that was manmade

[@RetrovexAmbient]

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

[@itsphoenixingtime]

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

[@BattlewarPenguin]

Really interesting video! Keep shining Betelgeuse!

[@soupdragon151]

Not for very long it's due to go pop anyday, anyday being anytime in the next 100,000 years or so

[@philiproseel3506]

This video scratched right where I itch. Stars, and especially massive monsters like Betelgeuse, are so interesting.

[@youteubakount4449]

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

[@barbarian1111]

I absolutely love to read headlines like THIS 👍 😂

[@trene6559]

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

[@jameshatton4211]

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

[@rickkarrer8370]

I have to imagine it's a little bit of both going on. There's probably average, or slightly above average, rotation, plush bubbling effect.

[@postal_the_clown]

It's a thought... Can we really know how long it takes for a star that just consumed a neighbor to stabilize it's rotation?

[@peterjameson321]

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

[@NocturnalPyro]

11:05 just go there then, these scientists are a bunch of slackers.

[@soupdragon151]

Sure, a faster than light drive is due anyday soon now Musk will get right on it rightaway I'm sure

[@myselfandi67097]

Were you afraid if you properly titles this video "Betelgeuse spins faster than it seems like it should" that nobody would watch it?

[@IljaMuromec114]

Yes, it would get a lot less views and the video was still interesting so the title being clickbait really doesnt matter

[@raeplaysval]

is this your first time on KZbin or something

[@snowcat9308]

Clickbait absolutely matters. It gives people a false sense that scientists have no idea what they're doing and that science is constantly being rebuilt from the ground up. Clickbait enables pseudoscience.

[@tylertubbs3107]

You fucking click bait complainers are so annoying

[@BikiniBottomBankRobber]

Snowcat is right, clickbait enables pseudoscience, and we already have too many people who don’t understand what is up

[@thaburr]

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

[@knutholt3486]

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

[@katiekawaii]

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

[@jameshatton4211]

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

[@Mark_Bridges]

@@jameshatton4211 Really? I'd be interested in hearing specific examples of Neil getting something wrong.

[@thaburr]

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

[@skehleben7699]

I love that telescopes are essentially a time machine! Just looking back of course but how cool!!

[@NedstarYouTube]

Just imagine a black hole that forms from beatlejuice, it would be spinning inconceivably faster than other black holes.

[@shadowdragon3521]

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

[@ximalas]

Do you have their phone number?

[@ThatJay283]

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

[@Hugh.G.Rectionx]

i just told them "git gud at stars nubs"

[@seffard]

You can ask telepathically in an instant.

[@ximalas]

@@seffard How does that work?

[@srebalanandasivam9563]

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

[@JohnDunne001]

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

[@MisterPerson-fk1tx]

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

[@kat10ko]

Boom!

[@soupdragon151]

And you know this because...?

[@priyanshu1168]

Make video on Triton

[@dova4382]

There is an old one!

[@ameliadiaz8040]

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

[@ThaSlappyWappy]

I won’t even lie.. the siren thing.. I didn’t even know.. I watch this channel and I feel so dumb at times.. but I LOVE the feeling of my mind getting absolutely bent up each video. Thank you.🙏

[@Mark_Bridges]

Next time you're out and a siren goes past, take notice. It's a cool effect to hear in real life.

[@MapleLeafCandy]

i love this channel SOOOO MUCH but PLEASE as someone that has trouble processing auditory words/speech, please sync captions to the speech. 😭😭 i have to replay things over and over to make sure the captions lined up with what i heard AND with what i understood so i can fully understand the topics at hand.

[@Gamefreak8112]

clearly our physics isn't complete or correct.

[@FedM1rolka]

Star made of beetle juice? ⚠️🤢

[@PaulHobbs23]

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

[@humaux]

It could easily be revolving faster than normal AND be bubbling. I have no idea and am not qualified to really guess but it would be interesting to know what they eventually find.

[@PurabsAstrology]

Beautiful videos, helps a lot 👍

[@JoeBManco]

The rotation of Betelgeuse isn't that impressive at 20 years. Since Betelgeuse is about as big in diameter as Jupiter's orbit, we can compare the two. Jupiter obits at nearly twice as fast at 12 years.

[@SunShine-xc6dh]

Orbits aren't rotating according to current physics its a striaght path on curved line. Apples and oranges

[@JoeBManco]

@@SunShine-xc6dh Not really. Planetary disks are the leftover star-stuff that becomes planets. That material rotated with the star at one point.

[@phillipheaton9832]

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

[@soupdragon151]

No it isn't, you are.

[@SeraphXS]

Clearly our physics is wrong.

[@MillerVanDotTV]

Pure hubris to think that our model is right…

[@bobbyhumphrey199]

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

[@superheavydeathmetal]

*incomplete

[@superheavydeathmetal]

@@MillerVanDotTVModels aren’t about being “right” or “true”, they are about being as accurate as possible. Nobody thinks any theory we have is 100% accurate and “true”.

[@MillerVanDotTV]

@@superheavydeathmetal most people do not consider that.

[@bphenry]

To tell the two scenarios apart you could just monitor the inferred axis of rotation over time. If it is truly rotation then the axis should remain fixed. If it is due to surface turbulence the axis should swing randomly about. Another possible method would be to look at the distribution of doppler broadening in the spectra. I haven't run the numbers but I would expect that peak red/blue shift contributions would be higher for turbulence than for rotation due to the increased solid angle contribution.

[@mauriciot.p.3576]

This video is freaking awesome! THank you so much, love this channel!

[@memberwhen22]

Ah, theoretical physics. The non-science science.

[@filonin2]

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

[@arandomstreetcat]

u hurt einstein's feelings. :(

[@boblol1465]

i mean you can like... disprove it [sometimes]? so theres at least that

[@Leif-yv5ql]

You lost me with "physics shouldn't allow it".

[@memberwhen22]

HAHAHAHA, imagine, your pseudo-scientific theoretical math doesn't "allow" reality as it is presented to you. More proof theoretical physics isn't really science.

[@haaendaaz3619]

Mmmm for space sure not weather

[@geoffstrickler]

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

[@soupdragon151]

None of which has any relevance to whats being seen here.

[@geoffstrickler]

@ for a star that large (4.1AU), and massive (16.5 solar mass), yes the orbital velocity at the surface is ~56km/s. But if its radius were 0.15AU, the orbital speed at the surface would be ~312km/s. Rotation at below those speeds would hold together. That star radius would be 1/2 the perihelion of Mercury, which is larger than Betelgeuse would likely have been during its main sequence phase.

[@PolyMadd]

I have a question. If Photons all move at the speed of light, independently from where they are emitted, then it shouldn't matter if they are emitted from the part of the star that is moving away from the point of view, or from the other side. So how can the Doppler Effect be a thing with Photons? It doesn't make sense.

[@soupdragon151]

They move at the same speed obviously but moving towards or away the photons are either bunched up because the body is heading towards us or stretched out because its moving away, thats the very definition of frequency and red light is lower frequency and blue light is higher frequency

[@Lord_of_ChaoSan]

Very great explanation about the dopler effect and how it relates to a Stars rotation- I'd never seen an explanation before that breaks it down so clearly. Very good video and the video illustrations help a lot to explain things. Great work! I really hope this thing blew apart long enough ago that I get to see it in the Sky some Day, I'd rather see that than win the lottery, because all of humanity will win a lottery if we get to see that and I'd rather share the Wealth than have it all to myself.

[@richinoable]

Beetlejuice might be cosmically large, but THAT'S some delicate redshift analysis. Clap 🖐️👏🖐️👏🖐️👏👏👏👏

[@PaulsPubAndBrew]

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

[@scottbullock3045]

If we see it go supernova now in the night sky, it actually went off at the time Columbus came across the Atlantic. That's how long it took for the light to reach us on Earth. Let that sink in a minute.😊❤

[@fluxrider7027]

Nice details. One additional detail I would have appreciated would have been a quick explanation of how we calculated its mass. And could its interior be a different level of massiveness than we would expect?

[@g0ast]

If it's spinning that fast, it'll become a millisecond pulsar when it collapses, or it's also a possibility that because it's spinning so fast, it could also become a magnetar, one of the scariest, coolest things in the universe besides a black hole.

[@HelloThere.....]

10:00 OR the answer could be that we learn more about turbulent flow than we realized. What if turbulent flow can manifest in a uniform way? Where there are still patches that contain more or less energy so that it could be mistaken for rotation? Or, perhaps energy flows in a rotational way and some other factor causes it to manifest as seemingly more turbulent?

[@alexanderx33]

Doppler shift is more obvious at lower frequencies and higher speeds, so a propeller plane passing low overhead is a more audible example than an ambulance.

[@balcersaurus]

Havent seen a youtube ad for years. It is already ad free to anyone paying attention to the right browser

[@johnmason8968]

Curiously, I have been observing for a while--with my naked eyes--a bright red object in the night sky that I initially assumed to be Betelgeuse. But I was rather confused by what appears to be a vivid, glowing blue ring at the top of the object, since I had never known anything about the Betelgeuse having blue in its overall coloration. Now, however, as a result of seeing this very well done and informative video, I have learned much more about the star than I might have ever expected to learn about it.

[@tothespace2122]

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

[@geraldstacy3658]

So, even with that, wouldn't it be easy to rule it one way or the other by collecting a large enough of a sample size of images to determine how much of the Doppler shift is speed and how much is bubbling gasses? Also, by comparing all of the images in the same orientation. If the shifts tend to follow a fairly consistent pattern, say red left, blue right, that should clarify things quite a lot.

[@MrHistorian123]

The rotation of a star broadens the spectral lines in the stars spectrum due to opposite Doppler shifts on either side of the star's visible photosphere. The faster the rotation, the broader the line. Rotational broadening usually gives a smooth wavelength profile to the spectral line. Lines are also broadened by the random thermal motion of the atoms and molecules in the star's atmosphere, but this is most noticeable in hot stars, as the atoms move faster. Since Betelgeuse is cool, this effect should be small.

[@earthexpanded]

Another possibility dependent on what the data is like (what you showed didn't look particularly like it would fit but just a thought): a detectable night and day for the star where some other star radiates on it and is creating a dichotomy to its heat much like on Earth but in much grander magnitudes where it is detectable on a star the size of Betelgeuse. But tbh the bubble concept makes some sense--its likely that as a star approaches supernova, its outer region which is most exposed to space and thereby behaves like the crust of the Earth has to first be broken into pieces before it can release internal energy, which would lead to a boiling type of intermediary step perhaps.

[@asfaqalam6005]

1:56 is this some kind of map? If it is, how can I access it.

[@Nightrunnergunner]

nope. got to put in some work kidd

[@HarperChisari]

Universe sandbox 2

[@maosenlin4170]

We can test whether the color gradient is caused by rotation by checking if the feature persists over idfferent observations. If it does, then it's likely that it's rotation. Otherwise it's definitely not.

[@rodrigoborges3876]

I wonder if such a high rotational speed would impact the lifespan of such a star by adding another outwards force to compete against gravitational collapse alongside the stars own internal fusion pressures. At a mass that big with that much rotational speed, the apparent centrifugal forces would be monstrous