Biggest and Smallest Stars - Sixty Symbols

Featuring Professor Mike Merrifield from the University of Nottingham.
More links and info below ↓ ↓ ↓
More videos with Mike: bit.ly/Merrifie...
Deep Sky Videos: / deepskyvideos
Paul Crowther on DSV: • Magellanic Clouds (and...
Pi Million: • Pi Million Subscribers...
Visit our website at www.sixtysymbol...
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at / sixtysymbols
This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham
bit.ly/NottsPhy...
Patreon: / sixtysymbols
Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran
www.bradyharanb...
Email list: eepurl.com/YdjL9

[@randomuser778]

Any time Prof. Mike uses the phrase "The interesting thing about...", whatever comes next is _always_ a wonderful bit of insight. I love his explanations of things. More Mike Merrifield please!

[@jjbudinski8486]

Excellent video, so many little nuggets of knowledge in such a short video- the bit about Jupiter was a nice bonus.

[@randomuser778]

Indeed it was!

[@thatblackboy5670]

“1 million years, blink and you’ll miss it”

[@Tore_Lund]

astronomers spouse: ""Our anniversary is just a momentary celebration, but our love is timeless." Astronomer: "What are you talking about? We have only known each other for less than a blink of an eye."

[@ThatPsdude]

4:45 In case any one was wondering, SCR 1845-6357 has a solar mass of 0.07

[@amisfitpuivk]

8:10 Trying to pull a fast one on me?!?! I heard that imperial Probe Droid! lol

[@CheshireTomcat68]

I thought it was an accidental Rickenbacker Bass!

[@Ferroes]

Hi; hi

[@checkpointcovid8021]

Those are not the Imperial Probe Droids you're looking for.

[@RyanAtOptimism]

YES! ME TOO!

[@Stadtpark90]

I thought it’s one of those KSP inspired fan-movies... (- I just don’t remember the name)

[@YardaFreeman]

4:44 "Aww" 😄

[@mrrn100]

I just LOVE the way he speaks so fast and i get every single word.! Radiation Pressure is just fantastically rushed on his voice!

[@danielcook1271]

Mike Merrifield is the best thing on KZbin at the moment. These videos are just superb! Thank you!

[@cuca_str4151]

Love u Brady, please don’t forget this awesome channel, sometimes it takes really a while to release a video, but they’re all great, love your work

[@danielkerr4100]

All of his channels are amazing

[@hsdsaunders]

Yeah this is my favourite of Bradys/Nottingham University's channels. Love the Professor from Peridoic Videos tho.

[@cuca_str4151]

Stuart Saunders Oh, he’s also amazing, absolutely love that channel, sad that’s a bit abandoned :(

[@emarsk77]

This channel consistently proves that you don't need fancy graphics and annoying background music to have phenomenal quality when you have excellent content.

[@fefohood]

Thank you Brady. Please keep making videos.

[@chrissscottt]

I bet the professor's lectures are very popular. Such a great communicator.

[@ivanzizek3562]

My favorite sixty symbols host Mr. Mike Merrifield again in a video full of interesting information in a so small amount of time. You really have to see video more then ones to comprehend all the info that it is layed in it if you are not a physicist. Very interesting, very interesting.

[@eduardoguthrie7443]

Little Mike in his supermarket rocket ship is the cutest thing I've seen all day, a space explorer from the cradle.

[@N.I.R.A.T.I.A.S.]

"You always talk about stars." Yes. And we are extremely fortunate to hear it.

[@Jokoko2828]

Stars are really neat.

[@slayerem]

What a pleasant surprise this upload is. I want to wish all the team a Happy New Year and keep doing what you do best, bringing science closer to the public.

[@SoleaGalilei]

Great video as always! Professor Merrifield is always wonderful.

[@iambiggus]

Mike Merrybeard! This feels like a late Christmas present, thanks Brady! 🎅😁

[@MusterdTiger]

Merry xmas Brady and professor Merrifield

[@Dr.Kornelius]

How about quick video on Betelguese? 😉

[@vikranttyagiRN]

Oh Yes Please

[@MusicBent]

They just did that didn’t they?

[@IanKemp1960]

Wow a great video. I am a professional astronomer... and I JUST managed to keep up with this explanation! Highly condensed and accurate information :-) thanks!

[@JohnDCrafton]

I was hoping Brady would answer "a star is a miasma of incandescent plasma"

[@HaynerVideos]

i wish he was one of my professors- great delivery.

[@Ionee-q4f]

big stars are of course great in so many way, but i really enjoy small stars, still so dynamic and interesting!

[@brokentombot]

Talking about the physics of stars all the time sounds like a fun addiction.

[@makoyoverfelt3320]

Yessss made my morning, love you guys, keep it up Brady!

[@fnersch3367]

Michael is magical: that's for sure.

[@TheRockMorton]

Professor: what is a star? Me: I dunno.

[@edsmith2562]

I cannot imagine a head space where haters can dislike anything Prof.Mike Merrifield had to say. I' d watch the man build a cheese sandwich.

[@TheRealGuywithoutaMustache]

Astronomy is such an interesting field to me

[@Mrfailstandstil]

6:34 wow, that animation is just beautiful, if there is an original video of it on KZbin somewhere and if someone can point me to that vid pls🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@LukaZovko]

Can you do a video about Gravastars?

[@Benlucky13]

what is that simulation starting at 6:35 from? i could watch that play on repeat for hours. super fascinating

[@Josh-mu7qy]

It's a video from Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA).

[@WetaMantis]

That 3D sound with headphones! I legit thought it was thundering outside!

[@phonzy]

I'm so glad I've stumbled onto this video and channel. Stellar Chemistry and physics is so fascinating. I have a minimal understanding of how fusion takes place at different depths inside of stars. However, one thing I've always wondered is what roles do the heavy elements play in the cores of stars.

[@Dajobi1]

Mike wins an award for straight up science

[@carlstanland5333]

I,too, am in a constant battle between my inside pressure and gravity.

[@freedumbsquirts4809]

Try rocking back and forth.

[@seansimms8503]

Just like a star bro...we must maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, never let rage blow you apart, never shrink to be lesser than what you are, there's a fine balance and each persons radius differs from the next just like stars.

[@jahrenskiashkevron1499]

Very massive things are very bright. Nice!

[@tyleralmquist7606]

Well actually while if you laid out all the stars on a number line that was their sizes, the sun would be towards the lower end of the line it actually is more massive than most stars out there. It’s by no means a big star but there are just so many small ones that the sun is actually towards the higher end of a list of all stars from least massive to most

[@yashovardhandubey5252]

What would you consider heavy elements?

[@john-or9cf]

Yashovardhan dubey elements heavier than lithium

[@belg4mit]

He's an astronomer. Anything with an atomic number greater than 3 is a "metal", and therefore "heavy;" see big bang nucleosynthesis.

[@loadsmasher698]

More! Give me more new Sixty Symbols videos!

[@jackfadell]

Do all stars stop fusion at Iron? Or can higher mass stars stop at denser elements?

[@SuperLoops]

they have to stop at iron bcus its only the outward pressure of the energy released by fusion that stops stars collapsing to super dense states. but iron is the biggest atom that you can get energy out by fusing lighter elements to get to it. anything bigger than iron takes more energy to fuse than it releases, so the star collapses and the rebound from that collapse is a supernova

[@ayush.kumar.13907]

@@SuperLoops "anything bigger than iron takes more energy to fuse than it releases" Actually this starts to happen at Iron itself.

[@ksss6406]

The issue is that fusing iron is an endothermic process, that is it takes more energy to make iron than is liberated in the fusion. So when you start fusing iron, the temperature of the stellar core plummets and the star contracts. Depending on the star type, what happens next can vary but suffice to say there can be more fusion as density in the core goes up and you can get periodic fusion of different elements in shells around the cores. The end result is, the stars will shed a lot of their mass and the tug of war between gravitational collapse and outward radiation pressure gets a lot more volatile. You can also get supernovas at mid-high masses which is where most of the elements larger than iron come from. The end result is a white Dwarf, neutron star or black hole depending on the star's mass. Regardless, iron fusion is the herald of stellar death but those deaths can look very different and take different amounts of time and can involve heavier element synthesis.

[@ColinBroderickMaths]

Small stars don't make it as far as iron of course, and the ones that do will generate small amounts of cobalt and nickel, which come after iron. But no, no star makes significant amounts of anything bigger than iron during its life. Roughly speaking, heavier elements are made during super novas.

[@SuperLoops]

I think a lotve the heavier elements out in the universe so available for new planets and stuff are made by neutron star mergers. when neutron stars merge its all messy and stuff from their crusts which is iron and all kinds of other stuff which gets flang out and R processed into other stuff by following neutrons so youd have like iron atoms getting hit by fast neutrons and some of them stick and some of those decay to proton + electron and probably a neutrino or w/e too. but thats where the extra nuclear mass comes from rather than two lighter elements getting squidged together.

[@brucea9871]

This video was not about the biggest and smallest stars but about the most and least massive stars. The terms "biggest" and "smallest" refer to physical size (diameter in the case of stars), not mass. I really wish posters of KZbin videos would have more accurate titles for their videos.

[@vuurniacsquarewave5091]

Really timely video, as Betelgeuse is said to have dropped in luminosity recently, indicating a possible supernova relatively "soon" in astronomical terms. It would be beyond anything to see that.

[@pedrovpa1]

Could you guys do a vídeo on Von Neumann Entropy?

[@Dantheon]

Brilliant video! Where did you get that Population III star formation simulation? It was great.

[@omikronweapon]

Imagine seeing the first stars... that feels just a step away from seeing the actual origin of the universe. (It probably won't be, and probably takes a lot more time, if even possible, but still..)

[@rhoddryice5412]

Merri Field and Happy New Symbols

[@marksimpson2321]

When a star first 'ignites' , how long does it take? Does it happen almost instantly like switching a light on or does it take days weeks yesrs 100,000s of years to heat up like a fire?

[@Sakkura1]

5:08 If you think about it in percentiles instead, it turns out around 85-90% of stars are smaller than the Sun. So it's actually a relatively large star.

[@avinotion]

You mean Sol is far above the median?

[@Sakkura1]

@@avinotion yes, well above it

[@russchadwell]

What's going on with Betelgeuse?

[@CptPatch]

Probably nothing, potentially something. It has always been a very variable star and it has been this dim before (although not in recent history). It is possible that we will see a dimming event like this one right before it blows, but we don't actually know for sure.

[@80Loke]

Going supernova and we are going to get fried

[@vargohoat9950]

red giant, doing what sol will do in 5 billion years, be unable to keep the ratio of expansion, then supernova resulting in a neutron star or white dwarf. mebber itll have enough mass to create a black hole

[@doctorscoot]

vargo hoat the Sun will not go supernova or produce a neutron star - just end as a white dwarf in a planetary nebula. Betelgeuse is way more massive.

[@vargohoat9950]

@S M our sun goes red goant like betel, in 5 billion years , if theres accretion enough before then, who is to say it doesnrt become one thing or another?

[@erictaylor5462]

A star is defined as a body that is carrying out nuclear fusion in its core. A white dwarf/neutron star is not a star, but a stellar remnant.

[@marksimpson2321]

Mike astounds again with some really thought-provoking ideas! Is the explosion of a star blowimg itself up cos of the light energy the same type of explosion as a supernova when the gravitational energy becomes dominant?

[@bengoodwin2141]

Could you have a Star way more massive than the most massive ones where the exploded gas that’s blown off gets pulled back down after it explodes by the leftover parts, and so it starts fusion again? Could a giant Star that you kept adding hydrogen to sort of pulse on and off for a long time? Could you theoretically make a giant shell out of heavy elements to physically push gas back in and get stars way larger?

[@SocksWithSandals]

What was the symbol that describes maximum star size?

[@spongebob7285]

Michael merrifield is the human representation of the 300iq meme, this guy is a machine

[@988taz]

From a Tim named Tom, with more sensitive telescopes possibly being able to see the faint light of the first stars, how do astronomers and cosmologists differentiate the light from separate stars and not just receive a muddled mess? How do they make such determinations with light from other stars, lensing, and everything else that would interfere with the image?

[@FlesHBoX]

It's interesting that when asked what the largest star was he went straight to highest mass, when r136a1 is significantly smaller than UY Scuti which is about 100 times larger, but about 1/3 the mass. It makes you wonder how large r136a1 would be if it had the same mass to radius ratio. Imagine a star with a 53 thousand solar radius size!!!

[@FlesHBoX]

For reference, that would be larger than Sol's heliopause....

[@belg4mit]

Maybe because radius varies across a star's life, depending on what it's burning, etc.but its mass does not change nearly as much?

[@garethdean6382]

Sadly it seems there are good reasons to believe that UY Scuti is at the larger end of what's possible, size-wise. Since gravity drops exponentially the force holding a larger satar's gas to it drops quickly as it grows and at some point below 2'000 solar radii or so there's not much to stop it just being blown into space.

[@SoulmongerV2]

That Jupiter fact blew my mind.

[@00bean00]

At what time stamp?

[@rJaune]

Will the fact that the luminosity and mass for larger stars are comparable make it harder to find the first stars?

[@runematthijssens2304]

Is UYScuti the most recent biggest star?

[@alijassim7015]

Brady, please give sixty symbols some justice! I saw a lot more physics content on numberphile than on sixty symbols,,, not fair at all. We need some physics! Look at PBS space time, it is fucking fire. It is not like there is no more new physics to talk about!

[@aetherseraph]

So if the relationship between radiation pressure and gravity becomes asymptotic, then what is the expected upper limit in solar masses of progenitor stars?

[@myarchus1]

This video mentioned the most massive star(s). What about the largest stars, as is the greatest diameter? I would really like an explanation of how objects that large can still be considered stars when they are so diffuse--little more than vacuum, if my back of the envelope calculations are anything to go by.

[@lutek1]

I don't get it. What am I missing, please? R136a1 is 300x the mass of the sun. But when I read about, say...."The supergiant primary, known as VV Cephei A, is currently recognised as one of the largest stars in the galaxy although its size is not certain. The best estimate is 1,000 R☉, which is nearly as large as the orbit of Jupiter." Isn't that quite a lot (I mean A LOT) bigger than 300x the sun? Also, those famous pics of comparative star sizes, they can't be very acurate then. You know the ones, with Aldebaran < Rigel < Antares < Betelgeuse, and all the rest. Hope someone can clarify. Thanks.

[@gmscott9319]

@Sixty Symbols Is that digits 60-76 of pi (half-tau) at the end? If so, why? If not, what is it?

[@funkyflames7430]

GM Scott I think it is because numberphile just got pi million subscribers.

[@OrcinusDrake]

It's a link, if you click it it'll take you to that vid

[@dougniergarth236]

What is the equation for the balance between stellar gravity and radiation pressure?

[@flamencoprof]

It's said that if you can't explain what you know to the average person, you don't understand it yourself. This post is proof that the opposite is also true.

[@craigmckinney2219]

Okay. Here's a question. We see galaxies that are 13.5 billlion light years away from us are there any galaxies or stars, that we can see the old light from but also see a newer closer version of , say a few thousand or million light years away. That should be possible since we are looking at light that has been traveling that long. What if the object has moved toward us?

[@puttefnask]

The speed of light is 299 792 458 meters per second. New light can't catch up to its old light. If an object is moving towards us we can see its blueshift, if it moves away we can see its redshift, because we are hitting its wavelengths faster or slower depending on if the object is coming toward us or away from us. Also we must consider that we could be moving away or moving towards the object. If an object is closer, it simply takes light shorter time to reach us, and any previous older light from it has already hit our planet before we started observing the skies.

[@stuffthings1417]

Do a shot for each "actually"

[@unvergebeneid]

Doesn't luminosity increase because of the increased pressure due to gravity? Wouldn't then an outwards force counteract this and move the equilibrium point?

[@garethdean6382]

Yes. For small stars an increase in mass causes an increase in pressure in the core of the star that is greater than a 1:1 ratio because the extra mass can increase the star's density, increasing the average gravity in a vicious cycle. The result of this tends to be a compact, bright core 'puffing up' the outer layers until they 'boil off'. With very massive stars however significant pressure builds up as the star collapses, preventing the core from compressing as much as it otherwise would,leaving the star less dense so that extra mass does not have such a great effect on internal gravitational pressure and leading to a more linear relationship between mass and luminosity.

[@6Twisted]

As the star is 10,000,000 times brighter than the sun, I want to know if there's planets around it and if they're just molten blobs in tear drop shapes from all the solar wind/radiation.

[@iveharzing]

I think that planets around giant stars might just form WAY further away than planets around sun-like stars, so maybe they won't be that hot. Then again I'm not an astrophysicist, so don't quote me on that.

[@flexico64]

That's an amusing image haha!

[@Neidzwiedz1]

At an educated guess these supermassive stars would never (probably) have planets. They don’t live anywhere near long enough to form them.

[@chrisgriffith1573]

So... spin and field strength is not giving the star the ability to be larger than 150 solar masses? Would spin not offset the higher mass, and explain why these "extra large" stars are so rare at the same time? (Assuming that the highest spin is a rare formation property to begin with)

[@krowwweee2918]

Twinkle, Twinkle, SCR1845 -6357

[@ramuk1933]

It's not the biggest star, it's the most massive star. The star with the most volume is (likely) Stephenson 2-18.

[@illogicmath]

This scientist thinks much faster than he can talk.

[@avinotion]

Everyone does. But Mike Merrifield here talks much faster than WE can think. Well, most of us, at least.

[@illogicmath]

@@avinotion yes, at least me

[@LordSorus]

@@avinotion I think a lot slower than I can talk. If I have to form a thought on a new topic it takes me 5 Minutes to an hour to form coherent sentences in my mind.

[@avinotion]

@@LordSorus that's a whole another problem you have there...

[@Wiss13h]

Mike Merrifield for president of the milky way galaxy

[@myguitardidyermom212]

so much room for activities here in the comments

[@IndigoUltra]

Wait a minute white dwarfs aren't stars? What happens when they cool off? Do they freeze into something or does the strong force or tidal forces break it up?

[@hadynsimpson3884]

I think sometimes they can be left as a huge ball of diamond. Might be wrong but i think i heard that somewhere

[@WhirlingSteel]

1:23 BIG.

[@sabarapitame]

There is something I dont get it, when it came about observation of ver distant things.. Could it be that the light of those objects have already reach us and pass over us, and never been detectable again? I hope I was writen right. Greetings from Argentina

[@temporaryphase]

Stars constantly throw out light. The light photons then travels forever in every direction.

[@stevencurtis7157]

1:25 BIG

[@ronnytm]

I would watch a whole video about why Jupiter gives off more light than it absorbs.

[@BrettCaton]

I wonder what is the longest time a star would shine for if nuclear fusion didn't exist, and all they had to heat them up was gravity? A million years? A few thousand?

[@torb-no]

This is about the stars with the most and least mass, but what about stars with the largest and lowest volume?

[@akki9991]

What about UY Scuti? - > Radius: 738.35 million mi while R136a1 -> Radius: 13.049 million mi

[@mendax7125]

Akshay Bijapur Yeah I thought about this as well

[@KishlaySingh04]

Hey dumbo... do you know the difference between most massive and biggest star?

[@zaephou2843]

I think he meant big as in most massive, not largest radius.

[@FlesHBoX]

Yeah, the highest mass star is 100 times smaller in radius than the largest star which is 1/3 the mass. It's a super interesting thing. I did some napkin math, and if r136a1 had the same ratio of mass to radius it would be over 53 thousand solar radii!!!

[@MaterialAmbience]

UY Scuti is a star around 20 solar masses that has grown old and evolved, and so has swollen up into a red supergiant. R136a1 is too massive and too unstable to swell beyond its current size, it will simply blow itself apart as it ages.

[@deepfriedsammich]

You talked all the way around it but never mentioned Eddington Luminosity by name? Why?

[@0FG0]

Wait... Are you telling me that we measured the diameter of Jupiter to a precision high enough to determine that it shrinks by just 1cm a year..? I knew the accuracy of measurements these days is astronomical (pun intended), but damn.. Hats off to those scientists Also, happy new year :)

[@Oldfaithful61]

No. We can calculate the shrinking, not measure it.

[@nopetuber]

There are some audio sync issues, is it just me?

[@RubixB0y]

Are you using a Bluetooth device?

[@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ]

Seemed fine to me. See if the same occurs at a lower resolution.

[@adamqazsedc]

00:02

[@LeatherCladVegan]

That's Numberwang!

[@FreeScience]

Wish they were clearer that it's about massive and not large stars. R136a1 is not that big, compared to the hypergiants, such as UY Scuti which in turn are not that massive.

[@marianmusic7221]

@Sixty Symbols I thought you will be talking about the biggest and the smallest stars, like the title says, not about the most and the least massive ones. Little mistake :))) I appreciate your channel, though! Happy new year! :)

[@deanlemckeevans]

Anyone know what generation of star is our sun? Also how many generations of stars are there?

[@coopergates9680]

Please do not interchange "big" and "massive". UY Scuti is a lot larger than R136a1, albeit less massive.

[@Armuotas]

Is it BIG? Yeah, it's BIIIIIGG!

[@StreuB1]

I am a simple man. I see a video with Professor Merrifield, I click Like.

[@bobinmaine1]

Hmmm, if Jupiter is slowly contracting will it eventually reach a critical mass? And is there a theory on what happens when a gas planet does reach "critical mass"? I realize it would be billions of years out but definitely interesting to think about.

[@boboften9952]

4:53 ? Brown Dwarf ? Brimmer , Bryton , Brat , Brister ? Fish , Fish , Fish , Fish ......

[@MusKubium]

*starts SSX* EA SPORTS 1:25

[@doctorscoot]

Although in terms of stellar masses (O B A F G K M) the Sun is at the lower end (G) of the scale, I find it interesting that of of all stars, it’s more massive than 90% of them. In that way, it is not a ‘typical’ star at all.

[@buttsufancypantsu1644]

Those are spectral types, friend, they don't denote mass although there is a loose correlation.

[@doctorscoot]

buttsu fancypantsu while on the main sequence they do correlate to mass. And you will see astronomers even on this channel talk about the ‘more massive’ O and B type stars. Anyway, most stars and type M, red dwarfs.

[@buttsufancypantsu1644]

@@doctorscoot If we're only talking about main sequence stars, you are of course absolutely correct. But it still should be pointed out that the scale you've referenced is for spectra, and specifically correlates to temperature rather than mass.

[@doctorscoot]

buttsu fancypantsu yes of course, but we do know that more massive is brighter and bluer for anything burning its hydrogen. Anyway my point was about the ‘typicality’ of the Sun, which is to say, it’s not a ‘common’ star at all as the vast majority of stars are far fainter and less massive and more redder. Even though in mass terms it’s towards the lower end of the scale.

[@buttsufancypantsu1644]

@@doctorscoot Oh, we agree, I just think Mr. Merrifield was using that term to imply the Sun was more or less in the middle in logarithmic terms, all star masses considered - which it kind of is.