Massive stars and supernovae - with Thomas Haworth

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Liked this video? Check out the Q&A here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4nMi4Gue5hqjtE for more on massive stars and destruction in space

[@spellkowski6996]

amazing - thx was just wishing we had the q+a at the end

[@Tacit_Tern]

Just the distraction I needed at work, at the moment.

[@bobb.6393]

That's what artificial limbs are for.

[@photon434]

I learned a ton. Some of the best explanations I've heard and superb use of visual aids like the balloons, ladders, and heat. 🎈 I hope to hear more from Thomas Haworth.

[@dotanwolf5640]

i love how a cloud of gas compresses on itself, raising the temperature and breaking the laws of thermodynamics. what a star...

[@andycordy5190]

Wow! So much food for thought. I had imagined that the accretion disks would be infinitely variable in terms of mass and content, so that competitive accretion takes place in star forming regions in the bir 1:01:44 th of different stars and also in the birth of new solar systems. So, around a small star it is possible that several large planets form and around a larger star with little matter left over from forming the star remaining available to make planets. I love this idea of quiet, gassy or dusty regions shielding star forming regions from destructive UV radiation and therefore being fertile areas where young stars are more likely to form more substantial planets. Really wonderful work. Thank you I really liked the powerpoint animations which made the phenomenon of cloud shielding really direct.

[@spellkowski6996]

this was supergood -- felt like I learned so much ofc was already aware of the variety of star sizes, etc, but had no idea of their dynamic impact on the surrounding environment

[@David_Lo_Pan]

Fascinating presentation.

[@MR27e]

Enjoyed his lecture, he was at the Queen mary open day event that was online. He presented the msc astrophysics programme, the degree programme I'm looking to get into after my maths degree finishes. 👍

[@WasimAkram0]

Thank you for lecture, I learned alot also the demos were very helpful. I really enjoyed the presenter Thomas Haworth.

[@Life_42]

Great video! I enjoyed it very much!

[@exoyt7575]

Excellent speaker, nice talk, well done (: Gerard 't Hooft for actually trying to make a start for exact models.

[@S-I-T]

Fantastic lecture. Thank you.

[@nirmell]

Amazing content and presentation, thank you so much

[@clairecsmith7609]

The Royal Institution is a wonderful place - I went to see an astronomy presentation there in November 2008 & astronomer Patrick Moore was in the audience. Regards Claire. I've just had to edit my comment as I realised I put the wrong yr - I think I'd attended the presentation in November 2009.

[@NStagg]

Really really good presentation!!

[@paulthew2]

Excellent presentation.

[@bremensname6057]

good show, great job demonstration team

[@matiassebastianzarricuetap2522]

Hi, great presentation! Very user-friendly to understand the underlying physics in these interesting stars. I would like to use the image from 03:30 on an informative video that we are doing at my university to explain the scarcity of massive stars, but I'm wondering to whom the image credits should go, whether to Thomas Haworth, The Royal Institution, or some other entity. Great work and thank you again for sharing the knowledge!

[@nimbusnation9584]

I really really enjoy your presentation

[@robbie_]

Very interesting talk. Thanks for sharing.

[@stevepartridge2959]

Excellent talk.

[@qbarnes1893]

Truth is, we actually don’t know, it’s conjecture and assumption. Tiny minuscule errors give massive errors of conjecture. The whole space theory is, at best, young in its understanding, beautiful and yet bewildering

[@frozennorth3426]

in the world of science, the notions of “truth” and “know” are vague waves of the hand toward a more complex, beautiful, and realistic process of understanding

[@BabarizamDK]

Simply amazing!!!

[@whirledpeas3477]

Smooth voice. Makes this a good one to go to sleep with.

[@4nrmike]

Less than two minutes in, and he keeps mentioning degrees Kelvin. As an absolute scale, Kelvin is not expressed in degrees, that designation is for reference temperature scales.

[@richardperry100]

Given that most of the mass in the universe is now said to be 'Dark Matter' and that the universe is swamped by 'Dark Energy', what bearing do these have on the current understanding of star formation. (Not forgetting the effect of the Higgs Field on photons etc!)

[@gregster6686]

What's the software used for the accretion simulation?

[@ClassicRiki]

12:12 I think the comment made by the member of the audience that he started with a sphere, which is not how the simulation should have been generated; pretty sure that the presenter genuinely messed that up. That’s an extremely fundamental character which will have a massive (pun intended) effect because of the emergent properties which a seed in a simulation will create

[@alex79suited]

I think this is a great video, and i believe i can help you.

[@alex79suited]

In an EMFS all particles that can hold a charge will do so. So I think when certain fields interact with those charged particles stars will form. But I believe there is a point of no return for stars forming.

[@sarcasmo57]

Al pretty neat.

[@frankbarnwell____]

Ah. A super nova! Tyvm. I'm in

[@EricYow]

How do I locate the published paper(s) referenced in this lecture?

[@DominicRyanOsborne]

Stealth starfield plug

[@route7572]

Use relativie frequencies to effect the quantum kicks

[@koud29]

If you're not sure what a degree Kelvin is.... No I'm not familiar with that. degree Kelvin is the the unit of Temerature squared?

[@tomsmith4542]

Great video, very informative. Thanks

[@mayflowerlash11]

At about 47:00 we see a planet forming from a gaseous accretion disk. I have two questions. Is there a bias in the axial orientation of solar systems when a large number of systems are measured? Second allowing for the assumed random orientation is there a bias between clockwise and anticlockwise direction of rotation.

[@DrDeuteron]

Counterclockwise is just upside down clockwise.

[@alex79suited]

Why do dwarf stars last longer because the mass is the same but they burn slower because they're circumference makes this possible 🤔. Its cool 😎 i know.

[@colonelkurtz2269]

Albert Einstein made contributions to physics. His brother Frank made well he made a monster

[@TomiTapio]

Supernovas missing from the simulation?

[@ThunderBassistJay]

DEGREES kelvin???

[@richardperry100]

We normally just refer to Kelvin, but the same can be said for Celcius - it has become common to precede the name of the unit with 'degrees'😂

[@Damnsimetra]

😊

[@alex79suited]

Respectfully that's incorrect Professor. Where's the EMFS.

[@ClassicRiki]

21:20 we all love liquid nitrogen but come on…let’s not just waste that sh*t. 22:40 I think HE has been “shaken up”…he was concerned enough to mention it before spewing the next simulation so he’s clearly thinking about it. I feel bad for him…but then…maybe be more thorough if you’re having someone make computer simulation’s to present at the Royal Institution

[@plasmaburndeath]

Still in first 20 minutes of video, enjoying but a quick correction. {The Kelvin temperature scale is an absolute temperature scale with zero at absolute zero. Because it is an absolute scale, measurements made using the Kelvin scale do not have degrees.} but not a huge issue.

[@dotanwolf5640]

"fillamentary is how we call it..." he says in chapter two on how stars are formed. nothing in the gravity model suggested anything about fillamentation in space. a radial force will not form fillaments. the ones who did predict and say anything about fillaments in space before their discovery were the plasma cosmology physicists like birkeland and alfven.this ad-hoc fantasy of the standead model is unecceptable. i just noticed a typo..but i think ill leave it like that.

[@IainAnderson-yg8bk]

don't use the word degree with Kelvin, it is the absolute temperature scale. A scientist should know better

[@ClassicRiki]

Nothing against the science itself or his work, but at 19:04 I’m not particularly impressed with the demonstrations (I’d rather not have them than silly ones, I’m not a small child). The simulation issue that the man in the audience pointed out has made me lose a lot of confidence in this man’s research haha

[@MR27e]

You know I actually searched your name on google to see your scientific credentials (yes I do mean PhD, not gcse level), you know what I found? 👇 Nothing

[@traiandavid]

There is no such thing as ‘degree Kelvin’…

[@alex79suited]

I will delete those comments and start over. Im in a thunderstorm lol.outside

[@EnergyTRE]

😂😂 space has no properties. it acts on nothing

[@KapitanSpiryt]

Deaf hear me? 😒 WTF?

[@mykrahmaan3408]

Concepts "pressure, gravity, heat" are all mere words, without any physically interpretable difference. The only characteristic (or property) of the entire Bohrean atom model with physical "interpretability" is MASS, which can be perceived as corresponding to the size (volume) of particles and, to some extent SPIN, which can be imagined as a particular type of motion of the particle with mass. Even the latter is not sufficiently "physical" as any motion is supposed to require FORCE, which again is a mere physically uninterpretable word. But the most important property of any atom, that specifies uniqueness of each, THE CHARGE, is a totally SPOOKY property, without any physical meaning, which even EINSTEIN failed to note. And electrons revolving around the nucleus "naturally" violates Newton's First Law. The entire particle physics is nothing but VERBAL JUGGLING justified only because the mathematics works in practice. The fact that the Newton's Laws works so well even for calculations of the latest space flights doesn't prove the explanation he associated to it (as Einstein proved), along with the fact that even both the explanations (Newton's and Einstein's) fail to account for more than 95% of the matter in the universe (DM and DE), is evidence enough to compel any sensible person to seriously reconsider the confidence attached to our current atom and cosmological models and explanations using them. There is very serious flaws in the fundamentals of TEOS (The Experimental and Observational Science) that demands reconsideration of our FAITH (the brute confidence of its accuracy) in it. This can be rectified by assuming every particle to possess inbuilt MOBILITY (magnitude and direction of motion) instead of MASS, (which requires an external force to move it) as explained in my earlier comment in this same post.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

Gravity doesn't exist ~ neither as force (Newton) nor as curvature of spacetime (Einstein). Resultant MOBILITY of particles in substances within (or entering) the interval around any celestial entity (including earth) cause the motion towards the center of that celestial entity. This is the same for all motion. Apparent forces ~ all 4 ~ are our own assumptions, because we imagine normal state of matter is to remain at rest and motion requires an external "impulse" or "push", while the particles with inbuilt MOBILITY require no such external push for them to move. On the contrary, rest occur only as dynamic balancing of particles with different MOBILITIES (different in magnitude and direction). All particles are VECTORS. Hence, Thomson's Plum~Pudding model of atom is the closest to what really represents the internal structure of all substances. Current orbitals would be substituted by unique arrangement of smaller particles (Plums) on any single large particle (Pudding), many of which interact to compose different substances and beings. That way LIFE function can simply correspond to substances possessing different (unique for each type of being) number of small particles generated by the center of the earth on big particles generated towards that center by the centers of other stars, thus integrating micro phenomena with macro ones along with a smooth, elementary particle dependent, way to progress from nonliving to living substances. Small particles released from a substance would increase the mobility of that substance by increasing the total resultant mobility of the substance (in magnitude and direction), as a result, if magnitude of the mobility of particles are proportional to their sizes. Such release of small particles from any substance could occur through internal initiation (living beings) or by external initiation (nonliving substances).

[@Eireann.]

The lack of testosterone is wild

[@tomhoworth9768]

Your name is spelled incorrectly.