Hanny's Voorwerp - Sixty Symbols
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ส.ค. 2009
- A mysterious object (with an equally mysterious name) may have been revealed by a strange "light echo" in deepest space. More videos at www.sixtysymbols.com/
With Meghan Gray - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Greetings to everyone coming over from the Numberphile video _A Sequence With A Mistake_
Was browsing the comments exactly for this 👍
voorwerp moment
👋🏻
here here
Cheers
As a citizen scientist in the Spacewarps project - analyzing CFHTLS photos (Canada France Hawaii Telescopic Lens Survey) I viewed over a third of a million slides. I can't speak for others but my motivation was the pure thrill of discovery. There were times when you knew the object you were looking at had never been gazed upon by human eyes. It's like an explorer finding a new island - and you'll always remember the scene before you. I encourage everyone to participate in these various projects. It's good for you and good for science.
11 years ago... damn, this channel still rocks!
"It's a voorwerp!"
"What does it do?"
"It werps voors!"
Correction: "It werps voor" is more accurate, there is no plural variation in this context for the word "voor" in Dutch; and full translation would be "Het werpt voor", and being pedantic: "Het werpt te voren" or "Het werpt voorts".
Actually, it voors werps. The action goes first in constructions like "pickpocket" and "breakfast." You'd appreciate how important this is if you've ever seen a poor werp left unvoored.
The word object actually comes from Latin "obiectum", past participle of "obicio" (from ob + iacio) which literally means "to throw against" or "to throw towards." It wouldn't surprise me if "voorwerp" were invented by people trying to translate Latin into Dutch when the vernacular first arose as a written language.
i love seeing all the different comments over the 12 years since this video was published and seeing how the tone and subject of youtube comments changed over time
Ah, Sixty Symbols is learning the tricks of the trade on click baiting.
But they had a picture and they had to give the credit where it is due.
what click baiting? The topic was the Galaxy Zoo project and one of the interesting objects discovered, and the thumbnail is the picture of the discoverer. It's not their fault that you reflexively click on every pretty face.
So all the other sixty symbol videos that depict the professors are not click bait, but the one with a picture of the *female* who *literally* discovered the object that the video is discussing is? Pretty sad the top comment on an educational video is a disgustingly sexist one.
Snazzy someone doesn’t have a sense of humour
Yes
it's kermit the frog, obviously.
😂😂
Extreme closeup!
The enormity of space just pop's my mind. I hope with advances in technology we will be able to watch other universes in greater detail. Love the sixty symbol professors with their infectiously inspiring passion.
@davedupplaw: You can read about all the scientists at the sixtysymbols website!
I love how the entire comment section has become a technical discussion about dutch pronounciation. Maar zonder grappen, vet bizar ding. Coole vondst Hanny!
That was a wonderful and concise explanation, even I could understand it!!! Thank you ma'am for taking the time.
Excellent reply, thank you. That makes it obvious that the quasars can fluctuate in intensity and go dormant depending on what crosses the event horizon. Thanks again.
There's something else interesting in the photo of Hanny's Voorwerp. In the photo showing the object in green . . . look to the right. There's an interesting string of stars that look evenly spaced out in the shape of a "C" or perhaps a circle (can't see where it cuts off).
Thanks for sharing the galaxy zoo!
I didn't look at all 234 comments because most of them are off topic but did anyone else notice the large ring of objects to the right?
Wow that is pretty awesome! An ionized gas-cloud glowing!! In that picture it shows as green but what colour would it appear as for the naked eye (IF we could see it I mean)?
Whatever that thing is out there, it has a really great sounding name here!
i'm addicted to this channel
This is picture of Kermit the Frog during his "Cosmic Concert Tour". This particular photo was taken while Kermit was singing Lennon's "Across the Universe".
Although Prof. Gray's discussion as to the possibilities of what this object may be is quite elegant, Occam's razor suggests that it is far more simple. The object is a local (in our own galaxy with the galaxies as background objects) emission nebula, emitting in the light of doubly-ionized oxygen (OIII), energized by UV from the star immediately to the lower left of the object.
This is the kind of thing that has hooked me into studying the subjects of physics and astronomy.
Brady, you are by far my favorite TH-camr - thanks millions... but why do you have to zoom into these brilliant subjects' faces so tightly?
Dunno why, but it makes me feel slightly off...
Because he doesn't actually know anything about filming or interviews, he just walked into a university and got interesting people talking to his camera
@@hjembrentkent6181 This video is 11 years old. He was young and inexperienced. The newer videos, especially on numberphile, are produced much better
@@8beef4u Computerphile is an amazing resource too.
It's kind of awesome to think that a whole part of humanity helped science.
We as a species should do more things like that.
Voorwerp's pronunciation in English would be something like "foorvarp" where "foor" rhymes with "poor", and the va in "varp" is pronounced similarly to the va in "van". And yes, it does mean "object" :)
+Paul Eloff I have heard people pronounce a v as an f, but I always figured that's just a regional thing. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's "supposed" to be pronounced. I've never heard anyone pronounce a w as a v though..
Actually I see Dutch people argue about pronunciation a lot whenever someone tries to explain it to someone who doesn't speak the language. I think this is part of the reason why people still call our country "Holland". If we can't even agree on this stuff ourselves, then why should an outsider care about it?
You're almost correct. The V is pronounced just as a V, not as an F. :-)
+Lexcoaster v and f is pronounced the same in Dutch. Only in and around Amsterdam they both are typically pronounced completely voiceless, like a french f.
V and F are not pronounced the same way at all. Trust me, I can know, I'm Dutch. :-)
Lexcoaster spreek jij fort en vort anders uit dan? Of zou je 'doof' anders uitspreken als het met een v geschreven werd?
In de talen van de Australische aboriginals is het nog veel erger; er wordt geen verschil gemaakt tussen d en t, (ned als in het Nederlands op hed eint van een woort.) ZELFS niet als die d/t aan het begin of in het midden van een woord voorkomt. Hetzelfde geldt voor de z/s en v/f en b/p en g/k (niet de Nederlandse g) Met andere woorden er is geen verschil tussen stemhebbende en stemloze medeklinkers.
Love how you mangled the name. :-) Great video. I really like that I can watch something like this that is 8 years old and learn something I didn't know before.
@1:55...have you guys considered having people with heavy " visual snow/visual static " look over deep space images ? It's called " stochastic resonance in visual perception ", it allows people who have it to easily indentify small imperceptable changes that aren't normally easily perceived. I thought it might have an application in astronomy/cosmology.
head,shoulders , chest, arms clasped in front of body as if carry something, legs walking. small child follows. the object is clearly a painting from the cosmic art gallery . OMG!!! she's discovered space graffiti!!!!
I can't tell you which part I left out, because YT won't let me post it.
That was great. I enjoyed this immensely.
The voorwerp looks like a green alien running while carrying a large invisible bowl
Amazing video, how can one be a part of the galaxy zoo project ?
I'm glad you cleared this up. The whole 34-1 think started me thinking about mathematical induction and the general comment made my head hurt!
Sso, if Mehgan is correct and Hanny's thing is a light echo caused by an extinct polsar, follow up pictures should show it disappearing? Would that confirm it? Or if no disappear or fading, then hypothesis is rong?
She really has a suggestive way to look at the camera on this photo.
It's pronounced "foor-verp". "foor" as in "poor" and the "e" in "verp" is similar to the "a" in "catch". The "r" is hard.
Daniël Louw Why end with verp, clearly in dutch a W is pronounced, not a V
Wow what a find!
Best english pronunciation is Fore-wear-p, I think.
+fyra165792 Well done!
rex, there is no V sound in the W...
I'm Dutch. Lyria's Fore-wear-p comes closest to the pronounciation of this Dutch word. Just to finetune: the F should be pronounced like a v as in very, and the r sound (both of them) should be rolling as the Scotch do - think Aberrrdeen.
And like you say, voorwerp is just the Dutch word for 'object', so it could just as well have been called Hanny's object.
Maybe a little bit better would be: Fore-Where-p...?
Awesome video, interesting and informative.
She's very pretty but could you zoom out the camera shot next time? It's a bit much.
I wonder what the 11 people, who came here, were expecting....
I remember when I discovered Galaxy Zoo, it was amazing to look at an image and think, maybe I'm the first human being who has seen this galaxy, and maybe it's just a regular galaxy, nothing interesting about it, but maybe I'm the first one looking at it!
not only is she beautiful, shes brilliant!
I love Galaxy Zoo. I've spent loads of time on there.
Thanks to this video, I have become a member of galaxy zoo.
Wow, this is amazing!
I like those slightly informal names like "Hanny's Voowerp" or "Tabby's star".
It would be nice to have a follow-up on this in 2021 when computer vision is all over the place.
Well, a black hole's accretion disk is present for as long as there is matter inside the gravitational influence of the black hole to accrete. Accretion disks aren't permanent, they eventually fall inside the event horizon. So quasars stop emitting when there isn't enough matter in the gravitational neighborhood anymore to fuel the reactions necessary for quasar emission.
@kght222 That object is very, very far away. It's not necessarily close to the galaxy that's visible next to it either. I'm sure the astronomers who look at this would know, since they can measure relative brightness to other objects, and it's almost as bright as the galaxy, yet it has no stars. Ionized gas, like a very large plasma, seems a likely explanation. Reflected light would be much too dim.
Some light of conveyor belt between galaxies.
somebody tell camera man closeup was too close
Well, that was how I read your statement "There's no issues with thermodynamics here"
Sorry.
I am not so concerned with how quickly the stovetop dims as how it behaves as it dims. I think it would be darker and redder.
This object is bright and blue! Seems like it would have been recently energized.
I don't pretend to know what "recent" is in these terms, but the question relates to the source and how long its been "out"
I'm glad I live in a galaxy that has bars.
I wonder if the astronomers who analyzed Hanny's Voorwerp considered whether it might be a supernova from a star that was previously slingshotted out of the nearby galaxy. I know, it's a remote possibility, but "all things possible...". It has that nebulous look to it, often seen in the aftermath of supernovae.
No star exists - or can exist - that can produce a remnant nebula of that scale, it's orders of magnitude too large. So no, I don't think they spared any thought for that.
Wow... The universe will never stop surprising us!
thats cool and everyone loves a good mystery
So how does a Quasar die? Last I heard, the hypothesis was that it was energy released from the accretion disc of super-massive black holes. Does anyone here know how a Quasar can die or go dormant, short of it's galaxy or globular cluster being disrupted or swallowed?
You forgot gravity. When they collide, even through objects in it won't collide directly at first, they'll interact with each other. They are even interacting in distance without a collision.
i'm addicted to this lady
lol
Title and thumbnail are intreging indeed
the pic shown at 0:33 is actualy the actress jewel staite, anyone who knows stargate atlantis will recognise her as dr. Keller.
I couldn't help but notice that Hanny van Arkel looks very much like Jewel Staite.
it's just a frog inside the telescope
My Friend Hanny.
Smart has a multiplier effect on pretty.
How do I do now computerphile, numberphile, but i did not know this channel
Our galaxy has lots of bars.
When she says "injecting energy" does she mean that as in radiation?
I know quasars 'glow' in a wide frequency band, so the gas in the voorwerp could become ionized. Am I getting it right?
Cool story bro!
If it used to be a galaxy and then was consumed by the bigger galaxy next to it, why wasn't the gas consumed as well? Wouldn't it be affected by gravity just as much as the original galaxy where it was from?
Is not the circular void within the object a signature of some event such as a white dwarf binary pair colliding to form a black hole?
Why not use image processing a.i. to classify the galaxies?
Another really interesting video, Brady, but when you zoom in so close to the speaker's face it's quite disconcerting. Hard to concentrate on what she's saying.
Thanks for making them, though.
@Ceminon But their language is English, I bet some people there wouldn't even be able to pronounce that. I don't expect people to start using tones when referring to towns in China.
If I misunderstood something please tell me.
I thought it looked like someone holding a ball and walking left.
Classifying Pictures of galaxies as done by galaxy zoo sounds like an area where neuronal networks should be pretty useful. Has anyone an idea if this is already beeing done by someone?
Yes, I can see how the energy could be retained.. but I would think if it were old, it would be redder and redder ... not blue. (This has nothing to do with redshift in my mind)
Ok I'm clearing up the pronunciation once and for all. The word is pronounced "four-vairp", with both "rs" pronounced the American way.
The camera guy needs to control his zoom-ins.
She also says nothing about redshift. It could be that the amount of redshift is so mimimal it went from green -> slightly redder green
===
I think I read about it somewhere else.. that the true color is blue!
What would cause a quasar to go dormant?
3:12 - Come on, Brady! Get it together!
Just came across this vid again. It might be totally irrelevant, but as a Dutchman I am amazed that somebody called a celestial body as big as a galaxy a "voorwerp". Although technically that is correct in Dutch, I find it an unusual use of the word "voorwerp". Personally, I would not even call a car a "voorwerp". I think that word is nowadays used primarily for ordinary, day to day small stuff (like a knife, spoon, shoe, or screwdriver, or computer, etc, etc) I also think that the word "voorwerp" is mostly used for man made things, not things in nature. So, I would have used "Hanny's fenomeen" (phenomena) or "Hanny's ding" (thing) instead of Hanny's voorwerp. Are there any linguists who can help me on this?
Or maybe Hanny's object, than it is the same in Dutch as in English...
Ronald de Rooij Interesting point, although 'fenomeen' or phenomena (I think it is spelled) refers to something that is or has happened (event) and not an object. Since we're talking about a galaxy, I think 'ding' is more appropriate, as a 'voorwerp' and 'objekt' (old spelling, I hate Van Dale, just copying from the English language.) are generally used for tangable constructs, whereas a galaxy is mostly an intangable construct...or am I overthinking this...?
Roland ten Napel In my opinion you set the boundaries very sharp. A penomena "fenomeen" can also include things of which you do not know what it is. It is an occurance that cannot be explained. Indeed that can be an event, but in my opinion also something you see, you get aware of. On object, I would call a galaxy a very tangible "thing". So, maybe object is still the way to go.
Ronald de Rooij Well, when talking (or attempting to) scientifically I thought a specific and clear description of meaning would not only be recommended, but required. At any rate, the perception of an event and its occurance is a result of causality, regardless of the elements it is comprised of, whether it can be explained (with current knowledge and scientific methodology and all available variables involved) or not.
In short, a phenomena may or may not have a readily available explanation or theory; It is the effect observed between two or more elements / objects. Non-Newtonian fluids for example exhibit a certain behaviour when energy is add, which to a lot of people look like magic, even though there is a sound scientific explanation for it.
As for galaxies, they are collections of all sorts of different elements, some of which are tangable objects, but most are not. Take for example gravitational effects, (electro)magnetic fields, etc. On a higher resolution I would say you are correct, the individual objects are tangable, but a galaxy in itself I would not agree to be tangable; It may have been destroyed eons ago, there is no way to tell other than wait a few eons and see if its still there.
In short, I respectfully disagree (but bare in mind I'm not a scientist
Roland ten Napel Well your opinion is also appreciated. Wether or not we call things an object is just a matter of definition of scale. My reasoning is that, by definition, if you talk about a galaxy, you mean a distinguishable entity called a galaxy. So, on that scale, it is allowed to call a galaxy an object.
i'm dutch. you can not imagine how amusing this video is for me.
the smoking gun...In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure.
Hannes Alfven
"Voorwerp" (Dutch for Object/Thing/Subject) is pronounced "Four-Verp".
Actually, I was assuming that the energy would behave as light... not that it was visible light.
For example... it would travel at relativistic speeds.
I made no assumptions about the color.
What's weird about it?
===
Seems weird to me to talk about the transfer of energy and say "thermodynamics does not apply"... but ok
I think your electric stovetop is a good example. But doesn't it get dimmer and redder as the power is removed?
It's not abnormal for blackholes to eject gas is it? But doesn't a quasar distribute material out of both "sides" of a blackhole? Shouldn't there be more material on the other end of the galaxy?
I'd like to see Hanny's Voorwerp ;)
So you are talking about some persistence of energy in the cloud -- the energy lasting for 100,000 years.
Maybe. I suppose that could happen. I'd be interested in understanding the mechanism for this persistence of energy in a gas cloud.
I assume it's the thing that starts with h and end with //
if it were a quasar, wouldn't it be extremely obvious?
One thing is clear...
...if I'm ever going to visit an other Galaxy it got to have a nice bar.
what's up with the close up?!
See, you do need a large head to be this smart..
Astronomy seems more history than theory.
What's this object? - I don't know. Therefore, aliens!