4 ms·
How A Supernova Explodes (1985) [pdf]
- guender 3y ago[dead]
- Eliezer 3y agoI miss reading things like this.
- moffkalast 3y agoI miss having the patience to read things like this too.
- OldGuyInTheClub 3y agoRepeating this recommendation from a recent comment thread involving the Bethe/Brown article[0]. Youtuber "But Why?" has a very nicely animated explanation of the current state of affairs of core-collapse supernovae at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt-SBT7nNfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt-SBT7nNfU [0] Comment section of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36362770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36362770
- ramraj07 3y agoThanks, always on the lookout for new supernova YouTube videos, which surprisingly there are very few of which explain actual details as opposed to the drivel that is kurzgesagt. Many of these Popsci videos are even straight out wrong, they’ll say crap like the core produces one neutrino per proton - like the math doesn’t even add up dudes. Your video finally explains why there’s so many neutrinos produced. Your video perfectly complements the two others I love. I’d say the perfect watching order would be to first see the general supernova discussion by launch pad astronomy[1], followed by your suggestion, then the “how to build a black hole” by pbs space time [2]. 1. https://youtu.be/RZkR9zdUv-E https://youtu.be/RZkR9zdUv-E 2. https://youtu.be/xx4562gesw0 https://youtu.be/xx4562gesw0
- OldGuyInTheClub 3y agoI enjoy Launch Pad's detailed look at things, as well. But, I also like Kurzgesagt. There's something about the pacing and editing of PBS videos that I find hard to watch for long periods of time. No qualms about the content, it seems like they edit out all the pauses.
- ramraj07 3y agoI’m not a fan of Kurzgesagt at all unfortunately. I’m not a physicist so I’ll say maybe there’s some justification that I don’t fathom that explains why their fundamental explanation of the science is so terrible. But I am a biologist and I can assure you a good load of videos they make on it are at best not great explanations or at worst fundamentally unsubstantiated drivel. Like their latest one about how your body “kills cancers every day”. I went through their massive google doc “evidence” and as suspected not a single real reference to any proof that this is true. It COULD be true, but it’s not proven. I’m not even sure the evidence we have is actually pointing towards this direction. If it’s true that your immune system clears cancers every day, then immunosuppression should instantly plunge you into cancer. Does it? Not really. May be some blood cancers but that’s it. Point is, they show shiny videos explaining almost plausible sounding scientific concepts. But often it’s still michio kaku level sensationalism. I personally believe this disingenuousness is the root cause of degradation in trust in science. The average person does have the ability to sniff bullshit and it eventually catches up to them in their mind that these scientists have no idea what they’re talking about (like my observation that these videos say there’s one neutron per proton in a supernova; I could instantly smell something rotten).
- pixel_tracing 3y agoFun fact: Betelgeuse has been predicted to go supernova in our lifetimes. There is usually a live stream on YouTube you can observe of Betelgeuse
- kristianc 3y agoThe problem is that it could also happen at any time in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years.
- irrational 3y agoBut, it could also happen tomorrow! I do hope it happens tomorrow, because that would be so cool.
- throwbadubadu 3y agoWhat is the real one? Too many "happening now" :/
- Sharlin 3y agoThat’s not a very accurate way of saying "it could go supernova anytime in the next 100,000 years" meaning that it almost certainly won’t go during our lifetimes. Unless we’ll live for a long time which of course is not entirely out of the question. Also, I’m pretty sure there’s no non-fake live stream of Betelgeuse on Youtube because it would require several robotic telescopes around the world programmed to coordinate and stream from wherever it’s a) night and b) Betelgeuse in the sky.
- aceazzameen 3y agoConsidering the scale of time for stars, I always read it as the lifetime of humans on Earth. Not our individual lifetimes. Like, Betelgeuse is so close to supernova that at some point in humanity's time on Earth we'll witness it. Other stars are millions to billions of years away from death that there's no point in considering it.
- nwallin 3y ago
- xefer 3y agoScientific American during this period was a great magazine with fantastic graphics. I used to really look forward to each issue. Sometime in the 90s they made a decision to make the magazine more “accessible” to the general public. The style of graphics became much more cartoony and the articles themselves somewhat more simplistic.
- nonrepeating 3y agoThe layout and graphic design of SciAm in that era was clean, crisp, austere and gorgeous. I’ll never forget the issue - 1985, I believe - with stereograms of DNA and RNA. 3D images, delivered in a magazine!
- RachelF 3y agoThe early days (1996-2000) of the web Scientific American articles were fantastic for how they linked to source articles and explainers. Unfortunately, these days it is close to rubbish.