Astronomers Record the Surface of a Neutron Star for the First Time!

Technical progress makes it possible: Thanks to the complex investigation methods that experts can use today, it is possible to take a more detailed look than ever at the gigantic expanses of the universe. The milestones achieved through the use of increasingly modern equipment are as fascinating as they are surprising. Indeed, the first-ever mapping of a neutron star's surface revealed some exciting characteristics that researchers had not anticipated in advance. Now we'll show you the details of this groundbreaking discovery!

Credit: NASA, ESA, ESO, SpaceX, Wikipedia, Shutterstock, ...

#TheSimplySpaceEN

[thehumancanary]

The image of the neutron star - shown continuously throughout the video - is misleading. No image showing this clarity has ever been obtained - at 1, 200 light years away and with a diameter of 20 miles or so - it is not feasible. This channel promotes astro-babble!

[computermech]

Heavily monetized video. I watched 6 ads and lost interest in this video. There was no evidence shown about any recent scientific discoveries of a neutron star.

[TonyPerez]

I love it when the thumbnail actually matches the vid, good job!

[DP-otzf]

They mapped the surface of a star that's 16 miles wide, has screaming-fast rotation, and is 1, 100 light years away.

[robbie]

Mapping the surface of an object in space as mind numbing as a Neutron Star?
Simply Spectacular!

[Rockwolf]

The amount of wrong in this video is breathtaking. A star does not undergo mass loss as result of the Roche limit.

Roxhe Limit:

in astronomy, the minimum distance to which a large satellite can approach its primary body without tidal forces overcoming the internal gravity holding the satellite together.

This has absolutely nothing to do with mass loss in stars.

Second, the first “neutron star” you defined is a white dwarf. Only a stellar core of iron which exceeds the Chandrasaker limit will have enough mass to collapse into a neutron star.

Third not only rapidly spinning neutron stars are defined as pulsars. A pulsar is ANY neutron star which is emitting EM radiation from its poles, detectable from Earth.

Please for the love of god do some research before releasing videos. It is hard enough to attune people to how the Universe actually works without falsehoods like this crap.

[danieldevito]

I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to see a neutron star. Seeing sometime that size rotate hundreds of times a second, as well as the gravitational lensing would be INCREDIBLE. Why couldn't Star Wars like space travel be possible 😩😪

[ryans]

I love neutron stars. For some reason, they feel more impressive to me than black holes.

[bobsnabby]

Nonsense. Neutron stars are only 10km in diameter, You cant even map a surface of a supergiant star millions of kilometers in diameter.. stop posting nonsense.

[FREEDMFTR]

Was there any actual footage from NASA, or did you just use stock video and read an article? - Curiously confused

[whendarknessfalls]

No. A pulsar is a neutron star who's jet point's towards us in pulses...

[destroya]

It is a lot of CGI and not a lot of evidence

[melplishka]

I love neutron and magnetron stars. Frikin awesome.

[ashemgold]

Yeah, no. Still no image other than CGI and computer modelling. Mesmerizing and beautiful CGI and computer modelling, but CGI nonetheless.

Thanks for the cool video!

[SaintSeek]

You can tell all of that with 1 pixel? Cool story bruh

[jaybingham]

Whether the object is a star, a neutron star or a black hole, the mass is conserved in each transitional state. If something, say a planet, flies too close to a star, it gets 'sucked' in and ripped to shreds and the star increases in mass...exactly the same after transitioning to a neutron star or black hole. In other words, the (gravitational) awe of black holes is no more greater than the star from whence it came. The awe of black holes in terms of light not being able to escape due to the extreme depth of the gravity well is well-deserved. The awe of neutron stars is that they take something unable to be seen (a neutron) on its own and make it seeable...in the form of a miles wide atomic nucleus (of sorts). No one would blame you if you found that to be more spectacular than what a black hole offers.

[Mernom]

actual data starts at 5:00.
It's still filled with padding, though.

[rickwhite]

It's a nightmare listening to this voice, repeating the word star at least 2000 times.

[heyfitzpablum]

Neutron stars have always fascinated me, even more than black holes. They are so weird. One comment: when you discussed 'surface mapping' of the neutron star I was hoping you'd discuss topographics and not just hot spots. In other words, how 'smooth' is the surface of a neutron star?

[goemboeck]

Damn I hate this format. Always approx. 10 mins long of which nonsense takes massive portion of.