How Do We KNOW What Stars Are Made Of?

If stars are so far away, then how do we know what they're made of? It's absorption spectrum! Even our closest star, the Sun, is way too hot to take a sample, so we have to rely on what the light can tell us.

Nick Lucid - Host/Writer/Editor/Animator
Vanessa R Bradley - Thumbnail
________________________________
VIDEO ANNOTATIONS/CARDS

How do we know the Universe is expanding?

How Do We Know Things About Stars?

Why Are Some Things Transparent?
________________________________
HUGE THANK YOU TO THESE PATRONS

** Andy Kirkham, Nikko Lai, Clint Cloys, Rick Finn, Evgeny, Preston From, Christian McCracken **
________________________________
SUPPORT THE SCIENCE ASYLUM

Patreon:

Advanced Theoretical Physics (eBook):

Merchandise:
________________________________
OTHER SOURCES

________________________________
LINKS TO COMMENTS

Redshift - PapaKay:

Redshift - Davis1118:

Magenta Correction - Alberto Torres:
________________________________
IMAGE CREDITS

Fraunhofer:

Astronaut:

[RickClark]

This comment is a bit off-topic and is related to a certain comment thread in this video that is indicative of a growing trend in modern science that I find both interesting and disturbing. Nick feel free to delete this comment if you feel it is not appropriate. The comment thread in this video that I am referring to is what I have come to call cultism. It is obviously a term taken from theology but is appropriate in this instance as well. I define cultism, both theological and scientific, as a belief in an idea or system that has little to no supporting evidence, and is held in spite of a body of evidence that refutes the idea or system. I define evidence in the scientific realm as an experimently verified result. If an idea has not been experimentally verified it is a conjecture, not evidence.

Now, this idea is usually associated with so-called fringe groups, like the Flat Earth Society and the person posting in this video, but I see the same idea in the so-called mainstream scientific community that I find quite puzzling. In fact, it appears to be growing as more and more esoteric theories are put forth to explain both quantum mechanics and cosmology. The general problem with many of these theories is that despite being unable to prove the results experimentally, they are held as correct. I will cite just a couple of examples just to keep this comment brief, but there many that could be examined.



The same is true of the general case as well, just not to this extent. Many of the new theories being developed work in specific cases and but fail in the general case and consistently fail in the general case. Yet these theories are hailed as being "true" despite the evidence to the contrary. If a methodology consistently fails outside of a specially designed test case, then you need to question whether the approach is simply wrong. Back in the day when I programmed for a living, my programs had to work for more than just a single case. It had to work for both the special and general case, otherwise, the program was useless. This idea does not seem to hold much water these days (as we say in Texas). The theories are becoming less testable and yet are accepted as being the truth despite any real evidence.

Of course, the counter is always, it is in the math. All the theories are "in the math", even many worlds, so this counter is meaningless. A meaningless counter is a common response of cultism and this particular response is a current favorite of the true believer. Not every theory can be right, and yet all the theories are supported by some version of math, which means that the math can say just about anything you want it to say. Only prediction and experimentation can produce real evidence. Anything else is simply conjecture and conjectures always need to be verified as being true in order for them to be considered real evidence.

The problem is that we have entered into the realm of the esoteric and it is impossible to test some of these ideas being developed since the technology doesn't exist and will never exist outside of the big bang itself. The problem may very well be that we will never be able to verify whether a certain theory is actually true. I hope this isn't the case, but it isn't a strong hope on my part. Cultism may ultimately define modern science and as there may not be any other avenue to explore when the theories outstrip the technology that makes it possible to verify them in the end.

[victherocker]

about 1 min of your explanations about the emission and absorption lines helped me understand faster than my 1 week of trying to figure out the lessons in my textbook

[upandatom]

I like how accurate your videos are :)

[The_Nihl]

3:02 Atoms exited"and this

QUALITY BRO!

[apurbabiswas]

Great video Nick, nice work with the animations! The complications makes it lot more interesting than scary.

[kennethlouisharrison]

Fraunhofer lines are a result of gas in the photosphere, the outer region of the sun. The photosphere gas has lower temperatures than gas in the inner regions, and absorbs a little of the light emitted from those regions.
Respectfully. This little bit of detail enhances your explanation. Thank you so much for all your fantastic work.

[aatifshaikh]

Perhaps the best channel for physics on you tube

[amazingworldadventures]

This explanation makes it way more interesting!

[huseyinturedi]

I heard about this star fingerprint thing a lot but have never understand it completely until now . Thank you for making science easy to lern.

[ronaldderooij]

Our sun is definitely NOT a yellow/white dwarf. It is an G star shining yellow/green. G stars are not dwarfs. In fact, the sun is 15% bigger and heavier than the average star.

[hansgouws]

The Fraunhofer lines are, in my opinion, one of the most significant scientific discoveries made in the past ~200 years. It's as if it brought the stars much closer to us, in a sense. It broke down the distinction between our sun and other stars. Upgrading them from 'weird pretty night lights' to 'made of the same elements closer to home.' Which is pretty amazing in the quest for understanding the distant parts of the universe and our place in it. Nick, you're awesome and keep it up.

[toknowledge]

Your explanation is very comprehensible,
Thanks for such contribution.

[Tetracarbon]

Very clear explication on spectroscopy. I wonder if the observed data is at all as clearly displayed the way you have illustrated.

Only recently I have realised how enormously data driven physics has become. In less that a working life it seems an astronomer went from someone who looks through scopes (or looks at pictures taken through scopes) to being something of a hard core statistician.

[uncertaintyprincephilip]

That little comment about the shifting of absorption lines (Doppler) just answered a question I thought if yesterday - how we know it's shifted.

Is there an analogous concept in gravitational waves? 🥰

[fadyfarouk]

I just found out about this channel and it's awesome thanks for the videos :)

[albuch]

Big fan of your channel - I do not skip ads hoping it adds to your account - I found somewhere this widely repeated statement: "Stars are formed in clouds of gas and dust, known as nebulae", I also heard/read this kind of statements: "the formation of planets out of a dust cloud". So dust cloud here and dust cloud there. What makes is a star and what makes it a planet, why is there a left-over for planets?
I have seen many videos about star future and their deaths, but seeing or being told how those gases and dust turn into a star, how clumps are created (if there are), what kind of dust material it is, the "ignition" moment, I could not find it explained in the sane way.

[shamamismael]

I like how you talk about liking and sunscrining you channel

[DidNotReadInstructions]

This is one awesome video. Learned a lot.

[danalaniz]

Scarier to me! Thanks so much for posting. I'll definitely subscribe.

[sourakantimandal]

Just Love ur videos Sir...Clears all my doubts always 😋😋