Hanny's Voorwerp - Sixty Symbols

[88THEBUNNYMAN88]

what is the name of the woman at the start#

[wouspe]

Hanny's Voorwerp looks like a monkey ^^

[bIOdieCell]

GREEN LANTERN

[snorman1911]

Why isn't there more Hanny in this video???

[1isaacmusic]

@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.

[chaoticmaniacman]

2:43 she's a lefty

[mdiem]

foovairp?

[MontyBLARG]

Ultralisk without a body.



[TerenceHorsman]

Hahaha Hanny's Voorwerp is Dutch. You said it completely wrong :P

[Ceminon]

I think phonetically it should be pronounced as /'hɐni:s 'vɒɹweʀp/.

[raydredX]

@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.

[Ceminon]

@raydredX Yeah, you're right. I guess I was just excited about having recently learned the phonetic alphabet, haha. Reading that back now, I suppose it was a bit of a redundant smartass post I made. No offence intended. ;)

[raydredX]

@Ceminon I just rewatched the video and she said "any of our Dutch viewers can correct me". So I'd say you had all the right to say that since she seems to be referring to the Dutch pronunciation. ;)

Although I don't think she should have to pronounce it "dutch-like". If this mentality was applied everywhere, people would be in trouble.

Anyway congratulations on learning IPA. It's really exciting to see people who know it too.

[reinux]

galaxy zoo's awesome. i did about 20.

[Agh1deus]

"Voorwerp"..."V" as in the "F" in Five..."oor" as in the "ure" in lure..."W" as in "V" in variable..."er" as in "ar" in Larry... and "p" as in "p" in problem....I'm not dutch I'm afrikaans which is very close to dutch, object in our language is also voorwerp...but your pronunciation of voorwerp sounds godawful. XD

[Lemau]

@Agh1deus I'd use Lore over Lure. I AM Dutch, by the way. ^_~

[teknotoast]

It's a space mantis

[ericsbuds]

Thats a strange object.

[andytheweb]

I have a degree in Physics from Queen's Belfast - any jobs goin? :D

[DeadlyLegion]

Our galaxy has lots of bars.

[rramosbaez]

rainbow in the background!!! 1:20

[gamma526]

I'd like to see Hanny's Voorwerp ;)

[MasterOfSuprise]

woohoo! a vid with some hot chicks

[streetsmartdude]

O.O You got BIG pupils!

[Moratorium]

Why am I watching this?

[OOZ662]

@Moratorium Sadly, most likely because there's an attractive woman in the thumbnail. But one can hope it's because science is amazing.

[BloodWolfMoon80]

I love these videos, you can learn more here than on most of the Discovery channel's programming. Great job.

[kght222]

that thing isnt putting out any light, its being lit by surrounding galaxies. you might notice that the majority of that object isnt lit, because it is shadowed. as for the other galaxy causing it to light up, well it may have been rendered apart by the forces of gravity exerted on it over time, there is no real evidence that the gas is being ionized. i'm no astronomer but i'd call it a nebulaic galaxy. and as i said at the start of this, i see no evidence that it is puting out its own light.

[werdnativ]

@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.

[hifhif123]

It's tiberium!!!

[IvanisovitschGrozny]

@CymaticsIsBullshit

You're right: it is a loan translation, but not from subiectum it's from obiectum:

"vertalende ontlening aan latijn obiectum [het voorgeworpene], van ob [voor, in de weg] + iectum" (etymologiebank.nl)

[Supdude1964]

Pretty people tend to gravitate to pretty people.

[CelticReject]

You should learn about the Fractional Reserve banking system, rather than wastign your time looking at galaxies! Perhaps then you would wake up a bit.

[cristianfcao]

@CelticReject According to your TY profile, your interests are: Playing the Guitar, Swimming, Art, Family History, Nature, Outdoor Survival, Painting, Woodworking, Walking, Fresh Air, The Sea, Woodland, Moorland. Staying Alive.

In what way any of those interests contribute to humankind more than doing astronomy and making people more interested in science?

[boutcha1]

pronounced FOR' -werp

[trevor6744]

1:08 LOL

[frmo01]

@Anunnaki444

Nice try and good logic, but "voorwerp" is really a word by itself, rather than compiled from voor and werp. Where "voorwerp" means "object", a similar word: "onderwerp" means "subject" or "topic". That would be "under throw" following your logic :-)

Finally, "werp" is part of the full verb "werpen" ("ik werp" = I throw or I cast) where the equivalent for the noun "a throw" is "worp" wih an "o".

[KrisForges]

i also own a voorwerp but mine is a can of non-alcoholic purple drank floating in space which offers no apparent insights into the mysteries of the universe .... or does it?

[cmsahe]

There is an iTunes store app of The Galaxy Zoo, free

[MarkArandjus]

I'm joining galaxy zoo, let's do this!

[KarsatheTeblor]

Azathoth...

[ericfam01]

thumbs up if you went to galexyzoo after watching this

[captwasabi]

It's mostly gas! That's me! At least, that's what my son tells me.

[eriamjh3]

the pic shown at 0:33 is actualy the actress jewel staite, anyone who knows stargate atlantis will recognise her as dr. Keller.

[captwasabi]

@eriamjh3 Uh....not it's not. Looks nothing like her.

[lexagon]

That looks like the Hopi indian deity Kokopelli.

[conoba]

Voorwerp = object

[Jaumur]

voor can be pronounced as the english word: for, it's just a little more stretched. werp can be pronounced with the V sound of vaccination, the A sound of catch, and the RP sound of tarp

[HiAdrian]

I don't speak dutch, but i suspect it's pronounced similar to the english words "For Verb". Definitely not "Warp" :)

[paranoidboytoy]

ill only do it if i can name the galaxies i classify. if not then no deal

[L00NGB00W]

Yay! I just helped classify a supernova!

[jeremino263]

i speak dutch, and i can tell you it's pronounced pretty correct ;-)

[urumqilik]

She is pretty and smart . that is a good combination

[Roddyoneeye]

A green person running about with a black basket in her arms, Not a Little Green Man !

[valdezmiguel2]

the camera man is really shitty on this.

[xollst]

This is the kind of thing that has hooked me into studying the subjects of physics and astronomy.

[bhaddow]

science is hot

[gabrielfinol]

just got a crush... love her

[mbukman13]

robertwc82 lol same

[robertwc82]

i'm addicted to this channel

[camelsat1]

i'm addicted to this lady

lol

[ray123ification]

looks like kermit

[G3org3Master]

hannys hot.

[deadlyteror]

@G3org3Master shes my teacher at Citaverde College in the netherlands in Heerlen

[deadlyteror]

@G3org3Master shes my teacher m8... shes not hot....

[ericsbuds]

@G3org3Master Meghan is much prettier :)

[eltotoX]

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?

[Grey80002]

Awesome video, interesting and informative.

[clearmenser]

Wow, thinking about astronomy makes me fell drunk.

[G3org3Master]

because its reality. lol

[Ravenairb]

I love logging into Youtube to see Sixty Symbols video's in the subscription box. Thanks for making these guys.

[HatakeSenseiKakashi]

Thanks for the video sixtysymbols :)

[kingkindness]

The object kinda looks like a Hydralisk^^

[Raistlinz]

Too much Starcraft for you! ;)

[Bcherrick]

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?

[Qtyled]

There was no gas (remnant of a small galaxy) on the other side of the main galaxy for the quasar to ionize.

[pin3appel]

great

[1trip711]

I Love YOU!!!

[NAMLegolas]

Wow... The universe will never stop surprising us!

[jacoman1234567]

Omg! Hanny's voorwerp: a dutch name. That isn't funny :P!

[ArnestyInternational]

Yes it was pronounced wrong :)

[DURound]

I do not see how the object would have illuminated something near it.. 100,000 years ago and yet not be seen by us.

After all... we are more than 100,000 light years away I am pretty sure!

So if it quit, 100,000 years ago, we would still see it. And if it quit in the amount of time it takes like to get to us, wouldn't it have LONG ago stopped illuminating its neighbor?

This theory seems to have some problems to me.

[humanentropy]

what? I dont understand. What I understand is a theory. We still see it, only because it is so far away and the light reflected off of Hanny's Voorwerp is still coming to Earth. The gas could have been absorbed by the galaxy. What doesn't make sense to me is why the quasar theory is there- quasars have red shift, and I see none.

[DURound]

The hypothesis here is that the object, transmitting the energy to this cloud has, itself, stopped shining some long time ago.

To me, this is contradictory.

[prisoner1138]

You're assuming that the energy source illuminating the object would stop illuminating the object as if it were switched off like a lamp. It'd would be possible for enough energy to have been dumped into the object for it to glow long after the source has gone out.

Look at something like glow in the dark paint. Turn the light out and it still glows after it's source has stopped emitting energy.

[DURound]

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.

[prisoner1138]

Uhh, she explained a possible reason for that. Ionization of the gas. Again, you're assuming that the gas cloud was only illuminated by the reflection of visible light, which isn't the case because of the specific spectrum emitted by the cloud. It indicates instead a massive energy source ionized the gas causing it to glow in a specific portion of the spectrum(as a hot cloud of gas) long after the initial source has stopped.

[DURound]

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.

[prisoner1138]

And maybe no one had a camera pointed over there to detect the initial energy burst as the object was energized and began emitting light.

Again, the object does not require a constant source to be energetic enough to be emitting it's own light.

For example on an electric stove, electron flow heats the cooking element, shut the flow off and if the heating element got hot enough it can emit it's own visible light for a period of time after the energy source has stopped.

[DURound]

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)

[prisoner1138]

Various elements emit light in different wavelengths when energized enough to emit light. We also don't know exactly how old it is, just that we're seeing the light from it from 100,000 years ago in that picture, it could very well be that the object is 100,001 years old. Also, the age of it doesn't have much to do with the color, you're thinking of a star perhaps?

[DURound]

we're seeing the light from it from 100,000 years ago in that picture

===

Oh.. I don't think so. I think I read that the red shift took it from blue to green. That's probably pretty far away..A few hundred million light years I would guess.

[DURound]

Also, the age of it doesn't have much to do with the color

===

I was thinking of thermodynamics in a system that is not producing its own energy.

[prisoner1138]

It doesn't have to be producing it's own energy to be emitting light, it's emitting energy already previously absorbed by the gas that at the time of this obsevation, was excited. There's no issues with thermodynamics here, it absorbed energy and is gradually releasing it as green visible light apparently.

She also says nothing about redshift. It could be that the amount of redshift is so mimimal it went from green -> slightly redder green.

[DURound]

There's no issues with thermodynamics here, it absorbed energy

====

Sorry... to me that looks like a weird thing to say!!

[prisoner1138]

What's weird about it? Like I said earlier, look at the heating element on an electric stovetop. Turn it on to high till it glows red, then turn it completely off. The heating element will continue to emit visible light as well as radiate heat long after the initial source of energy has stopped.

To be violating the laws of thermodynamics, would be is if this thing is outputting more energy than it received, which it isn't.

[DURound]

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?

[prisoner1138]

Who said thermodynamics does not apply? I said no laws of thermodynamics were being violated.

How quicker that stovetop dims depends on the input power, and how quickly the material can release that energy. Keep in mind that the stovetop can conductively radiate energy to items it is attached to, as well as the air(becoming convection at that point).

[DURound]

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"

[prisoner1138]

ARG. The color that it currently is alone, is not an indication of the color of the object when it began emitting light. For all we know, it could have initially been 5 times brighter and emitting light in a different portion of the spectrum. See what I mean about assumptions?

[DURound]

it could have initially been 5 times brighter and emitting light in a different portion of the spectrum.

===

Probably was. Didn't I say something about it getting dimmer and redder?

See what I mean about assumptions?

===

Not so far!!

[prisoner1138]

You're making a LOT of assumptions. You do not know how much energy was initially introduced to the system, how quickly it is radiating that energy, or how long it has been radiating that energy. For all you know(and I said this before) the initial energy source could have stopped the day before the light escaping this object, or 100 years, or 100000 years.

[DURound]

You're making a LOT of assumptions

===

I don't think so. I am probably making a few. Like the speed of light is constant and thermodynamics apply. But not too many specifics.

The idea of the light source winking out without a trace is fascinating. Probably one of the reasons the item is studied so hard.

[prisoner1138]

...

A: It wasn't necessarily a light source. There's plenty of electromagnetic radiation in the universe other than visible light, and again, this is not simply reflecting visible light.

B: We don't know how long the original energy source was active, or what it was. For all we know it could still be active and we just can't see it(perhaps behind the object, again this was mentioned in the video as a possibility).

[DURound]

It wasn't necessarily a light source. There's plenty of electromagnetic radiation in the universe other than visible light,

===

Maybe you are unfamiliar but those would be called "light sources".

it could still be active and we just can't see it

===

Yep maybe.

[prisoner1138]

You're saying I'm unfamiliar with this stuff, yet I had to point out an electric stove as an analogy so you could understand how an object could absorb and then slowly release energy after the source has stopped?

Wow..

[DURound]

You're saying I'm unfamiliar with this stuff

===

Hmm.. I do not recall saying you are unfamiliar with this stuff. I do not know how I would know one way or the other.

I had to point out an electric stove

===

Did you have to do that? I don't recall that either. I recall that you did it, but not that you had to do it.

[DURound]

You seem to be getting very upset.

What's up with that?

[HLSDK]

Stop hogging the comments page

[DURound]

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!

[prisoner1138]

At about 5:40 she mentions that the object is emitting light, not reflecting it. At 6:32 she explains the theory that the gas was ionized, not simply reflecting light from a source. That source could have been a burst of radiation not in the visible spectrum from any number of possible sources(this is also mentioned).

[ReallyPsilly]

Hellllloooooo Hanny

[Woad25]

And this is why astronomy is the best science there is. Laymen and amateur astronomers can augment the building of knowledge within a scientific field. Part of my masters thesis was built on 100+ years of amateur observations on a particular star. Anybody know of any other sciences that has this sort of relationship? I dare high energy particle physicists to try and make that claim ;)

[Keylimedelight]

Smart has a multiplier effect on pretty.

[seanbrockest]

Holy crap! She's awesome!

[TheBentastic]

Why the extreme close-ups of her face, I know she's gorgeous, but let's just focus on the symbol.

[DURound]

I would not say she is that gorgeous. She's ok.

The focus on her face is normal for this series. They do that with all kinds of people.

[isrealjason]

@TheBentastic your gay... or a st8 girl, not there is anything wrong with that just saying

[holsson85]

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)?

[SteelBalor]

I wish i went to her school :D

[prfctday]

I just read this:

The pronunciation of Hanny's Voorwerp in its original language is:

HÄnneas VÓrwErp

with

Ä as in alms, art, calm

Ó as in over, boat, no

E as in ebb, set, merry

(Harny's Voer wearp?)

[pauluss86]

it's not Ó (like in over, boat, no); but it's more a 'flat' o, like in: more, boar, etc. :)

[davedupplaw]

She is fab. You haven't said who she is though :) That was very interesting. Thanks for posting.

[sixtysymbols]

@davedupplaw: You can read about all the scientists at the sixtysymbols website!

[davedupplaw]

Ah, yeah. Great. Thanks.

[DarthCelcius]

@davedupplaw She's part of Galaxy Zoo, and she's a teacher.

Onto Galaxy zoo mk3 now, google it and join in, never know you might fined the next anomaly and get it named after you too :D

[itsabomberscope]

Its a space frog! lol :D

[667Chronic]

I thought it looked like someone holding a ball and walking left.