Cosmic Queries – Starquakes with Conny Aerts

23:40Sure, and I use the term star quakes for popular lectures, but actually in our professional life, we speak of stellar oscillations. So the global oscillations, they're smooth, they're properly behaved. So for stars, it's a bit less abrupt than for earthquakes, let's say.

24:02Neil deGrasse Tyson:Okay, okay. So if on Earth they were Earth oscillations, then Matt, maybe you wouldn't have to hide under a desk or in the structural beams of the house. I would just ride it out. Just ride it out? Surf it out? Keep the knees beflexed, keep your core stable. That's all you need. But you would get seasick all the time, you know, because they would always be there, you know. Yeah, eyes on the horizon. That's the secret. Always look out the window. Don't try to look at a fixed object inside. Take me surfing one day out in Los Angeles and teach me. Oh, I'm a terrible surfer. Oh, okay. So, Matt, what else do we have for Connie?

24:38We've got some great questions. By the way, just a side note, I love when we have topics like this, when it's something that is close to Neil's wheelhouse, but just outside it. When it's like in your field of astrophysics, but something that you've never really encountered. They're my favorite episodes.

24:51Neil deGrasse Tyson:Because you like looking how much of an idiot I am. That's what you're saying. I love it. Yeah, just at the edge of Neil's knowledge. It's my favorite. It's the best. Well, those are my favorite episodes where I learn stuff. Absolutely. This is good. This is good. So I'm going to combine these two questions. I like to do this because two people... I want to hear their names anyway. Absolutely. Dylan from NAU in Flagstaff and Alejandro Reynoso from Monterey have both asked about what we can actually learn from the oscillation of stars. Dylan says, can we predict its age and or understand the core?

25:25And also, do all stars oscillate or just dying stars, supermassive stars, main sequence stars? And then Alejandro says, what have you learned from analyzing star quakes that you couldn't learn with other methods? So basically, they're both asking, what specifically is it that we can learn from these quakes?

25:40Neil deGrasse Tyson:I'm going to tighten that question and say, What are you learning that we didn't otherwise figure out through other means? Okay. If there's one word that I have to ask to that question, it is rotation of stars. That's more than one word, but internal rotation of stars. You know, why is that? Let me give the analogy with music again. So we have sound waves that are happening inside a star, but the gas in the star is rotating around, right? And what do you get when you put a musician in a theater play and you make the podium rotate just for the fun of it as a surprise to the musician? You get pissed off musicians.

26:23That's what you get. Exactly. I like that experiment, actually. You can really hear that. But the symphony is destroyed. That's what the audience would say. Now, for me, as an astrasesmologist, the frequencies of the waves get shifted. right? The Doppler shift. Yeah, they get shifted because of the extra motion here to the rotation. And we can measure that. And we're not measuring that at the surface of the star, but inside the star where the starquake has its strongest energy, right? And so what we have come to realize is that the theory of how stars evolve, relying on how they rotate in their interior is quite off.

27:10It's not very good. And that's not surprising, right? Because we could only measure, before we had star clicks, we could only measure the rotation of the star at its external layer. Like for the sun, you see the tiny little dark spots of the sun rotating around, if you're patient? Every 26 days, you see them back in your line of sight. So the sun rotates with a period of about 26 days but that's just the outer layers it doesn't say at all how it rotates in its interior so if you have no information what can you do well you think

27:43Neil deGrasse Tyson:well it won't be that different you just assume it's the same right you assume it's the same everything else rotates as an as a kind of a unified object why would i even think some lower level would rotate at a different rate well the stars have many more surprises than us uh astrophysicists have imagination. What a smack! Oh, Matt, did you hear? Matt, did I just hear this woman correctly here? Yeah, I stand by it. I'm on team star on this one. That was a smackdown right there. Yes, I always say the stars are right. The theory is wrong if it doesn't match with each other, right? So thanks to the frequency shifts of these waves, we can now measure how stars rotate around.

28:31And why is that important? Well, if they rotate faster or slower, then their material gets mixed in a different way. That's also something you can imagine if you take the analogy with coffee drinkers. If you like coffee with milk, you pour milk into your coffee and you don't wait until everything is mixed because then the coffee is cold and it doesn't taste well anymore. No, you take a spoon and you rotate your coffee. In my terminology, that is saying you bring angular momentum to the coffee cup. And why do you do that?

29:07Neil deGrasse Tyson:That's what everyone says when they're having coffee at Starbucks. That's what everybody does without saying it. And that's because everybody prefers well-mixed coffee with milk. I'm assuming at the Flatiron Institute that just the coffee station there has angular momentum implements. Yes. How much angular momentum would you like on your coffee this morning? Do you want a metal angular momentum implement or one of the wooden straight ones? Well, we could do an experiment of how people do that. But, you know, the diversity of human beings taking their spoons will be large. And in stars, there's a whole range of internal rotation frequencies that we have measured.

29:53We have about 2 ,000 stars now for which this has been measured by many groups in the world with astrothesmologists. And so the life of the stars is really going slower if I look at the measurements.

30:08Neil deGrasse Tyson:You mean our estimates for their life expectancy need to be updated to have them live longer than we originally thought, is that what you're saying? Yeah, particularly for the big massive stars. Is that because they're mixing more material into their core? Yeah, they're mixing. Giving them a little more lease on life. Yeah, and they get more material into their inner part. And in the inner part of the stars is actually a nuclear reactor for me. Because the simplest constituent, which is hydrogen, is turned into helium by nuclear fusion. And stars are masterpieces in that. But if you bring more hydrogen into that area where it's hot and dense enough, then the star can live longer.

30:51and so the rotation affects how much nuclear fuel you bring inside its interior actually. That was about to be the opposite of what I would have guessed because I was wondering whether the stirring effect would have sped up the fusion reaction by kind of, you know, you can increase the speed of a chemical reaction. I know that's different from a nuclear reaction by stirring the chemicals together or by increasing the energy in there, but you're saying it's the opposite because it's bringing more fuel in from the outside layers of the star. Yeah, so once the nuclear burning is ongoing, the nuclear fusion in stars is stable.

31:26Stars can do that very well. We humans can't do that here.

31:30Neil deGrasse Tyson:Now, everything I know about the nuclear furnace says that it's pretty small relative to the size of the star itself. Do your waves give you enough information about tiny areas like the nuclear core? Yeah, well, tiny, it's 10 % of the mass that typically takes part in the nuclear fusion. So it's still 10%. Of the mass. Even if it's physically small, it's got a lot of mass going on. Yeah, because the density is very high. And so if you change that 10 % to, say, 12%, that sounds like, you know, it's only 2%, you know. But that's a lot of fuel that you bring into your nuclear reactor. And so then, yeah.

32:07Neil deGrasse Tyson:And increase the life by at least 20%, perhaps. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. It can really change the lifetime of the star. So that's, so to come back. And Matt, if you were in the center of a star, you'd be dense too. I just wanted to tell you that. Oh, thanks. It's one of the nicest things anyone's ever said to me. We've got more questions, Matt. Bring them on. We do. Aziz from Saudi Arabia says, I wonder if it's possible for a star to have a star quake so strong caused by, for example, nuclear fission or fusion happening abnormally fast or caused by any other reason to lose mass. I thought I'd ask that one because we're already talking about fusion.

32:45Neil deGrasse Tyson:You know, in the formation of stars in the galaxy, you can get shockwaves across a gas cloud that's otherwise mining its own business, and it can trigger gravitational collapse and other interesting features. So I'd love that question, Connie. So are starquaves just the product of what's going on, or are they a participant in causing what's going on? Yeah, so you can have all sorts of reasons why stars have these oscillations, right? And they can indeed be caused by the fierce turbulence in the core of a very massive star. Because we call that convection, turbulent motions. And they create waves also.

33:29Because again, they make the gas compress and expand. But there are also other reasons why stars can have starquakes. Think of the Earth-Moon system and tides. Well, half of the stars, or even more if you go to higher masses, they live together with two. And then they have tidal forces. A binary star system.

33:49Neil deGrasse Tyson:Just like in that scene in Star Wars where Luke comes out, is it the sand planet, and he sees a double sunset. That's the only accurate science in the entire series. That's okay. That's okay. Okay, so what happens there? So you have a gravitational tidal dance? And that's right. They rotate around each other and they pull. They give a tidal pull, right? And so you could also say that, you know, for me, tidal forces are actually forced oscillation. You know, I say everybody oscillates in nature. So when the stars are close enough together, the tidal oscillations, as I call them, are very strong, can be very strong.

34:35So that's another reason why stars can have stars.

34:39Neil deGrasse Tyson:So these are like a tidal bulge in the direction of the object responsible for it. Yeah. See, in my older years, I have a tidal bulge as well in my midsection. I'm watching for that just to see what I can do about it. Yeah. Yeah. You want to prevent it, but we like it when it started. All right, Matt, give me some more. Quentin from Switzerland says, and I don't know what Quentin is referring to, so hopefully one of you two can fill me in, says, do you need more data to exactly figure out what happened with Betelgeuse recently? Is it pronounced Betelgeuse? Betelgeuse, yes. It is pronounced Betelgeuse, like the film, but spelled differently.

35:18It seems pretty unlikely that we will witness a similar event in the near future. So what did happen recently?

35:23Neil deGrasse Tyson:I got to lead off with this, and then we'll get the actual answer from Connie. Okay. I heard, but Betelgeuse is one of the brightest stars in the night sky. It's an important star in one of the most dominant constellations of all 88. Dominant in size and appearance is Orion. Orion is visible in both the northern and southern hemispheres because it straddles the equator on the sky. And so there's this star, Betelgeuse, one of the biggest, baddest red giants in the known universe. And someone told me, do you realize Betelgeuse is getting dimmer? I said, no. What? What? And I looked up and I went, my whole life, Betelgeuse was a certain brightness relative to other stars in the constellation.

36:09Neil deGrasse Tyson:I cannot communicate to you my loss of breath in the moment I looked up. and I say, what is happening? Is this, you know, is this, is the seventh seal broken? Is this something biblical? So I want you to know, I nearly freaked out. So what happened to Betelgeuse a year ago when it just got mysteriously dim? Like it went to less than half its normal brightness and that had never been observed ever at any time anybody's been looking at the star. So we're going to blame you for this. What happened? Well, Betelgeuse is behaving normally as a star. It's a supergiant, right? It's a very big star. And so these stars are nearing the end of their life.

36:59And so they're puffing up their material and they're blowing it away, so to speak, right? And so when material gets lost from the star, well, then for us, the star is obscured because it's in between the supergiant and us. there's material that is being expelled. Now, for me, as an astrothesmologist, that's a bit annoying, that behavior, because Betelgeuse has starquakes, but all that material that's being expelled makes it hard to still measure them.

37:31Neil deGrasse Tyson:It's blocking your view. It's blocking the view. And that's also the reason why, for us, it's difficult to do astrothesmology from ground-based telescopes. The stars are up there. People say they twinkle, right? But that twinkling that you see with your eyes, that's not the star. That's actually the starlight that is being perturbed by the Earth's atmosphere. Right. And so it's a bit similar, but then the twinkling of Betelgeuse is caused by the material it has expelled. But it does have also oscillations, and these oscillations can tell us how old it is and how big it is, etc. All right, it's Betelgeuse ready to blow, because we think that's a supernova category star.

38:14Neil deGrasse Tyson:I said, oh my gosh, something bad's going to happen. It's going to happen. It's not bad. No, it's not bad, because it will explode eventually, but that can take still some while. So you don't want to go and look every day, because you may need to have some patience. Connie, we're trained to think that if something blows up, it's bad. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm just kidding. Yeah, but these guys are like, it's exciting. This is more data. It's more data. Okay. All right. This is like the rocket launchers who the rocket blows up on the launch pad. You say, oh, are you upset by that failure? No, that was an experiment rich in data.

38:54Yeah. Well, but I'm saying it's good because it enriches the galaxy with metals, with carbon, with oxygen, with iron. And, you know, we need that as human beings. So...

39:11Neil deGrasse Tyson:Okay, just to be clear, Matt, astrophysicists are... We are very lazy with regard to the periodic table of elements. And so any element that's not hydrogen or helium, we call it a metal. But this freaks out chemists. We're self-aware of this bad vernacular. But the point is 98 % of the universe is hydrogen and helium. and the rest is just other stuff. It's just experimental error. So we just call them metals and I'm just covering Connie's ass right here when she said the metals such as carbon. Right, no, she's being fully astrophysical in the referencing. But Connie, you speak of this blockage of ejected gas, like of course it would do that Yet it hasn't done it in the thousands of years we've been observing the night sky and mapping its brightness relative to other stars.

40:10Neil deGrasse Tyson:So do you have an account for why it's doing it now and it's not doing it regularly? Oh, but you see, we astrophysicists have to be very patient because the time scales for stars to do this kind of stuff, you know, that's like hundreds of thousands of years, you know. and a human... Okay, so you're saying if we'd see it only once in a few thousand years, that could be a regular interval. Yeah. Okay. Alright, she got out of that one, Matt, I think. It's just annoying that we human beings only live for like 100 years. At most, yeah. If we are lucky. In an astronomical time scale, that's instantaneous.

40:55That's very, very short.

40:56Neil deGrasse Tyson:Alright, we've got to take our last break and when we come back, more astro-seism with a professor of astro seismology, Connie Arts, on StarTalk Cosmic Queries.

41:15Eczema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with Epglyss, a once-monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four in ten people taking Epglyss achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. and most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing.

42:00if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with EBCLIS. Before starting EBCLIS, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about EBCLIS and visit ebglis.lily.com or call 1-800-LILY-RX or 1-800-545-5979. Prime Day is June 23rd through the 26th. These deals are so appealing like portable steamers for steaming. Whoa, did I just sing soprano? I think I'm breaking into song. Shop Epic deals on air fryers, vacuums, and skincare. I can't stop saying... Shop Epic deals this Prime Day, June 23rd through the 26th. Ooh, I think that's it.

42:41Nope, there's more. Luggage, smart glasses.

42:45Neil deGrasse Tyson:Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for$15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three-month plan equivalent to$15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. Default terms at mintmobile.com. This is Ken the Nerd Neck Zibera from Michigan, and I support StarTalk on Patreon.

43:22This is StarTalk Radio with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

43:28Neil deGrasse Tyson:We're back for the third and final segment of StarTalk Cosmic Queries, the astro seismology edition. with our expert, a professor of astroseismology, Connie Arts. And she's on sabbatical now at the Flatiron Institute in New York City, which has gathered all manner of computational scientists in multiple fields where they not only compare notes with each other in their own field, but across disciplines, perhaps there's some cross-pollination that can lead to discoveries that wouldn't otherwise happen. And Connie, you are based in the Netherlands and in Belgium. You have two different appointments that, of course, there's strong overlap in what they are.

44:15Neil deGrasse Tyson:But this is very cool that we have you here. We're borrowing you from Europe. And great to have you here in my hometown, New York City. So, Matt, we have a few minutes for a few more questions. Let's see how many more we can slip in. These questions are from our Patreon members still, correct? They are, yeah. so Kevin the sommelier asks does astro seismology coincide with the data we can get from the James Webb space telescope are we able to see those quakes in infrared oh I like that and also then gives a wine recommendation oh yeah because I told him I would not allow him to ask another question if he's going to bill himself as a sommelier there's got to be a recommendation so he recommends specifically for our Belgian guest says with Mulfrit, Kevin recommends a bottle of Muscadet sur le Lagrange.

45:06So there we go. Thank you, Kevin, for that. Okay. That sounds like a dessert wine. All right.

45:10Neil deGrasse Tyson:Let the world know. Okay. We've got the recommendation. So I love that question, Connie. I didn't even think to think about this because I love stellar evolution, but I'm primarily a galaxies guy and a large-scale structure guy, which the James Webb telescope is exquisitely tuned to observe the early universe. And it would never occur to me to imagine if it could be of use to you in thinking about starquakes. So how has your field put your sort of hooks into the data of that telescope? Well, the James Webb is fantastic. But I would not spend its time on starquakes. And so let me explain why. You know, James Webb can pierce very deep into the early universe in the infrared.

45:57But what I need as a seismologist is really long-term measurements. And that's why we love the Kepler mission of NASA and now the test mission and the future Plato mission, because they're staring at stars for years without interruption. And so you don't want to spend James Webb on that because it has, as you say, so much other fantastic extragalactic science to do.

46:22Neil deGrasse Tyson:So I don't want to hook on James Webb, right? Of course, at all times in our field, Matt, we're always judging whether you need one particular telescope for that task versus another telescope that might be either more available or less a cutting edge because you want the cutting edge telescope for the cutting edge science that's going to break open whole new fields typically. So, yeah, that's a very important point that you're mentioning there, Connie. But I want to also ask that's part of the great computational challenge, because if you have a lot of quakes of all different frequencies, short measurements cannot distinguish one from the other.

47:10Neil deGrasse Tyson:Correct? You need a very long baseline so that you can tease out of the data frequencies that are represented enough to know that they're real. Did I characterize that accurately? That's very well described. And in practice, the precision of the frequency goes as one over the total time base of the measurements. So if Kepler measures four years, well, that's one over four years in frequency resolution, as we call it, capacity to unravel these starquake frequencies. So we need to be very, astro-sysmologists are very patient people. So what you're saying is if you – so I like that. So if you measure something for four years, you can't really say much about frequencies that occur on two-year timescales.

48:07Neil deGrasse Tyson:That's right. Because you would have only had one or two cycles in there, and that's not enough to even know if they're real. Yes. So you need enough cycles in your baseline of data to be able to say, yeah, that's real. Yes, it's repeating, and it's reliable. Yeah, that's right. And so that's why we need these long time series, and we can only do the work once we achieve that. So we need dedicated space missions to achieve that. And James Webb is just not one of them. I got it. Interesting. Please leave James Webb to the people who need it, and I'm not one of them. That's very magnanimous of you, yes.

48:43So just to update people, so Kepler was a telescope that looked in one part of the sky looking for Earth-like planets around sun-like stars, studying them for a long period of time.

48:58Neil deGrasse Tyson:TESS, what's that? That's an acronym for what? I forgot. Transiting. Exoplanet. Exoplanet Survey. Satellite. Satellite. Thank you. So TESS will see the entire sky, but not quite to the depth in space that Kepler did. And so now what is PLATO going to do? And is that also an acronym? Yeah, well, PLATO stands for Planetary Transits and Oscillations of Stars. And PLATO is actually going to, from construction, combines the best of both worlds of the Kepler mission and the TESS mission, in the sense that we need long-term observations, but we also need the whole, not the whole sky, but a very, very big part of it to have copies of the Earth in our line of sight that rotate around copies of the sun.

49:47It takes a year for us to revolve. And so Plato has that built-in. It's actually, it's 24 telescopes on one big platform.

49:56Neil deGrasse Tyson:Oh my gosh. Okay, I didn't know that about it. Yeah, so it's a multi-telescope instrument that is being built by the European Space Agency right now. I tend to call it my third child because I've been... You're deep involved in the design and objectives of it. Congratulations for that. Yeah, so that's exciting. I want to see the data before I retire. Kepler was a famous German mathematician who coincided with Galileo, actually, in time. And we all heard of Plato, but I don't know any tests. So tests was an acronym, but not an acronym of a famous scientist of the past. Exactly. Exactly. Okay. So they don't always work out the way you need to.

50:39Well, yeah. Just as long as the machinery works for us, that's the truth. You don't care what the hell you call it. Yeah.

50:46Neil deGrasse Tyson:All right. So Matt, keep it going. What do you have? I am going to, to try and get through as many of these questions as possible, I am going to try and combine four different - Let's ask Connie and see if she can do a lightning round. Here we are. We're combining four questions. They said it couldn't be done, but four different questioners between, because a lot of people have asked about the effect of sunspots on starquakes and how they affect Earth. So Charles Mako asks how they affect starquakes. Trevor Mills says, how close would a nearby star have to be for a starquake to be considered dangerous for Earth?

51:15And then Sarah Rosen says, how big of a CME would it take for the sun's gravity to be negatively affected? And Gina Martin says, why didn't the starquake back in 2004 wipe us out? I've read that it released more energy than our own sun would admit in 150 ,000 years.

51:32Neil deGrasse Tyson:Okay, so let me tighten all those up. So, Connie, clearly there are quakes going on all the time, and I presume that a CME, a coronal mass ejection, is itself detectable as some kind of quake activity. And, of course, sunspots are measures of the activity of the sun. But you haven't mentioned solar flares or coronal mass ejections or sunspots yet, not much, in this conversation. So what role do they play in all of this? Oh, well, the role they play is they disturb the periodic oscillations of the sun. But it's not bad for us. Why not? Because coronal mass ejection or star spots that rotate around, you know, they do not give the same signal in the periodicity of the quakes.

52:26I'm quaking my microphone right now. So, you know, a coronal mass ejection is an abrupt event. It's more like an earthquake, you could say. It happens and it disappears, right? But it doesn't disturb us finding the five-minute oscillations of the sun, which are always there, yeah? They get disturbed abruptly, but then they continue and they continue and they continue all the time. So for us, you know, we can unravel the signal of star spots of mass ejections, even for stars other than the sun, from the always smooth periodic oscillation.

53:08Neil deGrasse Tyson:So how about the dangers that they might pose if you do have a coronal mass ejection that happens to head towards us? Yeah, so the Earth is protected by a magnetic field that protects us from all these high energetic particles falling in on our planet. And other stars are too far away. So, I mean, it's only a matter of the solar quakes. They are not dangerous for us. The coronal mass ejections, they disturb our electronics every once in a while, right? But, you know, that's not a periodic oscillation that I would call solar quakes. I forgot that you enjoy events like that, even if they mess with our computers.

53:49That's how we started. I forgot that.

53:52Neil deGrasse Tyson:I learned that earlier in this podcast. Yeah, yeah, that's true. So that almost counts as a lightning round, Matt, because she answered three questions in one reply. She did. So let's see if we can get a few more in before we call it a day. Yeah, James Allen from Brisbane in Australia says, could a starquake large enough theoretically cause a star to tear apart and would descend a high radiation blast like a supernova? What could we learn such things from our own star? a star quake would not rip apart a star because it's really a smooth nice uh periodic variability you know the the biggest star quakes in terms of expansion and contraction let's say it can make the star become bigger and smaller by about 10 in its radius let's say but not make it explode that's another phenomenon okay again that's people thinking that a quake is a spontaneous bad thing.

54:45Neil deGrasse Tyson:No, it's a fantastic smooth thing. It's a fantastic smooth thing. Well, on that same note, Connor Holm from Squim, Washington says, is it possible to predict where and when a starquake will occur? And if so, what's the largest predicted starquake and how much bigger is it compared to the largest recorded one? Well, starquakes happen all the time. I keep repeating that. So let me ask it differently then. What variety of your oscillations carries the most energy? um well the the the simplest star quakes are radial oscillations you know up and down and up and down so everything is expanding and contracting while keeping spherical symmetry so that's about the the you know the largest energetic uh it can get and that's for me just a simple oscillation because it's and that's what gives us variable stars i guess right yeah yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, so Cephas, Orolyrae, stars.

55:44Yeah, I mean, it's half a star.

55:46Neil deGrasse Tyson:I mean, some huge fraction of stars in the night sky are variable, presumably for this reason. And I heard when I was in graduate school, Connie, that if you looked at every star close enough with sharp enough data, they're all variable. Of course they are. Everything oscillates, of course. So we just have to draw some arbitrary line of what we catalog as a variable star relative to other stars. But really, to you, everybody's got action. Well, we're measuring the action up to parts per million. Yeah, there it is. Right? You got it. Parts per million. You got it. Matt, let's slip one more in before we got a call.

56:30All right. Margaret Defoe from Milwaukee says, why didn't our solar system go binary? and what is the smallest and largest a star can get? So we're on more general questions about stars, I think.

56:40Neil deGrasse Tyson:Yeah, let's hold aside the largest and smallest. That's a whole other astrophysics question. But Connie, what do you say about why the sun is alone when so many stars in the night sky are binary in multiple systems? Yeah, well, if you look at a star with the mass of the sun, then half of them are in binaries. So that means that half of them are alone. So it's a new quotas, right? Yeah? So that's not so exceptional. But if you go to stars... That's not the answer we were looking for. We wanted you to say, we might have had a double and then it blew up. We want a more sci-fi answer. It was originally a twin.

57:19We lost one of them. It ate the other one in the womb. It ate the other one. I don't think so. I don't think so. But that happens frequently when you go to higher masses. If your star is born with 10 to 100 times more mass than the sun was born with, Well, then about 80 % of the stars are multiple, double stars. So for the sun, I think it's just a logical consequence of there only being half of them that live their life together. Okay. Luckily for us, it wouldn't have been so nice here if it would have been living next to a star that has exploded already. Yeah, it has issues.

57:59Neil deGrasse Tyson:but that's definitely a yet-to-be-written sci-fi drama, I think, a sci-fi action film. Whatever happened to the son's twin, you got it. Well, Connie, it's been a delight to have you on StarTalk. And like I said, my city, my town is your town, so I'm a native of New York City. You're visiting for the sabbatical. Maybe we can get you up to the museum and give you a tour and possibly extort a seminar from you for our astrophysics group. I love this city, so I'm very grateful that you're hosting me. Excellent, excellent. Matt, always good to have you, man. It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.

58:38And this has been great. I've loved hearing about this stuff.

58:40Neil deGrasse Tyson:We've got to land this plane. So thanks for joining us on this episode of StarTalk Cosmic Queries, Starquakes. I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson, as always, bidding you to keep looking up.

59:01Eczema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with Epglyss, a once-monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four in ten people taking Epglyss achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. EBCLIS, Librikizumab, LBKZ, a 250 milligram per two milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema.

59:32Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. EBCLIS can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to EBCLIS. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with EPCLESS. Before starting EPCLESS, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about EPCLESS and visit ePCLESS.lily.com or call 1-800-LILY-RX or 1-800-545-5979.

1:00:01Prime Day is June 23rd through the 26th. These deals are so appealing like portable steamers for steaming. Whoa, did I just sing soprano? I think I'm breaking into song. Epic deals on air fryers,

1:00:20I can't stop Shop Epic Deals this Prime Day, June 23rd through the 26th. I think that's it. Nope, there's more. Luggage, smart glasses.