APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:04 pm

neufer wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
"It is now thought that elliptical galaxies are the result of mergers between" what kinds of galaxies :?:
  • Dwarf, irregular, spiral ... all kinds :?:
All kinds. Ellipticals are the endpoint of loss of organization. Most galaxies have a high degree of organization when they formed, but are randomized by subsequent collisions and interactions.
Well, that might explain why elliptical galaxies have so little overall rotation
but not necessarily why they have so many globular clusters ...
nor why globular clusters themselves have so little overall rotation.
Indeed. Theories about galaxy formation and evolution are not yet well developed. There's a great deal of uncertainty about many factors.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by neufer » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:54 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
"It is now thought that elliptical galaxies are the result of mergers between" what kinds of galaxies :?:
  • Dwarf, irregular, spiral ... all kinds :?:
All kinds. Ellipticals are the endpoint of loss of organization. Most galaxies have a high degree of organization when they formed, but are randomized by subsequent collisions and interactions.
Well, that might explain why elliptical galaxies have so little overall rotation
but not necessarily why they have so many globular clusters ...
nor why globular clusters themselves have so little overall rotation.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:15 pm

neufer wrote:"It is now thought that elliptical galaxies are the result of mergers between" what kinds of galaxies :?:
  • Dwarf, irregular, spiral ... all kinds :?:
All kinds. Ellipticals are the endpoint of loss of organization. Most galaxies have a high degree of organization when they formed, but are randomized by subsequent collisions and interactions.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by neufer » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:53 pm

geckzilla wrote:
You know, I don't have any particular reference for that one. I think I was watching some cosmology lectures when I first learned about that. Since I like Brian Koberlein I'm just gonna reference him.
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/04/25/hubbles-tuning-fork wrote:
It is now thought that elliptical galaxies are the result of mergers between galaxies.
"It is now thought that elliptical galaxies are the result of mergers between" what kinds of galaxies :?:
  • Dwarf, irregular, spiral ... all kinds :?:

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by geckzilla » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:56 am

You know, I don't have any particular reference for that one. I think I was watching some cosmology lectures when I first learned about that. Since I like Brian Koberlein I'm just gonna reference him.
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/04/25/h ... ning-fork/

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by neufer » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:40 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
I didn't think that spiral galaxies were thought to evolve into elliptical galaxies (or vice versa).
I think that's the dominant theory on the origin of most ellipticals. Most galaxies form as spirals, and subsequent collisions and interactions turn those into ellipticals.
Reference :?:

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:42 pm

neufer wrote:I didn't think that spiral galaxies were thought to evolve into elliptical galaxies (or vice versa).
I think that's the dominant theory on the origin of most ellipticals. Most galaxies form as spirals, and subsequent collisions and interactions turn those into ellipticals.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by neufer » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:38 pm

geckzilla wrote:
I would guess that the little overall rotation might have something to do with their age, sort of like how spiral galaxies are thought to evolve into elliptical galaxies. Maybe they used to be flat, but they're not anymore.
I didn't think that spiral galaxies were thought to evolve into elliptical galaxies (or vice versa).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy wrote:
<<Originally Edwin Hubble hypothesized that elliptical galaxies evolved into spiral galaxies, which was later discovered to be false. Stars found inside of elliptical galaxies are much older than stars found in spiral galaxies. Most elliptical galaxies are composed of older, low-mass stars, with a sparse interstellar medium and minimal star formation activity, and they tend to be surrounded by large numbers of globular clusters.>>
I'm thinking that quasar jets evolve into non-rotating globular clusters...
which then cluster into elliptical galaxies or the cores of future spiral galaxies.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by geckzilla » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:08 pm

I would guess that the little overall rotation might have something to do with their age, sort of like how spiral galaxies are thought to evolve into elliptical galaxies. Maybe they used to be flat, but they're not anymore.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by neufer » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:35 pm

geckzilla wrote:
RocketRon wrote:
Do they spin, or otherwise rotate ?
The stars of a globular cluster are said to be in chaotic orbits around the gravitational center. The motion has been likened to bees circling a beehive.
I've often wondered why globular clusters have so little overall rotation.

I wonder if a quasar jet condenses into a string of blobs of matter that form into globular clusters.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Ann » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:06 am

I look forward to the resolution of the Pleiades controversy!

Ann

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by BillT » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:36 am

The Gaia data will also improve many of the other methods. For example, they will get accurate parallax measurements of a considerable number of Cepheid variables allowing improved calibration of that method.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by alter-ego » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:43 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
BillT wrote:
Rob v. wrote: That's really interesting to know. Going forward I will need to look a little more critically at the distances published in Astronomy related articles. It would be nice if quoted distances were accompanied in brackets by some form of abbreviation which would define either the measurement technique used, the estimated accuracy (±xxxx units) or statistical probability indicating the estimated measurement error. I appreciate your patience.
Things will improve a lot when the Gaia mission is completed and all the data reduced.
Yes, but only for a very limited range- stars in our region of the Milky Way. Gaia won't improve our distance estimates for Omega Centauri (where its ~5% error will be similar to the present error with other methods).
Yes, and ironically, it won't measure Deneb either. Stars brighter that 5th to 6th magnitude will saturate the sensors so they are not candidate targets.

Edit: There is disagreement amongst the literature. This description may be the most accurate for the brightness range of stars for astrometry:
Gaia Science Performance wrote: ... G - in the range 3-20 mag - denotes the broad-band, white-light, Gaia magnitude (see below). All stars brighter than G = 3 mag will be observed with a special mode. Depending on how well this mode can be calibrated, end-of-mission parallax standard errors at the level of a few dozen μas could potentially be achieved for these stars. This remains the topic of further work.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:33 am

BillT wrote:
Rob v. wrote: That's really interesting to know. Going forward I will need to look a little more critically at the distances published in Astronomy related articles. It would be nice if quoted distances were accompanied in brackets by some form of abbreviation which would define either the measurement technique used, the estimated accuracy (±xxxx units) or statistical probability indicating the estimated measurement error. I appreciate your patience.
Things will improve a lot when the Gaia mission is completed and all the data reduced.
Yes, but only for a very limited range- stars in our region of the Milky Way. Gaia won't improve our distance estimates for Omega Centauri (where its ~5% error will be similar to the present error with other methods).

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by BillT » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:31 am

Rob v. wrote:
That's really interesting to know. Going forward I will need to look a little more critically at the distances published in Astronomy related articles. It would be nice if quoted distances were accompanied in brackets by some form of abbreviation which would define either the measurement technique used, the estimated accuracy (±xxxx units) or statistical probability indicating the estimated measurement error. I appreciate your patience.

Regards, Rob v.
Things will improve a lot when the Gaia mission is completed and all the data reduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_%28spacecraft%29

The observation part of the mission is a couple of months away from halfway point (2.5 years) and they are planning to release a preliminary catalogue towards the end of this year. At the end of the mission they will have collected about 200 tb of data. The full results are expected around 2020.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Rob v. » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:23 am

hamilton1 wrote:
Rob v. wrote: I did not think that the measurements to astronomical objects lacked so much precision.
Yes indeed, even the estimated distance to the great searchlight Deneb ranges from ~1400LY to 3,000 LY. So we don't know if the light left it after the end of the Roman Empire or just when they were putting the finishing touches to Stonehenge. Pretty big difference.
Hi Hamilton1,
That's for sure.... At least in human time-scale terms. When it comes to universe time-scale terms: Meh. Close enough. :ssmile:
Rob v.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Rob v. » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:09 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Rob v. wrote:With Hubble measuring the distance to the farthest objects in the universe with an accuracy of 3% I wonder if the this distance measurement to Omega Centauri could be refined.
The accuracy with which we're able to measure distance depends on the distance, and the available techniques for that distance. We can actually measure the distance to the edge of the observable universe with more accuracy than we can measure the distance to nearby galaxies, or even to many objects within our own galaxy.
Hi Chris,

That's really interesting to know. Going forward I will need to look a little more critically at the distances published in Astronomy related articles. It would be nice if quoted distances were accompanied in brackets by some form of abbreviation which would define either the measurement technique used, the estimated accuracy (±xxxx units) or statistical probability indicating the estimated measurement error. I appreciate your patience.

Regards, Rob v.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Rob v. » Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:38 am

Visual_Astronomer wrote:
Rob v. wrote: With Hubble measuring the distance to the farthest objects in the universe with an accuracy of 3% I wonder if the this distance measurement to Omega Centauri could be refined.
Hubble may be measuring red-shift that accurately, but converting that to distance gets less precise.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
Hi Visual Astronomer,

Now that I had a chance to find some time away from work and commitments to revisit and go to look at your referred to link I have a little more of a grasp of how difficult it must be for scientists to perform the measurements. (Evaluating the proper technique to apply, obtaining or calibrating the instruments, finding adequate conditions and time to perform the measurements, collect, compile and analyze the data, etc.) Very cool. Thank you for the interesting information.

Rob v.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by hamilton1 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:10 pm

Rob v. wrote: I did not think that the measurements to astronomical objects lacked so much precision.
Yes indeed, even the estimated distance to the great searchlight Deneb ranges from ~1400LY to 3,000 LY. So we don't know if the light left it after the end of the Roman Empire or just when they were putting the finishing touches to Stonehenge. Pretty big difference.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:17 pm

Rob v. wrote:With Hubble measuring the distance to the farthest objects in the universe with an accuracy of 3% I wonder if the this distance measurement to Omega Centauri could be refined.
The accuracy with which we're able to measure distance depends on the distance, and the available techniques for that distance. We can actually measure the distance to the edge of the observable universe with more accuracy than we can measure the distance to nearby galaxies, or even to many objects within our own galaxy.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Fred the Cat » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:17 pm

http://earthsky.org/tonight/spica-guide ... a-centauri

Just in case anyone wants to look. :roll:

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Visual_Astronomer » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:02 pm

Joe Stieber wrote:
Visual_Astronomer wrote:Omega Centauri is one of the most spectacular objects in the sky for the visual astronomer. Make an effort to view it, even if all you have are binoculars. It is worth the effort!
I agree with you entirely, except not everyone is geographically located in a favorable position to do so. Omega Centauri has a declination of 47.5° south, so it's position is more favorable to observers in the southern hemisphere.
I'm at 30° north in central Texas, so it is pretty low, but on a rare night of very steady air the view through my 20" looks a lot like this APOD picture!

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by CharlesV » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:23 pm

I find it intriguing that these globular clusters are like tiny galaxies with millions of stars chaotically revolving around a center of gravity. Is it not possible that they are "proto-galaxies" that were arrested in their development just like some proto-planets were? I find that idea fascinating.

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Joe Stieber » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:34 pm

Visual_Astronomer wrote:Omega Centauri is one of the most spectacular objects in the sky for the visual astronomer. Make an effort to view it, even if all you have are binoculars. It is worth the effort!
I agree with you entirely, except not everyone is geographically located in a favorable position to do so. Omega Centauri has a declination of 47.5° south, so it's position is more favorable to observers in the southern hemisphere. At a latitude of 40 degrees north, which cuts across the middle of the United States, Omega culminates just several degrees above the southern horizon (including a little boost from atmospheric refraction). Therefore, it's difficult to see, let alone see well, because of considerable atmospheric absorption down that low (even on nights with nice clear skies overhead, it's often murky near the horizon). As a result, it's a challenge just to spot Omega from 40°N, although I've heard of observers seeing it from Long Island, NY, and the north shore of Lake Ontario.

I've seen Omega a number of times from East Point, NJ (the site of the APOD for January 8, 2012), on the north shore of the Delaware Bay (at 39.2°N latitude). When sky conditions permit, it's visible in binoculars, but typically, it's not really outstanding. On one lucky occasion (January 31, 2008), when transparency was unusually good over the bay, Omega was spectacular in my 16x70 binoculars, better than globular clusters M4 and M13 at the same time, which were at much higher altitudes. I've been trying to spot Omega for a while now from Coyle Field, an observing site closer to central NJ (at 39.8°N), but so far, I haven't had a definitive sighting yet.

Of course, the best thing is to be at a more southerly location, so if you're in the northern hemisphere and travel south in the winter, take your binoculars!

Re: APOD: Omega Centauri: The Brightest Star... (2016 Apr 27)

by Visual_Astronomer » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:59 pm

Rob v. wrote: With Hubble measuring the distance to the farthest objects in the universe with an accuracy of 3% I wonder if the this distance measurement to Omega Centauri could be refined.
Hubble may be measuring red-shift that accurately, but converting that to distance gets less precise.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

Top