Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

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: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

Re: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by starnut » Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:51 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
NoelC wrote:What struck me as interesting is that the text identifies the big dipper as not a cluster, when recent research shows all but the endmost stars are moving in the same direction. Would that make it "mostly a cluster?"
I would consider the Big Dipper to be an open cluster, since five of the seven stars are pretty clearly associated with each other. Unlike globular clusters, there is no requirement that open clusters be gravitationally bound, just that they be formed from a group of stars with a common origin and which are still reasonably close together. Once the stars get far enough apart calling them a cluster doesn't make much sense, but that distance is completely arbitrary.
The stars of Big Dipper, aka Ursa Major, are members of the well-known Ursa Major Moving Group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursa_Major_Moving_Group

Gary

Re: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by neufer » Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:27 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
bystander wrote:When I think of star clusters, I think of hundreds of stars, if not thousands. Five or six stars (or even ten) does not make a cluster for me.
Not a particularly impressive cluster, perhaps, but a cluster all the same.
Cluster, n. [AS. cluster, clyster; cf. LG. kluster
(also Sw. & Dan. klase a cluster of grapes, D. klissen to be entangled?.)]

1. A number of things of the same kind growing together; a bunch.

Her deeds were like great clusters of ripe grapes, Which load the bunches of the fruitful vine. Spenser.

2. A number of similar things collected together or lying contiguous; a group; as, a cluster of islands. Cluster of provinces." Motley.

3. A number of individuals grouped together or collected in one place; a crowd; a mob.

As bees . . . Pour forth their populous youth about the hive In clusters. Milton.

We loved him; but, like beasts And cowardly nobles, gave way unto your clusters, Who did hoot him out o' the city. Shak.
----------------------------------------
Star cluster s (From Wikipedia)

<<Star clusters are physically bound systems of stars. In order of low compactness to high compactness (and in some sense also age) they range from stellar associations to open clusters to globular clusters.

Star clusters are held together by the gravitation of their members. Due to both external (encounters with massive objects, influence of the host galaxy) and internal (encounters with other cluster members, stellar evolution) influences, clusters slowly evaporate. Their lifetime varies from a few million years for loose associations to many billions (milliards) of years for massive globulars.

The brightest and nearest stellar clusters are visible with the naked eye. The most prominent open clusters are the Pleiades and Hyades in Taurus, but h+Chi Persei can also be a spectacular sight outside the glare of human settlements.

The brightest globular cluster is Omega Centauri, visible with the naked eye from the southern hemisphere. The best known globular cluster in the northern hemisphere is M13 (modestly called The Great Globular Cluster) in Hercules.

In general clusters, due to their rather homogeneous stellar population and relatively well-known distances, play an important role in astrophysics and astrometry.

An open cluster is exactly that: A relatively loose collection of stars. Stars are normally separated by a few light years although they can be closer. Eventually, interactions and the slightly different orbits of the stars around the galactic centre will force the open cluster to disperse. Large open clusters will form streams, vast groups of stars sharing a common motion through space but separated by tens of light years. Our Sun is in the Ursa Major Stream at the moment, but isn't a true member, just passing through. Also at this stage, the most tightly bound members of the former open cluster will still be close together but not close enough to be called an open cluster. This is a moving cluster, most of the stars in Ursa Major are members of the Ursa Major Moving Cluster. This was once the core of the Ursa Major Stream. Mirfak (α Persei) is the lead star in the Alpha Persei Moving Cluster, another easy moving cluster. Distant moving clusters can't readily be detected since the proper motions of the stars need to be known.

Of the well known clusters, the Hyades and the Pleiades, the Hyades are very nearly a moving cluster, being relatively sparse and well separated. In a few million years, they will be a moving cluster. They were both formed at around the same time (give or take a hundred million years) and in the same manner. A cloud of gas, like M42 today, begins forming stars. Since the cloud is of a finite size then the stars will form close by each other. Eventually they drive away the remaining nebula and appear as another open cluster.

Globular clusters aren't found in the plane of the galaxy, but all around it. Many of them are probably the cores of galaxies long since merged into ours, having had all their gas, dust and dark matter stripped from them until only the denser stars remain. Others were formed in much the same way as open clusters, but on a much, much grander scale. There is a low mass globular currently being formed in the SMC, astronomers use this as a unique insight into the formation of these objects since no other nearby sites like this are known. When a globular is forming, it has to form from a molecular cloud and a relatively dense one. These are rare, and explain why a galaxy has far, far less globulars than it does galactic clusters. Also, the rate of condensation of the molecular cloud must be low. It's no good forming massive O or B stars because they'll just explode after a few million years. The majority of stars that have to be formed are those of the classes similar to our sun, F, G and K. These will burn steadily for billions of years and not be so violent as to evaporate the nebula before the cluster has grown to the size needed to be a globular. Lastly, the globular, being very dense compared to other regions of space, will be ejected from the plane of the galaxy and enter a stable halo orbit.>>
----------------------------------------
Groups and clusters of galaxies (From Wikipedia)
...............................
Groups of galaxies

<<Groups of galaxies are the smallest aggregates of galaxies. They typically have the following properties.

* They contain less than 50 galaxies.
* They have a diameter of about 2 megaparsec (Mpc) (see 1 E22 m for distance comparisons).
* Their mass is approximately 1013 solar masses.
* The spread of velocities for the individual galaxies is about 150 km/s.>>
...............................
Clusters of galaxies

<<Clusters are larger than groups, although there is no sharp dividing line between a group and a cluster. When observed visually, clusters appear to be collections of galaxies held together by mutual gravitational attraction. However their velocities are too large for them to remain gravitationally bound by their mutual attractions, implying the presence of an additional invisible mass component. X-ray studies have revealed the presence of large amounts of intergalactic gas. This gas is very hot, around 108K, hence emits X-rays. The total mass of the gas is greater than that of the galaxies by roughly a factor of two. However this is still not enough mass to keep the galaxies in the cluster. Since this gas is in approximate equilibrium with the overall cluster gravitational field, its distribution in the cluster traces out the overall cluster gravitational field, and therefore allows calculation of the total mass distribution in the cluster. It turns out the total mass deduced from this measurement is much larger than the mass of the galaxies or the hot gas. The missing component is known as dark matter and its nature is unknown. In a typical cluster perhaps only 5% of the total mass is in the form of galaxies, maybe 10% in the form of hot X-ray emitting gas and the remainder is dark matter.

Clusters typically have the following properties.

* They contain 50 to 1000 galaxies, hot X-ray emitting gas and large amounts of dark matter
* The distribution of these three components is approximately the same in the cluster.
* They have total masses of 1014 to 1015 solar masses.
* They typically have a diameter of 8Mpc (see 1 E23 m for distance comparisons).
* The spread of velocities for the individual galaxies is about 800-1000 km/s.
* The average distance between clusters is approximately 10 Mpc.

Note: clusters of galaxies should not be confused with star clusters such as globular clusters and open clusters, which are structures within galaxies.>>
...............................
Superclusters

<<Groups, clusters and some isolated galaxies form even larger structures, the superclusters.

At the very largest scales of the visible universe, matter is gathered into filaments and walls surrounding vast voids. This structure resembles a foam.>>

Re: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:43 pm

bystander wrote:When I think of star clusters, I think of hundreds of stars, if not thousands. Five or six stars (or even ten) does not make a cluster for me.
Not a particularly impressive cluster, perhaps, but a cluster all the same.

Re: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by bystander » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:13 pm

NoelC wrote:What struck me as interesting is that the text identifies the big dipper as not a cluster, when recent research shows all but the endmost stars are moving in the same direction. Would that make it "mostly a cluster?"
When I think of star clusters, I think of hundreds of stars, if not thousands. Five or six stars (or even ten) does not make a cluster for me.

BTW, Noel, nice picture.

Re: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:11 pm

NoelC wrote:What struck me as interesting is that the text identifies the big dipper as not a cluster, when recent research shows all but the endmost stars are moving in the same direction. Would that make it "mostly a cluster?"
I would consider the Big Dipper to be an open cluster, since five of the seven stars are pretty clearly associated with each other. Unlike globular clusters, there is no requirement that open clusters be gravitationally bound, just that they be formed from a group of stars with a common origin and which are still reasonably close together. Once the stars get far enough apart calling them a cluster doesn't make much sense, but that distance is completely arbitrary.

Re: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by NoelC » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:50 pm

Good answer, Chris; right on the money.

What struck me as interesting is that the text identifies the big dipper as not a cluster, when recent research shows all but the endmost stars are moving in the same direction. Would that make it "mostly a cluster?"

-Noel

Re: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:29 pm

apodman wrote:People like to get confused over what defines an asterism versus a constellation or a star cluster. Seemingly contradictory descriptions like those quoted above do nothing to help clear things up. I feel free to use "asterism" to describe any star pattern whether it is a constellation, a cluster, neither, or unknown. Usually I say "group of stars" which means just as much or as little. We could have asked whether the coat hanger is a cluster or not - which is the full intent here - without mentioning the "a" word at all.
I don't think people get confused between the two. But the description for the Coat Hanger APOD is not well written- it is, in fact, wrong. "Asterism" is precisely the correct word to use in this case, because the star grouping suggests a recognizable shape. In its educational mission, APOD would have been remiss to avoid using that word. The error comes from the idea that an open cluster can't be an asterism. The two are by no means mutually exclusive, which is what the APOD writeup seems to suggest.

The Coat Hanger was an asterism when it was believed to be an open cluster, and it remains an asterism now that it is known not to be.

Re: Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by neufer » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:37 pm

Coat Hanger: Cluster? Asterism? (2008 Dec 23)

by apodman » Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:22 am

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap081223.html
APOD 2008 Dec 23 wrote:Chance star projections are known as asterisms, an example of which is the popular Big Dipper.
... which was linked to ...
APOD 2007 Jan 08 wrote:Five of the Big Dipper stars are actually near each other in space and were likely formed at nearly the same time.
People like to get confused over what defines an asterism versus a constellation or a star cluster. Seemingly contradictory descriptions like those quoted above do nothing to help clear things up. I feel free to use "asterism" to describe any star pattern whether it is a constellation, a cluster, neither, or unknown. Usually I say "group of stars" which means just as much or as little. We could have asked whether the coat hanger is a cluster or not - which is the full intent here - without mentioning the "a" word at all.

---

Reason for all the edits: My original link at the top of the post - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081223.html - disappeared intermittently and I tried to find out why phpBB3 likes "antwrp.gsfc" better than "apod" in the url. Didn't find out.

Top