Omega Centaury in a dark sky is just incredible. I watched it in a star party, with my 150/750 telescope and a 18mm 60 degree eyepiece. The object was at the zenit, also. The cluster occupies almost the entire field of view, the stars look perfectly defined, colorful, and very bright. A spectacular object.
In answer to your question: I saw at least a dozen globulars as a kid, when I converted my paper route money into a 6" f/8 Newtonian reflector. My fave was Lucky M13, in Hercules, perhaps the brightest (in apparent magnitude) of all the globulars and high up in northern latitude skies. M4 was cool, too, and easy to find, being practically in the same field as Antares, Heart of the Scorpion. I don't think, however, I ever saw NGC 6397, the closest globular to us, probably due to its excessively low declination (-53 degrees), putting it down in the smog from my +38 degrees latitude of the day. Thanks for bringing up these fond memories! Especially of M13, in my senile opinion the fairest of them all. Please keep up the good work, your videos are FANTASTIC!
Thanks Fraser. Marvelous presentation. My dad belonged to San Jose Astronomical Association for many many years. He kept loaner telescopes for the club and loaned them out. He ground his own telescope lenses. He went to public viewing night every month for many years, educating countless members of the public about astronomy . He had a 10" reflector telescope. Very heavy to lift and to set up at star parties in Henry Coe state park and Grant Ranch, both south east of San Jose. I've looked through his telescopes many times. Magical!
my favorite thing to view from my scope is jupiter. the 4 main moons are like diamonds, always in a new position so im never bored. When showing friends saturn always gives a wow factor i remember resolving the image for the first time to this day. seeing the oval shape and the holes between the rings appear before my eyes did make me sweat with amazement. when mars was last at its closest that was amazing too. seeing dark brown patches and the ice caps made me humbled.
My dad bought a telescope for me when I was 7 years old because I was inseparable from our Time Life illustrated encyclopedia book, "Our Universe". This was in 1977, so I had to figure out everything by myself. On my first attempt that very night, I caught 2 planets in the same field of view. Not sure which ones because I hadn't quite figured out how to focus using the various eyepieces that came with the previously owned, Jason Empire, 4" refractor. I got real good, real quick, and eventually spotted a fuzzy looking thing almost directly south in the fall sky. I almost lost my mind when it resolved into a ball of stars! I found 1 or 2 others that weren't as impressive but I didn't know what any of them were called. I had no reference material to identify things back then and the telescope gradually fell into disrepair. Recently, I bought a 6"(!!!) reflector and I've been building a case for it so I can take it up into the nearby mountains without knocking out the collimation. Lol! I have a nice selection of lenses for it and can't wait to check it out! Love your channel, thanks for doing such a good thing for the curious minds around the world! Peace.
As a young boy, I was told by my father that a Globular Cluster was a senior citizen community where old stars went to retire. Many years late, I still like to think of them that way.
I had a customer come into my work today. we was looking at mini arduino cameras to attach to a cubesat thats being sent to the ISS as part of a combined school project. Kind of made me sort of love my meager job for that moment. We then had a good conversation on how the definition of moon is clearly broken.
Fraser, Nice presentation on Globular Clusters. Yes, for those interested, definitely determine where your local amateur astronomy organisation, or local observatory is, that organise "Star Parties". and then go. We have one here in 29 Palms, California, at the "Sky's the Limit" Observatory every Saturday night that does not have a full Moon. We have several volunteers who set up telescopes to share views of the Planets, open and globular star clusters, Nebula, Galaxies, and occasionally the stray comet. Times are just after it becomes dark, and depending on who shows up, could last all night if someone decides to stay that long. Most events last three to four hours. From 10-12 November 2017, we participate with the Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP) to put on the "Night Sky Festival". We had nearly 1000 people participate last year, and expect this year to be even bigger. Joshua Tree National Park is designated a "Dark Sky" site, so if you have a telescope, and are in the local area, come up and have some fun, any night, as our Campus is open to the public 365 days a year. We are on the border of JTNP, but are not affiliated with the Park.
Seeing your first globular star cluster with a telescope for the first time and really I mean ALL scopes...SCT, Newtonian, Dobsonian or refractor you WILL be impressed. Due to how the light gathering works its usually CCD and long exposures that coax out the colours and details of amazing deep space objects but after planets for your eyes only, my recommendation would be star clusters...you will be awed by their majesty!
I was in Malawi this week, went out to take pictures of the stars but it was too hazy. Malawi runs on firewood and charcoal, and millions of cooking fires make stargazing difficult.
Hey thanks Fraser, I remember asking you about globs on your personal livestream not so long ago. Thanks for diving into this topic! The collision stuff makes a lot of sense to explain the blue stars. I'm not sold on black holes being found in them, I think their morphology suggests they lack a black hole, otherwise they might have a stronger rotational and elliptical plane like galaxies. Perhaps they are proto-galaxies of their own, lacking a black hole but fuelled by collisions near the center so they form this globular symmetry. As more stars are sucked and collided, they slowly grow their internal density and gravitational pull. In theory if they hoover up enough stars to continue the collision process they could become dense enough to create a central black hole and become a small galaxy. I don't know anything about anything but that's my guess. What do you think?
One correction milky way is bigger than anything in local group including adromada. 120,000 light years across twice previous size previously thought. Not smaller th adromada
Also implying even more stars we previously belief didnt exist a year ago. Hell universe could be 24 billion years old and we wouldnt know. If we didnt have tech to measure correctly cosmic backgroud radiation. Same species sacrifacing to gods not that long ago can make errors with expermintal long range teloscopes
If we reconsider the whole solar system atom model and suppose a galaxy is an atom too, then this globular clusters make a lotttt of sense as following similar patterns to Earth's history. If we imagine that around these stars are smaller objects like planets, and around those smaller still, and smaller still, filling the space between the stars, then these globular clusters coalesce into a single object in space. I truly believe this is like taking an x-ray image of a planet. Seeing all its chakra energy points that are of the highest energies, and then seeing through the space between them to give a sort of skeletal view of a planet. And of a star and every other particle in the universe because all systems function identically, just seen from different angles. Earth also formed in waves. It has undergone multiple major resurfacings of the crust as the Earth erupted. The first time, it was physically much more like Mercury and it literally underwent a planetary supernova to become as Venus is today. And then when Venus of today, which was like Mercury before, also underwent its own planetary supernova, it caused our Earth--like Venus is now--to be like Earth of today. Except, it was a single landmass. The system was knocked out of balance by the supernova of Venus and it began to rotate and this caused its electromagnetic field to be sort of "turned on", as a physical flow of particles through the planet was caused to flow, which due to high concentration at the center of the planet then produces more macroscopic mass, then trapped within the planet that it was initially able to enter as more subtle particles, until the crust ruptured and the Earth physically expanded. This is where the oceans were created. Thus, Earth contains written in its crust and layers a history of having ancient shields, surrounding continental shelf, and ocean floors. These each sequentially formed in waves. As, too, the waves of star formation occur in globular clusters. And we are able to, with our x-ray eyes, penetrate the interior of these globular clusters and observe similar processes occurring across the octaves of the infinite universe. My two cents. Thanks for the video, I appreciate the information! Please pardon my plausible insanity.
After watching TNG Illustrious Simulation, I have no doubt what it is. This is a living organism. Every day brings new scientific evidence that it is.We must change all, WORLD isn't that we are thinking about.
I saw many of the globular clusters from the dark skies of Atacama (Chile). You should visit, the sky is dark and clear because of the desertic climate. With a telescope you can see marvels.
If you are thinking of future episode ideas. Would you do one of Star Mergers? How do they evolve after merging. How long do they live? Do any go Supernova in Globular Clusters Are there any very high mass stars that are the result of merging. Thanks.
Great presentation! I have many questions concerning globular clusters. Do the stars in a gc have movement or rotation around a center? Are there planets in the stars in the gc? If gc are so old, there should be a lot of post-star-life objects like neutron stars, ... and others. Is that true? Is it possible to find habitable planets around stars in a gc? Should we be looking there?
They orbit around the shared center of gravity of the cluster. In theory there could be habitable planets in there, especially now that our understanding of where liquid water can form has been expanded.
It is :) BUT only cause like with Metric/Imperial we are mixed up...ask a Canadian to pronounce "Decal" and depending where you ask prepare to be amused :D
Hi Frazer. Why does globular clusters not collapse on themselves and form a superstar due to the immense gravity? Also, how can scientists measure the age of the galaxy using them? Cheers mate
All those stars are orbiting around a common center of gravity. They wouldn't collapse unless they collide together. Regarding age, that's an awesome question and I'm using it for a QA. Short answer, they know that the hot stars would have exploded a long time ago. They look for the most mature main sequence stars to find out the age of the cluster. Here's a link that explains more: www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l7_p6.html
Awesome video!!! I have 2 Questions: 1. What would happen to icy worlds of our solar system if it is in the Globular Cluster? 2. Earth would still be habitable if it is in Globular Cluster?
Would it ever be possible to measure what's going on inside a singularity by creating an artificial micro black hole and using quantum entanglement to measure the effects on its counterpart particles outside of the micro black hole?
Sorry, I really have to correct this: "Omega" is not a cluster ... "omega Centauri" is, ... this goes back in time when sky was divided in constellations, and stars in a constellations were named alpha, betha, gamma, etc... in order of brightness ... the omega star of the Centaurus constellation turn out to be a Galactic globular cluster, omega Centauri indeed.
Binoculars are worthy. And very accessible. When people ask me what should I get for my first telescope. My answer is your uncles/mothers/granddads/sisters old binoculars.
I was wondering, Professor Chris Impey had a series of lectures on youtube "Essentials of Astronomy" or something. it was 10 videos each about an hour long of a lecture. one of the best starter playlists for astronomy youtube has ever had(thats actually saying quite a bit) it was taken do and any copies on other channels as well. I was curious, youtube bizzaro ToS policies aside, what would prompt a prof to take something that awesome down? i hope he wasnt pressured by the uni or something like that.
If we get "Star Lifting" working these clusters would seem to be resource gold mines. Reduce the clusters to a handful of large stars. I doubt there is life where there is so many stars so close.
Is it possible to use the ability of regular matter to contract space-time and the ability of "dark energy" to expand it, to create the Alcubierre warp drive?
Question about Stellar black holes, If Black holes give off Hawking Radiation, could it be possible that sometime in the future nasa could build a telescope or probe that could detect hawking radiation and use that to determine where a black hole might be?
I am still troubled with this question. Surely the universe is finite? If we teleported a few trillion light years away. How could you see the CMB. It took that light 13.8 billion light years to travel to Earth. How can light from the same point end up a few trillion light years away, when its only travelled for 13.8 billion light years?
If you traveled out to where the CMB is now, you'd be in a new location in the Universe and see the CMB in all directions to a distance of 13.8 billion light-years.
Is there any possibility that somewhere, some globular clusters exist which are are so old that they now consist only of white dwarfs and neutron stars etc?
The more massive a star is the hotter and brighter it is and the faster it fuses hydrogen into heavier elements. This means that even though there is more hydrogen to fuse it gets used up quicker, in some cases only a few million years instead of billions. Because of this any large star in very old clusters will have long since gone supernova--- unless, as addressed in this video, the star is the result of a merger of two or more smaller stars, which is rare but possible in the relatively dense environment of these clusters. Stars which are less massive, even some less massive than our sun will have had the 1-13 billion years needed in these clusters to progress from main sequence to red giant to white dwarf. The smallest stars take hundreds of billions or even 1 trillion yrs to progress to white dwarfs. To sum up, excepting stars formed from collision of smaller stars, the oldest clusters should consist of black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, and red dwarfs. All clusters will have some main sequence stars, mostly red dwarfs, and generally the larger the largest main sequence stars in the cluster are the younger it is.
Would there be any globulars in elliptical galaxies? Aren't they formed from galaxy mergers, and so wouldn't they be disturbed in that process? I understand individual stars are very unlikely to collide during a merger, but it strikes me that a ball of millions would have a much greater risk.
Either pronunciation sounds fine to me, it's the name I hate. "Globular Clusters." If you've ever had a sinus infection or a really bad cold and you can't clear out your nose... Globular Clusters.
So where do globular clusters come from? Also I had no idea that our galaxy was almost just as old as the universe itself. This means that galaxies happened relatively soon after the universe began.
What does the future of a globular cluster look like? Star merger until large enough to collapse into a black hole? Then black hole merger until we have a single super duper massive black hole?
Great vid. Speaking of relics, stars and lightyears....whats going on with that star that is supposedly 14.5 billion years old. How is it older than the universe. Im still kinda confused on how scientists know how old the universe is...well are we just calculating how old the observable universe is??!! Sorry long question friend.
If the 'Grey aliens of the Zeta Reticuli system' actually exist, would we be able to detect the presence of life on their home-world within our lifetime?
Purchasing a telescope can be an absolute mine field for an inexperienced individual. I strongly recommend that you seek the help of an astronomy club, a quick google search will in all probability yield at least one or two in your immediate vicinity. They will be happy to guide you around the many pitfalls laying in wait for you, show you where to find the biggest bang for your buck and teach you the basics of how to observe what interests you.
Thank you for your answer.Thought mayby someone here could recommend something and then i could search around the web. i Kinda thought about the Explore Scientific Ultra Light Dobsonian 10" 254/1270. But i can not really find good info on it
Francois, I agree. I should have done that. I bought a 6" reflector, new for $500, but it doesn't have go to capability. Now, I have to drop more money on a tracking mount. I later joined our local astronomy club that has star parties every once in a while and even a loaner program so I can borrow a scope.
If N stars are arranged in a cubical lattice throughout a cubical volume, V, then the distance of each star to its nearest neighbor star will be dₑ = ∛(V) / [∛(N)−1] But if N stars are randomly distributed throughout a cubical volume, V, then the expected value for the average distance between _each star and its nearest neighbor star_ will be (approximately) dᵣ = 0.516 dₑ The statistical expectation value for the distance between _the very closest pair of stars_ in that volume would be dᵤ = 0.0644 dₑ = ⅛ dᵣ You would expect that the distance between the very closest pair of stars to be one-eighth of the average distance between each star and its nearest neighbor. One light year equals about 63241 AU. If there are 1000 stars in a cubical volume of one cubic light year, then by how many astronomical units are the stars typically separated from their nearest neighbors? 3626 AU. And how far apart would we expect the very closest pair to be? 453 AU.
Life in the universe appears to be just sprouting. Equivalent to a two year old. Given the age of stars, earth, and how long is took to make things like fish, distribution of heavy elements, we could be part of the second generation of life forms. Maybe even part of the last first generation.
At least when it comes to astronomy, nature seems to abhor sharp lines. We like to classify things as asteroids OR comets OR planets, but we see, even in our own solar system, things that were once comets and now are burnt out and look like asteroids, icy asteroids that might be comets if they moved a bit closer, a dwarf planet that was the first asteroid discovered, other dwarf planets that are basically dirty snowballs, etc. I suspect there is likewise no really sharp line between globular clusters and dwarf galaxies -- and I'm not even talking about "globular clusters" that are probably the stripped cores of dwarf galaxies.
Globulars are very old, but what types of stars can live that long in such high numbers? I would think they would only be low mass stars like our star and smaller - and these aren't brilliant to us on Earth from over 10,000 ly away? Maybe I'm confused by these photographs taken by very large telescopes? These are all mostly small dim stars? Is that correct?
I love showing these clusters to people in the telescope at our observatory in Prague. The problem is that some people has trouble seeing anything in the IP. Because these objects aren't very bright, since we also have a lot of light polution in the city, even if the observatory is in the darker part of the city. And also, people come from light in the dome with telescope where is dark and since their eyes are not adapted enough to the dark, they have problem to see it. So what i do is when people come to the telescope, i start telling them something about the glabular cluster, also showing the picture of it which i personally took in my phone (with app on that makes strong filter) and the meantime, they eyes gets adapted. But still, some can see it and others not. The problem is that some people has bad eyes and well, some people are stupid. Don't know how to look into the telescope, even if i'm telling them where to look. They just don't know that they should close one eye and stuff like this. An adult person doesn't know how to look through telescope. Just weird. From globular star clusters, i'm mostly showing M3, M13, M15, M92, from which M92 is the most awesome one. It has nice contrast. And i can actually see "all" the stars in the cluster with 330x magnification, which is the highest magnification our telescope has.
I read in Sky and Telescope that it is better to view with both eyes open. If it's dark, why close one eye? I've tried it both ways and really don't see a difference though. At the eclipse recently, I saw one guy use an eye-patch and view the sun with the other eye. He said it helped his focus to have both eyes open and one covered.
Well, the most important is to see the object in the telescope as cearly as possible. In our dome, we don't have a complete dark during the night time. We need to have small light on due to security reason. So there is dark enough, but not complete dark. So if you look into the IP with both eyes opened, you will also get the picture from the eye that doesn't look into the IP, overlaping picture of the eye looking into the IP. Meaning you will get worse quality picture of the object. Important is to have complete dark in the eye that doesn't look into the IP. And you achieve that by either closing that eye or somehow covering it. Either by hand or eye-patch or whatever. But when i spoke about people don't know how to look into the telescope, you wouldn't believe what some people do when they are trying to look into it. Not covering the other eye was just one of many examples.
Hi Fraser, re causing a star to blow up: you said the way to do was to bring 50 - 100 more stars and merge them. Couldn't you just inject a lot of iron into a star? That seems much easier if no more realistic. But since it's just a thought experiment...
The rain was a totally new technique. We needed to code up a brand new kind of software to handle that. Very complicated and CPU intensive, but I think it was worth it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but many years ago as a young boy (now 73 yrs.) I was told by a serious star gazer that these very old stars gravitated away from the main galaxy and grouped together as if spending their remaining lives in a senior retirement home. Was he just pulling my leg?
Will any of the new super telescopes that you have talked about be pointed at Andromeda? Would they be able to give us a more detailed look at our neighbor or is it just too far away?
it not really that far at all as far as space distance in concerned. look up how big it is in the night sky and you will probable shit yourself. the issue is there is way too many brighter things in the sky too. so high exposure is the key here not scope size. If you were referring to individual objects it then i apologize, new scopes probably will help then.
Your rain mocks me. These are very interesting objects. I wonder how many of the stars within them actually have planets. Given the shear number of opportunities for stars to interact with other stars in the cluster, these things might be the equivalent of galactic shotguns, spewing planets hither and yon.
i really honestly want to know for some reason that is it possible to create something as good as a ground telescope with a 5 meter diameter mirror but instead using b(f)a(r)l(a)d(s) p(e)e(r)o(c)p(a)l(i)e(n) and if so how many would one need? thisishauntingmealldaysorryifthisisr00dinanyway
and convincing enought people to do so would probably be the most difficult thing... by the way would you contribute to such a thing if it ever were to happen?... or actually what about just a bunch of spherical mirrors. wonder if that would work for some kind of telescope
I think the Andromeda Galaxy is supposed to appear be about the same size. Could have fooled me. Takes me a long time to find it, and when I do it looks a lot smaller. Maybe because a lot of the light isn't registering in my eyes, even though it's there.
mac195000 Its important to remember that many astronomical features are so faint that either you see very little, or nothing at all. an example would be all those gorgeous nebula pictures. photographers are using multiple spectrums and super long exposures. likely these clusters are so dim that any perimeter is extremely difficult to distinguish and require absolutely no light pollution (good luck on that one).
"Let's not talk about weird things like aliens or black holes, let's talk about globular clusters." ---proceeds to talk about super-massive black holes at the center. smh
most amateur astronomers are old men just itching to share their knowledge etc. I would suggest joining a local space forum and asking around. You will find they are all super friendly and willing to help you. When someone upgrades they will generally let you know.
Join your local astronomy club. Our astronomy club here in Houston meets once a month close to downtown, but they also own a dark sky site in Columbus, TX about an hour to two hour drive away. They have star parties there, share information, and even have a telescope loaner program. I should have done that before buying my scope.
Rain rain go away
Fraser's background isn't so green today
Omega Centaury in a dark sky is just incredible. I watched it in a star party, with my 150/750 telescope and a 18mm 60 degree eyepiece. The object was at the zenit, also. The cluster occupies almost the entire field of view, the stars look perfectly defined, colorful, and very bright. A spectacular object.
I appreciate the variety of videos you produce keep it up
In answer to your question: I saw at least a dozen globulars as a kid, when I converted my paper route money into a 6" f/8 Newtonian reflector. My fave was Lucky M13, in Hercules, perhaps the brightest (in apparent magnitude) of all the globulars and high up in northern latitude skies. M4 was cool, too, and easy to find, being practically in the same field as Antares, Heart of the Scorpion. I don't think, however, I ever saw NGC 6397, the closest globular to us, probably due to its excessively low declination (-53 degrees), putting it down in the smog from my +38 degrees latitude of the day. Thanks for bringing up these fond memories! Especially of M13, in my senile opinion the fairest of them all. Please keep up the good work, your videos are FANTASTIC!
Thanks Fraser. Marvelous presentation. My dad belonged to San Jose Astronomical Association for many many years. He kept loaner telescopes for the club and loaned them out. He ground his own telescope lenses. He went to public viewing night every month for many years, educating countless members of the public about astronomy . He had a 10" reflector telescope. Very heavy to lift and to set up at star parties in Henry Coe state park and Grant Ranch, both south east of San Jose. I've looked through his telescopes many times. Magical!
my favorite thing to view from my scope is jupiter. the 4 main moons are like diamonds, always in a new position so im never bored. When showing friends saturn always gives a wow factor i remember resolving the image for the first time to this day. seeing the oval shape and the holes between the rings appear before my eyes did make me sweat with amazement. when mars was last at its closest that was amazing too. seeing dark brown patches and the ice caps made me humbled.
Extremely useful video and follow up playlist. Thank you!
My dad bought a telescope for me when I was 7 years old because I was inseparable from our Time Life illustrated encyclopedia book, "Our Universe". This was in 1977, so I had to figure out everything by myself.
On my first attempt that very night, I caught 2 planets in the same field of view. Not sure which ones because I hadn't quite figured out how to focus using the various eyepieces that came with the previously owned, Jason Empire, 4" refractor. I got real good, real quick, and eventually spotted a fuzzy looking thing almost directly south in the fall sky. I almost lost my mind when it resolved into a ball of stars! I found 1 or 2 others that weren't as impressive but I didn't know what any of them were called. I had no reference material to identify things back then and the telescope gradually fell into disrepair. Recently, I bought a 6"(!!!) reflector and I've been building a case for it so I can take it up into the nearby mountains without knocking out the collimation. Lol! I have a nice selection of lenses for it and can't wait to check it out!
Love your channel, thanks for doing such a good thing for the curious minds around the world!
Peace.
As a young boy, I was told by my father that a Globular Cluster was a senior citizen community where old stars went to retire. Many years late, I still like to think of them that way.
That's a great way to describe them. :-)
I had a customer come into my work today. we was looking at mini arduino cameras to attach to a cubesat thats being sent to the ISS as part of a combined school project. Kind of made me sort of love my meager job for that moment. We then had a good conversation on how the definition of moon is clearly broken.
Australians are not the only lucky southerns, you know?! Greetings from Brazil! ;)
Yeah, you also know the secrets and wonders in the southern sky.
Boring? You keep doing what you want to do. That was a great video. All new to me. Thanks
Fraser, Nice presentation on Globular Clusters. Yes, for those interested, definitely determine where your local amateur astronomy organisation, or local observatory is, that organise "Star Parties". and then go.
We have one here in 29 Palms, California, at the "Sky's the Limit" Observatory every Saturday night that does not have a full Moon. We have several volunteers who set up telescopes to share views of the Planets, open and globular star clusters, Nebula, Galaxies, and occasionally the stray comet. Times are just after it becomes dark, and depending on who shows up, could last all night if someone decides to stay that long. Most events last three to four hours.
From 10-12 November 2017, we participate with the Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP) to put on the "Night Sky Festival". We had nearly 1000 people participate last year, and expect this year to be even bigger. Joshua Tree National Park is designated a "Dark Sky" site, so if you have a telescope, and are in the local area, come up and have some fun, any night, as our Campus is open to the public 365 days a year. We are on the border of JTNP, but are not affiliated with the Park.
Great topic! Well done. I agree GCs are often my favorite targets.
Seeing your first globular star cluster with a telescope for the first time and really I mean ALL scopes...SCT, Newtonian, Dobsonian or refractor you WILL be impressed. Due to how the light gathering works its usually CCD and long exposures that coax out the colours and details of amazing deep space objects but after planets for your eyes only, my recommendation would be star clusters...you will be awed by their majesty!
Awesome! Thanks Fraser...
"Stars are only about a light year apart", to those of you don't have clue how much a light year is, it is 5878668575518.969 miles
I have soo much Fraser Cain to catch up on. I hope the Friday sessions start up soon.
I was in Malawi this week, went out to take pictures of the stars but it was too hazy. Malawi runs on firewood and charcoal, and millions of cooking fires make stargazing difficult.
Hey thanks Fraser, I remember asking you about globs on your personal livestream not so long ago. Thanks for diving into this topic! The collision stuff makes a lot of sense to explain the blue stars. I'm not sold on black holes being found in them, I think their morphology suggests they lack a black hole, otherwise they might have a stronger rotational and elliptical plane like galaxies. Perhaps they are proto-galaxies of their own, lacking a black hole but fuelled by collisions near the center so they form this globular symmetry. As more stars are sucked and collided, they slowly grow their internal density and gravitational pull. In theory if they hoover up enough stars to continue the collision process they could become dense enough to create a central black hole and become a small galaxy. I don't know anything about anything but that's my guess. What do you think?
Fraser left you hanging. Where you at Fraser?
good video thanks
I love looking at M5 in my 10 inch reflector. Such a beautiful Globular Cluster.
Those red flowers look ominous.... look like they'll raise up and strike at any moment...
I love fuscias, very alien looking.
I think you're swapping pronunciation just to annoy everyone on both sides of the debate. It's what I would do
One correction milky way is bigger than anything in local group including adromada. 120,000 light years across twice previous size previously thought. Not smaller th adromada
Also implying even more stars we previously belief didnt exist a year ago. Hell universe could be 24 billion years old and we wouldnt know. If we didnt have tech to measure correctly cosmic backgroud radiation. Same species sacrifacing to gods not that long ago can make errors with expermintal long range teloscopes
If we reconsider the whole solar system atom model and suppose a galaxy is an atom too, then this globular clusters make a lotttt of sense as following similar patterns to Earth's history. If we imagine that around these stars are smaller objects like planets, and around those smaller still, and smaller still, filling the space between the stars, then these globular clusters coalesce into a single object in space.
I truly believe this is like taking an x-ray image of a planet. Seeing all its chakra energy points that are of the highest energies, and then seeing through the space between them to give a sort of skeletal view of a planet. And of a star and every other particle in the universe because all systems function identically, just seen from different angles.
Earth also formed in waves. It has undergone multiple major resurfacings of the crust as the Earth erupted. The first time, it was physically much more like Mercury and it literally underwent a planetary supernova to become as Venus is today. And then when Venus of today, which was like Mercury before, also underwent its own planetary supernova, it caused our Earth--like Venus is now--to be like Earth of today. Except, it was a single landmass. The system was knocked out of balance by the supernova of Venus and it began to rotate and this caused its electromagnetic field to be sort of "turned on", as a physical flow of particles through the planet was caused to flow, which due to high concentration at the center of the planet then produces more macroscopic mass, then trapped within the planet that it was initially able to enter as more subtle particles, until the crust ruptured and the Earth physically expanded. This is where the oceans were created.
Thus, Earth contains written in its crust and layers a history of having ancient shields, surrounding continental shelf, and ocean floors. These each sequentially formed in waves. As, too, the waves of star formation occur in globular clusters.
And we are able to, with our x-ray eyes, penetrate the interior of these globular clusters and observe similar processes occurring across the octaves of the infinite universe.
My two cents. Thanks for the video, I appreciate the information! Please pardon my plausible insanity.
After watching TNG Illustrious Simulation, I have no doubt what it is. This is a living organism. Every day brings new scientific evidence that it is.We must change all, WORLD isn't that we are thinking about.
I saw many of the globular clusters from the dark skies of Atacama (Chile). You should visit, the sky is dark and clear because of the desertic climate. With a telescope you can see marvels.
If you are thinking of future episode ideas. Would you do one of Star Mergers? How do they evolve after merging.
How long do they live?
Do any go Supernova in Globular Clusters
Are there any very high mass stars that are the result of merging.
Thanks.
Great presentation! I have many questions concerning globular clusters. Do the stars in a gc have movement or rotation around a center? Are there planets in the stars in the gc? If gc are so old, there should be a lot of post-star-life objects like neutron stars, ... and others. Is that true? Is it possible to find habitable planets around stars in a gc? Should we be looking there?
They orbit around the shared center of gravity of the cluster. In theory there could be habitable planets in there, especially now that our understanding of where liquid water can form has been expanded.
Glow-bular is probably the Canadian variant. See: "progress," "process," "project."
It is :) BUT only cause like with Metric/Imperial we are mixed up...ask a Canadian to pronounce "Decal" and depending where you ask prepare to be amused :D
"Dee-kal" or "de-kal" or "dekl"? Why not just "water slide transfer"?! :-)
LOL excactly :D
It’s like globe not glow. That’s the root word, too.
Did an essay on Omega Centauri for first year Astronomy
Hi Frazer. Why does globular clusters not collapse on themselves and form a superstar due to the immense gravity? Also, how can scientists measure the age of the galaxy using them? Cheers mate
All those stars are orbiting around a common center of gravity. They wouldn't collapse unless they collide together. Regarding age, that's an awesome question and I'm using it for a QA. Short answer, they know that the hot stars would have exploded a long time ago. They look for the most mature main sequence stars to find out the age of the cluster. Here's a link that explains more: www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l7_p6.html
I like the new background image
Awesome video!!! I have 2 Questions:
1. What would happen to icy worlds of our solar system if it is in the Globular Cluster?
2. Earth would still be habitable if it is in Globular Cluster?
The icy worlds would experience more sunlight, but they'd still be ice. You get ice here in the Solar System once you get to the orbit of Jupiter.
From Chile is also possible to see Omega Cen and magellanic clouds
Hey Fraser, Im quite new to the channell. Please tell me how a Sun is "Born"?
I wish you would have gone into where they are located around our galaxy and why.
Great!
Thanks!
Would it ever be possible to measure what's going on inside a singularity by creating an artificial micro black hole and using quantum entanglement to measure the effects on its counterpart particles outside of the micro black hole?
Is a globular cluster motion distinct from the galaxy in which it lives? ie is it's rotation distinct from the rest of the stars in the galaxy?
Sorry, I really have to correct this: "Omega" is not a cluster ... "omega Centauri" is, ... this goes back in time when sky was divided in constellations, and stars in a constellations were named alpha, betha, gamma, etc... in order of brightness ... the omega star of the Centaurus constellation turn out to be a Galactic globular cluster, omega Centauri indeed.
my favorite is not really a globular one, it is the double cluster in Perseus. Easy to find 'via' Cassiopeia - just using a pair of binoculars.
Binoculars are worthy. And very accessible. When people ask me what should I get for my first telescope. My answer is your uncles/mothers/granddads/sisters old binoculars.
Night Fraser = best Fraser!
Omega cen is in the time laps. Pause 3:41 it is the brightest object in the centre top.
I was wondering, Professor Chris Impey had a series of lectures on youtube "Essentials of Astronomy" or something. it was 10 videos each about an hour long of a lecture. one of the best starter playlists for astronomy youtube has ever had(thats actually saying quite a bit) it was taken do and any copies on other channels as well. I was curious, youtube bizzaro ToS policies aside, what would prompt a prof to take something that awesome down? i hope he wasnt pressured by the uni or something like that.
If we get "Star Lifting" working these clusters would seem to be resource gold mines. Reduce the clusters to a handful of large stars. I doubt there is life where there is so many stars so close.
Is it possible to use the ability of regular matter to contract space-time and the ability of "dark energy" to expand it, to create the Alcubierre warp drive?
Question about Stellar black holes, If Black holes give off Hawking Radiation, could it be possible that sometime in the future nasa could build a telescope or probe that could detect hawking radiation and use that to determine where a black hole might be?
? how far away from a globular cluster do you have to be to live comfortably
I have a 4 inch (114x900mm) telescope and I've seen many clusters and they're beautiful, I'd like to see M13 but it's too low in the sky in argentina
I am still troubled with this question. Surely the universe is finite? If we teleported a few trillion light years away. How could you see the CMB. It took that light 13.8 billion light years to travel to Earth. How can light from the same point end up a few trillion light years away, when its only travelled for 13.8 billion light years?
If you traveled out to where the CMB is now, you'd be in a new location in the Universe and see the CMB in all directions to a distance of 13.8 billion light-years.
Is there any possibility that somewhere, some globular clusters exist which are are so old that they now consist only of white dwarfs and neutron stars etc?
The more massive a star is the hotter and brighter it is and the faster it fuses hydrogen into heavier elements. This means that even though there is more hydrogen to fuse it gets used up quicker, in some cases only a few million years instead of billions.
Because of this any large star in very old clusters will have long since gone supernova--- unless, as addressed in this video, the star is the result of a merger of two or more smaller stars, which is rare but possible in the relatively dense environment of these clusters. Stars which are less massive, even some less massive than our sun will have had the 1-13 billion years needed in these clusters to progress from main sequence to red giant to white dwarf. The smallest stars take hundreds of billions or even 1 trillion yrs to progress to white dwarfs.
To sum up, excepting stars formed from collision of smaller stars, the oldest clusters should consist of black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, and red dwarfs. All clusters will have some main sequence stars, mostly red dwarfs, and generally the larger the largest main sequence stars in the cluster are the younger it is.
Would there be any globulars in elliptical galaxies? Aren't they formed from galaxy mergers, and so wouldn't they be disturbed in that process? I understand individual stars are very unlikely to collide during a merger, but it strikes me that a ball of millions would have a much greater risk.
Either pronunciation sounds fine to me, it's the name I hate. "Globular Clusters." If you've ever had a sinus infection or a really bad cold and you can't clear out your nose... Globular Clusters.
Hahaha it almost sounds like some kind of chocolate candy...."hey hun did you eat all the golbular cluster bars?"
"Globular Clusters: a nutritious part of a balanced breakfast!"
Everlasting Globular Clusters, yep
Now I know it rained in Canada yesterday.
i would like to thank your face for making this video. i found it interesting
Thanks for watching it. :-)
Hey. Love you Fraser..
So where do globular clusters come from? Also I had no idea that our galaxy was almost just as old as the universe itself. This means that galaxies happened relatively soon after the universe began.
Hercules cluster is amazing to look at through a telescope!
That's my favorite, one of the first objects I ever found in a telescope.
+Fraser Cain -- Perhaps the patron list at the end should be updated from time to time ;-)
Are you a patron? If so, thank you.
it's but a very small contribution, so don't thank me too much ;-)
What does the future of a globular cluster look like? Star merger until large enough to collapse into a black hole? Then black hole merger until we have a single super duper massive black hole?
Great vid. Speaking of relics, stars and lightyears....whats going on with that star that is supposedly 14.5 billion years old. How is it older than the universe. Im still kinda confused on how scientists know how old the universe is...well are we just calculating how old the observable universe is??!! Sorry long question friend.
If the 'Grey aliens of the Zeta Reticuli system' actually exist, would we be able to detect the presence of life on their home-world within our lifetime?
Can anyone recommend a good telescope for personal use where you actually can see other galaxy's? Budget max 800$ any sugestions would be Nice tx
Purchasing a telescope can be an absolute mine field for an inexperienced individual. I strongly recommend that you seek the help of an astronomy club, a quick google search will in all probability yield at least one or two in your immediate vicinity. They will be happy to guide you around the many pitfalls laying in wait for you, show you where to find the biggest bang for your buck and teach you the basics of how to observe what interests you.
Thank you for your answer.Thought mayby someone here could recommend something and then i could search around the web. i Kinda thought about the Explore Scientific Ultra Light Dobsonian 10" 254/1270. But i can not really find good info on it
Buy astronomical binoculars instead if u dont have much of experience with telescope.
Francois, I agree. I should have done that. I bought a 6" reflector, new for $500, but it doesn't have go to capability. Now, I have to drop more money on a tracking mount. I later joined our local astronomy club that has star parties every once in a while and even a loaner program so I can borrow a scope.
Either pronunciation is fine by me. It's more the fact you keep doing solid content.
If N stars are arranged in a cubical lattice throughout a cubical volume, V, then the distance of each star to its nearest neighbor star will be
dₑ = ∛(V) / [∛(N)−1]
But if N stars are randomly distributed throughout a cubical volume, V, then the expected value for the average distance between _each star and its nearest neighbor star_ will be (approximately)
dᵣ = 0.516 dₑ
The statistical expectation value for the distance between _the very closest pair of stars_ in that volume would be
dᵤ = 0.0644 dₑ = ⅛ dᵣ
You would expect that the distance between the very closest pair of stars to be one-eighth of the average distance between each star and its nearest neighbor.
One light year equals about 63241 AU.
If there are 1000 stars in a cubical volume of one cubic light year, then by how many astronomical units are the stars typically separated from their nearest neighbors? 3626 AU. And how far apart would we expect the very closest pair to be? 453 AU.
Am I the only one who freaks out when a black hole pops out on the screen? It happens to me when I try stuff in Universe SandBox xD
Fr4nt1s3k Lol exactly
I wish where I live in Ireland had astronomy nights.
Life in the universe appears to be just sprouting. Equivalent to a two year old. Given the age of stars, earth, and how long is took to make things like fish, distribution of heavy elements, we could be part of the second generation of life forms. Maybe even part of the last first generation.
I often look up at the stars with my 3 year old. I have heard young children can see more stars than adults. Have you heard this and do you know why?
It just depends on your eyesight. And younger people tend to have better eyesight. :-)
Nice reference to 2001.
What is an estimate of how many stars are within our visible universe, and how many stars have we actually identified?
At least when it comes to astronomy, nature seems to abhor sharp lines. We like to classify things as asteroids OR comets OR planets, but we see, even in our own solar system, things that were once comets and now are burnt out and look like asteroids, icy asteroids that might be comets if they moved a bit closer, a dwarf planet that was the first asteroid discovered, other dwarf planets that are basically dirty snowballs, etc.
I suspect there is likewise no really sharp line between globular clusters and dwarf galaxies -- and I'm not even talking about "globular clusters" that are probably the stripped cores of dwarf galaxies.
Globulars are very old, but what types of stars can live that long in such high numbers?
I would think they would only be low mass stars like our star and smaller - and these aren't brilliant to us on Earth from over 10,000 ly away? Maybe I'm confused by these photographs taken by very large telescopes? These are all mostly small dim stars? Is that correct?
I love showing these clusters to people in the telescope at our observatory in Prague. The problem is that some people has trouble seeing anything in the IP. Because these objects aren't very bright, since we also have a lot of light polution in the city, even if the observatory is in the darker part of the city. And also, people come from light in the dome with telescope where is dark and since their eyes are not adapted enough to the dark, they have problem to see it. So what i do is when people come to the telescope, i start telling them something about the glabular cluster, also showing the picture of it which i personally took in my phone (with app on that makes strong filter) and the meantime, they eyes gets adapted. But still, some can see it and others not. The problem is that some people has bad eyes and well, some people are stupid. Don't know how to look into the telescope, even if i'm telling them where to look. They just don't know that they should close one eye and stuff like this. An adult person doesn't know how to look through telescope. Just weird. From globular star clusters, i'm mostly showing M3, M13, M15, M92, from which M92 is the most awesome one. It has nice contrast. And i can actually see "all" the stars in the cluster with 330x magnification, which is the highest magnification our telescope has.
I read in Sky and Telescope that it is better to view with both eyes open. If it's dark, why close one eye? I've tried it both ways and really don't see a difference though. At the eclipse recently, I saw one guy use an eye-patch and view the sun with the other eye. He said it helped his focus to have both eyes open and one covered.
Well, the most important is to see the object in the telescope as cearly as possible. In our dome, we don't have a complete dark during the night time. We need to have small light on due to security reason. So there is dark enough, but not complete dark. So if you look into the IP with both eyes opened, you will also get the picture from the eye that doesn't look into the IP, overlaping picture of the eye looking into the IP. Meaning you will get worse quality picture of the object. Important is to have complete dark in the eye that doesn't look into the IP. And you achieve that by either closing that eye or somehow covering it. Either by hand or eye-patch or whatever. But when i spoke about people don't know how to look into the telescope, you wouldn't believe what some people do when they are trying to look into it. Not covering the other eye was just one of many examples.
Hi Fraser, re causing a star to blow up: you said the way to do was to bring 50 - 100 more stars and merge them. Couldn't you just inject a lot of iron into a star? That seems much easier if no more realistic. But since it's just a thought experiment...
Nope, iron isn't poison to stars. Here's a video for you: ruclips.net/video/KoAGVSZPh4U/видео.html
Got it. Thanks. Great explanation. BTW haven't been able to find the WSH yet even using the new link you posted.
This doesn't work? ruclips.net/channel/UC0-KklSGlCiJDwOPdR2EUcg
Fraser Cain ok, that worked. I'm not sure what was wrong. Thanks
OMG you've computer generated rain? :D btw I love your videos... mind blown nearly every time.
The rain was a totally new technique. We needed to code up a brand new kind of software to handle that. Very complicated and CPU intensive, but I think it was worth it.
2:41 M 4 is just 7175 light years away
I would like to observe the Andromeda Galaxy and he Sagittarius constellation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but many years ago as a young boy (now 73 yrs.) I was told by a serious star gazer that these very old stars gravitated away from the main galaxy and grouped together as if spending their remaining lives in a senior retirement home. Was he just pulling my leg?
+82 Luft no, they continue to orbit the Milky Way in roughly the same location. Globular clusters aren't adding new stars.
Thank you. Great channel. I've learned alot since I started watching. It's worth my (just now) subscription.
Globul, globul globul!
tell that to the people that hate aluminium vs aluminum
I wonder if the inside of a globular cluster is too light polluted for astronomy? Maybe they can't see the forest for the trees.
Will any of the new super telescopes that you have talked about be pointed at Andromeda? Would they be able to give us a more detailed look at our neighbor or is it just too far away?
it not really that far at all as far as space distance in concerned. look up how big it is in the night sky and you will probable shit yourself. the issue is there is way too many brighter things in the sky too. so high exposure is the key here not scope size. If you were referring to individual objects it then i apologize, new scopes probably will help then.
Your rain mocks me.
These are very interesting objects. I wonder how many of the stars within them actually have planets. Given the shear number of opportunities for stars to interact with other stars in the cluster, these things might be the equivalent of galactic shotguns, spewing planets hither and yon.
My favorite thing to look at through a telescope is my neighbors wife sunbathing
LOL! :-)
ScottyDoes Well they WERE designed for observing heavenly bodies, so...
Gotta love those large globular clusters
Large Hard-on Collider?, but I just met her
Have you been able to observe a black hole yet? ^_^
i really honestly want to know for some reason that is it possible to create something as good as a ground telescope with a 5 meter diameter mirror but instead using b(f)a(r)l(a)d(s) p(e)e(r)o(c)p(a)l(i)e(n) and if so how many would one need? thisishauntingmealldaysorryifthisisr00dinanyway
The problem is that you'd need to line them all up perfectly so that they're mighty shine will act as a single mirror.
and convincing enought people to do so would probably be the most difficult thing... by the way would you contribute to such a thing if it ever were to happen?... or actually what about just a bunch of spherical mirrors. wonder if that would work for some kind of telescope
Globular, as it resembles a glob of stars and clusters. If you pronounce "glob" as "globe", you're doing it wrong :^)
Do you think a planet around a star near the center of a globular cluster would be conducive for life?
Familiar to readers of Asimov's story Nightfall.
3:25 the Omega cluster appears as large as the full moon? Really?
It's 36 arcminutes across, while the Moon is only 31 arcminutes. So, it's actually a little bigger.
I think the Andromeda Galaxy is supposed to appear be about the same size. Could have fooled me. Takes me a long time to find it, and when I do it looks a lot smaller. Maybe because a lot of the light isn't registering in my eyes, even though it's there.
mac195000 Its important to remember that many astronomical features are so faint that either you see very little, or nothing at all. an example would be all those gorgeous nebula pictures. photographers are using multiple spectrums and super long exposures. likely these clusters are so dim that any perimeter is extremely difficult to distinguish and require absolutely no light pollution (good luck on that one).
4K? Now we can see all the conspiracy details in your background that IS ACTUALLY A GREEN SCREEN!!!
Hey look. He changed his green screen. C; jk
Need to keep you on your toes.
"Let's not talk about weird things like aliens or black holes, let's talk about globular clusters."
---proceeds to talk about super-massive black holes at the center. smh
He sounds somehow like Sheldon lol
Whoa. So... smart?
Id just like to have a telescope lol
GUMTREE or facebook pages. i got my 4.5" reflector for $20. i love it to bits.
Master Pack maybe i can trade for one....time to find an old enthusiast
most amateur astronomers are old men just itching to share their knowledge etc. I would suggest joining a local space forum and asking around. You will find they are all super friendly and willing to help you. When someone upgrades they will generally let you know.
Join your local astronomy club. Our astronomy club here in Houston meets once a month close to downtown, but they also own a dark sky site in Columbus, TX about an hour to two hour drive away. They have star parties there, share information, and even have a telescope loaner program. I should have done that before buying my scope.
A banalização de importantes assuntos não tem língua, não tem país, pelo que parece...
I have a pronunciation for you... Say Betelgeuse. Is it Beetle Juice? Or what? Thanks
I always say bettlejuice hahaha im gonna research on who the hell named that star that
Generally it's "bey-tell-juice", but I've also heard "bey-tell-guise", but "beetle juice" is good too. :-)
I really wish i can live long enough to see it die and turn into a supernova
Who knows? It could happen tomorrow, or in 100,000 years...
i used to say belt-a-geese, probably the worst of them all now
Now that you know how to say Globular as in clusters how about learning to say me-thane and not meth-ane? :)