Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
The Truth about M40 - Deep Sky Videos
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 08. 2024
- This is the second video we've done on M40, also known as Winnecke 4. Featuring Professor Mike Merrifield.
Extra footage from this interview: • Does the Sun have a lo...
Here's the new paper mentioned: / 779224336720953344
And the earlier paper: adsabs.harvard....
And the new paper on arXiv: arxiv.org/abs/1...
Our first M40 video: • M40 - Double Star - De...
Deep Sky Videos website: www.deepskyvide...
Twitter: / deepskyvideos
Facebook: / deepskyvideos
More about the astronomers in our videos: www.deepskyvide...
Support us on Patreon: / deepskyvideos
Made possible by:
The University of Nottingham
and The University of Sheffield.
Video by Brady Haran
I like the story about the paper Dr. Merrifield submitted because it shows you that sometimes you have to remind scientists and journal publishers that science is an incremental field. If previous knowledge is found to be incorrect, we strive to correct it and increase the accuracy of humanity's combined knowledge.
Database which anyone could've looked up
its these little things that get people asking questions and to finally have an answer should be recorded no matter how trivial. im glad the paper got accepted.
Brady Haran is now officially the co-author of a scientific paper!?
Crikey! :D
He's already co-author of some papers with Prof. Poliakoff about the Periodic Videos
Thank you for your work and your passion in sharing it with us. As an amateur astronomer, I completed my Messier Objects about 20 years ago and I never got a definitive answer from my fellow astronomy group of why M40 was there. Now I, and numerous others have our answer. Thank you. :)
"They said it is important, but I've appealed that. Why is it important? Well it isn't really."
This is why he's a professor and not a salesman.
If you're using quotes might as well use the actual words of the professor?
It's clear why YOU aren't a salesman either. They NEVER said it was important - 'they' said it was trivial. The professor said it was important - before saying it wasn't - in the grand scheme of things. Your point was mostly right but you worded it totally wrong.
elevown
He might be a "reporter" tho. They tend to do that on purpose! :D
it'll be interesting if this minor paper (& video), leads others to revisit papers of greater potential significance using this new data from Gaia
I cannot begin to express how immensely I enjoy listening to Professor Merrifield speak and teach. I feel that learning from him is nearly effortless with regard to how to explains things and expresses ideas and theory. I would love to have him as a professor.
I wish DeepSkyVideos got as many updates as Numberphile or Computerphile or to a lesser extent, SixtySymbols. As much as I love those channels, I'm an Astronomy and Cosmology lover first and foremost.
Anyway, it's an interesting thing to think about the fact that our Sun more than likely has former "nursery mates" out there somewhere. Something I don't think I'd really thought of before. I wonder if it would be possible to even attempt to identify some.
well this is because this is a channel mostly about the messier objects and now they're getting into the boring objects, but also these are professors and they have to teach there classes and do the things that phds have to do like write articles.
I love the inquisitive nature of this video and how they came to a conclusion in a very scientific way..
Great video. I Look forward to the next :)
Love this video!
At 6:49 - Love the references 1 and 3! Has to be a pretty rare event that a paper has a two hundred year old reference and one from a lay person in a non-pier reviewed publication!
It occurs to me that if the paper had had at least a table, an illustration or photo and perhaps an equation or two (high school trig), then it would not have been rejected on the first pass by ArXiv.
Brady is "published"! Congrats!
Love these videos. I’ve watched them a dozen times over, still love em!
Thank you.
What an enjoyable lecture!
I think a great video for your channel would be to show how the picture of the Milky Way galaxy was created/generated based on observational data about all of the stars within it.
That paper reminds me of when a few people complain about a bug or an error in a forum but don't actually try to fix it, so the info about it is generally available, and then finally you get fed up enough to throw together a small pull request on Github.
The Archive for astronomical data found your definitive re-classification of Messier Object 40 to be a pair of unrelated stars passing close enough in perspective to appear to be a binary star, but not gravitationally bound to each other is quite significant, as time goes by, they would not be capable of being recognized as the Messier Object 40 in the first place -- not being a true binary pair, but being a pair of solitary stars. Having the ability to tell people in the future why something is going to disappear because it was classified the wrong way by mistake, is just as important as finding something in the first place -- it's telling the truth about an object.
Nice video. I'm desperately waiting for M64.
I hope the paper was eventually accepted. It should be, because earlier papers reach the wrong (or an uncertain) conclusion, and anyone interested in those papers would want to know about this.
Glad your paper made it in.
Great emphasis is placed on the requirements of proofs for Mathematics, and Dimensional Analysis for the Material Sciences, everyone really.
So having gotten as far as combining the Scientific objectives by reductionist logic to say that from observation, the historically established POV is "all is vibration in connected time", I went to UQ Physics Dept in yr 2000, who said, "You'd have to write a paper", (I'd thought, against my previous experience at JCU, that it would be taken on, purely out of Scientific Interest, but "The easiest person to fool is yourself"), and here we are.
In all the World, there's Professor Merrifield, who accepts suggestions to write a paper from blow-ins with the right idea..
Very well done.
The feel good story of M40!
I did a fist pump when the announcement that the lil paper was accepted was shown.
Would be interesting to see a video on different astrometric measurement methods and their history. Because it hard for a layman like me to find why Gaia's detectors are able to resolve so much in comparison to every other telescope but on the other hand why something like an interferometer could resolve star surfaces.
Well done Brady! Is this one the first of your atronomical publications?
Glad arXiv reconsidered their position of considering this "too trivial to print."
I can't believe they said it was trivial.
Well, scientifically, it has nothing new to mention. It is only important for people doing something with the Messier catalogue. They are mostly amateurs, not the public for ArXive.
Ronald de Rooij your last sentence made no sense....at all
Trivial or not, it's new information and should be kept as referrence.
Messier 40 is sometimes called Messier Mistake
This is the first I've heard of arXiv rejecting anything.
i think this would be very important in the distant future when space travel could be a common thing.
140 and 350 parsecs, eh? Would be hopeless doing the the Kessel Run.
Sorry, somebody had to :D
Nuno Monteiro Ha!
One could think about the Kessler run as a navigational challenge, where the goal is to navigate your way through a "maze" in as short a distance as possible :P
rs0n I don't think that writers of Han Solo movie would catch on this idea, unless we make it viral somehow?
Yeah that's probably not going to happen. It doesn'r really fit the narrative of the movie, but it's a nice way to approach it i think, at least for me :)
The paper gets more peer-review this way anyway. M40 Is nailed as non-binary and that's actually very good Science.
Just goes to show that our (relatively) 2D view of the sky can give some false impressions.
140 parsec distance measured with parallax... wow. That's crazy. Wonder what the upper limits of Gaia are
moonasha I think it is in the ranges of about 8-9 kpc for certain types of stars.
Gee wiz I've been doing the parallax finger thing wrong the whole time! I've been looking at my finger with one eye then waiting 6 months to look at it with the other eye! I've been wondering how people could generally be patient enough to do this exercise!
numberphile video on Tree(3)????
Yes please!
So basically Messier made a parker square in the catalog.
Yepp, that was a short paper! :-)
Would you mind making a video about parsecs? I know the unit has some relation to parallax measurements.
wolfedog99 see 6:25
That is just the conversion to lightyears, it doesn't explain why parsecs are a thing.
I can attempt to explain: When you look at a star a few months apart (as Gaia did) you measure the angular distance the star looks like it moved in the sky. This angle is usually measured in milliarcseconds and you can see it at 6:25 under "parallax (mas)".
Now if you draw a right triangle where the base of the triangle are the two spots Gaia was at and the star is the third vertex, then you can find the distance by trigonometry. For convenience we define 1parsec = the distance to an object that has a parallax angle of 1arcsecond, when seen from two points seperated by 1 AU (the radius of earth's orbit). The thing to remember here is just 1pc = 1AU per arcsecond of parallax.
parsec = parallax + arcsecond
So Gaia reported a parallax of 7.1 milliarcseconds. To find the distance in parsecs you do 1/7.1x10^-3 = 141 pc
The reason astronomers like to do it this way is we don't have to muck around with units to find a distance. Because of the way it's defined we know the distance is always just 1 / the parallax angle.
Hopefully that made sense. A video wouldn't be a bad idea. There's a lot of nifty and subtle tricks about how coordinates and distances are measured that could seem really weird at first.
What makes the unit Parsec so conceptually tricky is the inverse correlation of measured parallax shift with distance, unlike most other units of measure. Keep in mind that a big parallax shift comes from near objects, and a small shift means the object is far away. So, 1 arc second of shift gives one Parsec, but two arc seconds shift would halve the estimated distance to 0.5 parsecs. To do the conversion from measured parallax shift, it's a simple inverse ratio multiplier. The geometry is elegantly simple if you recall that for small angles, sin(theta) is ~theta in radians, which allows a simple inverse ratio multiplier equation to work. The choice of 6 months is arbitrarily convenient, ignoring confounding factors like orbital eccentricity. Once the measured parallax shift is converted to parsec units, parsecs are then converted to other length measurements like any other unit. So, be careful to read questions carefully to avoid confusion.
ah hell, why didn't they use radians? Would have made this particular formula that much easier.
Is Professor Merrifield's shirt black and blue or white and gold?
Proper motion?! Measuring the distance to and relative velocities of stars seems like it would be impossible! Science is great.
I noticed the singular in "a binary star". Why isn't it called "binary stars" (plural)? Are they considered being the same object?
Because it's usually referred to as a "binary star system." If you had multiple "binary stars," you'd have multiple stars with companion stars orbiting them.
I swear mike is turning into a leopard.
There is some background noise that is quite annoying in all of this video. Maybe take a look? or listen
Volume is also very low on top of that. I had a Windows sound trigger when this was on and nearly went deaf!! :-(
Sounds like the video was sped up a bit.. Weird
Not to me. At 8:14 when no one is talking you can quite clearly hear what you can faintly hear in all of the video.
Hey instead of publishing it in an obscure (but probably very worthwhile) journal, you should just make a video about it...
They dismissed it because it was not significant.
Well they later accepted it, so, yeah. It IS significant.
What would the sky look like from the surface of a sub atomic particle?
exactly the same
what is that weird low rumbling noise to 8:14-8:25
That's what space sounds like.
Matt Parsons brontosaurus
It shouldn't have been hard to find indeed. I found it through my telescope before I knew it was a Messier object.
Cool. CZcams does science
M Lourson no, this is just your dream.
Messier messed up? haha
singlespies Couldn't that be any messier than that?
Did you know you can pin comments now?
I don't like this "1 K" thing in CZcams. I like the feedback from seeing my like being registered. Terrible idea.
Neil Wilson now THAT'S insanely trivial.