Hubble peers at cosmic blue bauble

Hubble peers at cosmic blue bauble
Messier 3: Containing an incredible half-million stars, this 8-billion-year-old cosmic bauble is one of the largest and brightest globular clusters ever discovered. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, G. Piotto et al.

Globular clusters are inherently beautiful objects, but the subject of this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image, Messier 3, is commonly acknowledged to be one of the most beautiful of them all.

Containing an incredible half-million stars, this 8-billion-year-old cosmic bauble is one of the largest and brightest ever discovered. However, what makes Messier 3 extra special is its unusually large population of variable stars—stars that fluctuate in brightness over time. New variable stars continue to be discovered in this sparkling stellar nest to this day, but so far we know of 274, the highest number found in any globular cluster by far. At least 170 of these are of a special variety called RR Lyrae variables, which pulse with a period directly related to their intrinsic brightness. If astronomers know how bright a star truly is based on its and classification, and they know how bright it appears to be from our viewpoint here on Earth, they can thus work out its distance from us. For this reason, RR Lyrae stars are known as standard candles—objects of known luminosity whose and position can be used to help us understand more about vast celestial distances and the scale of the cosmos.

Messier 3 also contains a relatively high number of so-called , which are shown quite clearly in this Hubble image. These are blue main sequence stars that appear to be young because they are bluer and more luminous than other stars in the . As all stars in globular clusters are believed to have formed together and thus to be roughly the same age, only a difference in mass can give these a different color. A red, old star can appear bluer when it acquires more mass, for instance by stripping it from a nearby star. The extra mass changes it into a bluer star, which makes us think it is younger than it really is.


Explore further

Hubble spots flock of cosmic ducks

Citation: Hubble peers at cosmic blue bauble (2019, April 12) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-04-hubble-peers-cosmic-blue-bauble.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
530 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 12, 2019
Pretty, but too busy for a wallpaper.

Apr 12, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way

Apr 12, 2019
Hubble is still doing valuable science. This is bonus; they figured it would be dead a decade ago.

Apr 12, 2019
Space acts upon nothing and is acted upon by nothing. Space has no properties. The reification of space and time was one of Einsteins greatest mistakes. The physics world has yet to recover.


Apr 12, 2019
Hubble's big blue bubble-bauble blob.

Apr 12, 2019
Space acts upon nothing and is acted upon by nothing. Space has no properties. The reification of space and time was one of Einsteins greatest mistakes. The physics world has yet to recover.

The reification of space and time long preceded Einstein. There is hardly a theory, modern or Hellenic, that does not entail that. What Einstein did was determine the most RELIABLE reification of space and time.

Apr 13, 2019
Messier 3

M3 is a globular cluster of stars in the northern constellation of Canes Venatici
discovered on May 3, 1764
the first Messier object to be discovered by Charles Messier
https://3c1703fe8...ersa.jpg

As digital photography is in the spotlight of late
a prominent feature of M3
it is 34,000Lys distant
its mass is 45billion solar mass's
its diameter is 180Lys
in other words more massive and larger than Sagittarius A*
and more importantly M3 is more distant that Sagittarius A*
but despite being more distant
despite M3s stars being infinitely smaller than Sagittarius A*
M3s stars are individually resolved
Whereas the enormous number of stars Sagittarius A* is retrieving
9,000Lys closer than M3 cannot be resolved
https://en.wikipe...essier_3

p.s. a little conundrum in stellar resolution

Apr 13, 2019
its diameter is 180Lys
Now, what is the diameter of Sagittarius A*?

Apr 13, 2019
its diameter is 180Lys
Now, what is the diameter of Sagittarius A*?
Or better yet, what are their comparative angular diameters?
The 'conundrum' lies in comparing visual apples to apple-cells.

Apr 13, 2019
p.s. a little conundrum in stellar resolution


Only a conundrum to the hard of thinking.

Apr 13, 2019
"Hubble is still doing valuable science. This is bonus; they figured it would be dead a decade ago."

And that only after public outcry demanded it be repaired. Damn bureaucrats!

The shuttles should be doing valuable space launches instead of retirement. None of the three remaining shuttles had even reached their 50% service life of 100 launches. They were still in prime condition. Should have kept them operational instead of leaving us at the mercy of the Russians. Screw the cost.......Every year a new trillion to the debt, what is a few extra billion?

Does anyone know if the Webb is well protected from SMEs and SPEs sitting way out there at L2, or wherever. I understand that trouble with the solar shield is what is delaying launch.

Apr 13, 2019
The shuttles should be doing valuable space launches instead of retirement. None of the three remaining shuttles had even reached their 50% service life of 100 launches.
The shuttle-proper should have been retired and replaced with a roomy, ablative-shielded tin can with the (likewise traditional) chute recovery. Everything else about it kept: engines, pumps, etc.

Apr 13, 2019
Galactic resolution
its diameter is 180Lys
danR> Now, what is the diameter of Sagittarius A*?
Or better yet, what are their comparative angular diameters?
The 'conundrum' lies in comparing visual apples to apple-cells.

Sagittarius A* is 44billion metres in diameter at 25,000Lyrs
compared to
180Lys at 34,000Lrs
whereas the sun is 1.4billion metres in diameter, is resolved in M3 at 34,000Lys
but the same size stars at Sagittarius A* cannot be resolved at 25,000Lys
As you mentioned angular resolution danR, the conundrum was starry angular resolution

Apr 13, 2019
Sorry granville583762, you're misunderstanding what 'resolve' means; it's when you can make something out as more than just a point of light. There are only a handful of stars that have ever been resolved - Betelgeuse is one example.

Apr 13, 2019
Resolving this gran(ville) puzzlement

As digital photography is in the spotlight of late
a prominent feature of (the night sky, the globular cluster) M3
(which is situated) 33900 Lys (from us).
(Containing an estimated half a million stars)
its mass is 450000 solar masses.
Its diameter is 180Lys (18 arcminutes).
(Its central core measuring 1,1 arcminutes can be observed with binoculars).
In other words (not) more massive (but) larger than Sagittarius A*
and more importantly M3 is more distant than Sagittarius A*
but despite being more distant,
despite M3s stars being infinitely smaller than Sagittarius A*
M3's (starry core) is individually resolved (to individual stars by the HST).
Whereas the enormous number of stars Sagittarius A* (with an apparent diameter 0.000003 arcsecond) is retrieving
9,000Lys closer than M3 cannot be resolved

p.s. a little conundrum in stellar resolution ? No just a conundrum in comprehension

Apr 13, 2019
Addendum

(with an apparent diameter 0.00003 arcsecond or 30 microarcsecond)

Apr 13, 2019
Resolve means; it's when you can make something out as more than just a point of light
danR, inoffensive name, TechnoCreed
is choice indeed
but can we make something out as more than just a point of light
because we need to resolve in thirds as we started in the singular
as of November 10, 2012 not April 13, 2019

Apr 13, 2019
Resolve means; it's when you can make something out as more than just a point of light
danR, inoffensive name, TechnoCreed
is choice indeed
but can we make something out as more than just a point of light
because we need to resolve in thirds as we started in the singular
as of November 10, 2012 not April 13, 2019


Deary me, Granville. Does your cluelessness know no end?

Apr 13, 2019
Resolve means; it's when you can make something out as more than just a point of light
danR, inoffensive name, TechnoCreed
is choice indeed
but can we make something out as more than just a point of light
because we need to resolve in thirds as we started in the singular
as of November 10, 2012 not April 13, 2019

Alright, I think we're getting somewhere, but it's difficult to help you with your conundra if you keep reframing them extremely questionable limericks and over-long haiku.

Apr 13, 2019
* "...reframing them in extremely questionable limericks and over-long haiku."

Apr 13, 2019
What with is this monastery, danR
danR> * "...reframing them in extremely questionable limericks and over-long haiku."

Did one and all think the cats at play, that was so old hat it stood out a mile

Apr 13, 2019
Hubble took images that show individual stars in a globular cluster.

Why is there any argument about this data? Looks like trolling to me.

Just sayin'.

Apr 13, 2019
What with is this monastery...
Is with this what syntax vocabulary and? Trans Google late friend is your not

Apr 14, 2019
danR
We will start again
as you are aware this is a comparison in telescopically resolved stars more distant than Sagittarius A*
as you are also aware structures on Sagittarius A*, even though larger than stars, 9,000Lys closer than M3 cannot be resolved
The question is clear, danR
so
From the beginning

A prominent feature of M3
it is 34,000Lys distant
its mass is 45billion solar mass's
its diameter is 180Lys
in other words more massive and larger than Sagittarius A*
and more importantly M3 is more distant that Sagittarius A*
but despite being more distant
despite M3s stars being infinitely smaller than Sagittarius A*
M3s stars are individually resolved
Whereas the enormous number of stars Sagittarius A* is retrieving
9,000Lys closer than M3 cannot be resolved

As Da Schneib, correctly points out; Hubble took images that show individual stars in a globular cluster.
That cluster danR, is M3

Apr 14, 2019
^^^^Idiot. Sgr A* is a black hole, you clown. Which part of 'black' is not penetrating what counts for your brain? And we can see the stars orbiting it. Go away. You are a clueless oik.

Apr 14, 2019
danR
Now the party's over
this mystic is done
as any stars
outside 44milion km diameter
for all intents and purposes are stars in their own right
because
as we all know this 44milion km diameter
is
this Sagittarius A*
because
between this 44milion km diameter
is
25,000Lys
where as the Sun is 1.4million km diameter
so to quibble several light years outside 44milion km diameter
when that star is then 23,000Lys distant which is still not resolved
when danR, 2Lys
outside Sagittarius A*
is
no longer under the influence of Sagittarius A*s horizon

This comparison was not possible
till
that historic day, the Tenth of April 2019
but
now the mystery is over and with each passing day
stars
such as Sagittarius A*
are now part of the tapestry of stars
as
they are now not a mysteries ogre they used to be
Just only a few days ago

Apr 14, 2019
^^^^Stop talking crap, you fool.

Apr 14, 2019
Resolving this gran(ville) puzzlement (a second time)

A description of Messier M3:
It is 33900 light years from our solar system.
It contains around 500 thousand stars,
a crude estimation of its weight is 450 thousand solar masses
so it is not more massive than Sag A* wich is 44 million solar masses.
Its diameter is 180Lys From our point of view 18 arcminutes
Its central core measuring 1,1 arcminutes can be observed with binoculars.
The Hubble telescope can resolve it down to starry point,
But resolving an individual star in M3 would be impossible for HST
it only has a resolving power of 0.1 arcsecond.
A star like our sun in M3 would measure an
incredebly small .0000000056 micro-arcsecond.

Apr 14, 2019
Now we have our wiggle room

These stars in M3
According to our favourite source Wikipedia, are these stars the stars that make up M3
https://upload.wi...914a.jpg

Apr 14, 2019
Our wiggle room

Sagittarius A* is 4 million solar mass's
whereas
M3 is 450 thousand solar mass's
that
is until the new glass's come from Specsavers
as the mass
makes no never mind
as
It is our wiggle room
because
The mass of the constituent stars does not affect resolution
so
The question is

Is Hubble resolving these M3 stars
https://upload.wi...914a.jpg

Apr 14, 2019
Hubble double toil and trouble
TechnoCreed> The Hubble telescope can resolve it down to starry point,
But resolving an individual star in M3 would be impossible for HST
it only has a resolving power of 0.1 arcsecond.
A star like our sun in M3 would measure an
incredibly small .0000000056 micro-arcsecond

Stars in optical line of site present difficulties
but
Even with optical alignment challenges, these are able to be overcome nowadays

Apr 14, 2019
Does this answer the close packed M3 question

The question is
Is Hubble resolving these M3 stars
https://upload.wi...914a.jpg

Apr 14, 2019
The question is
Is Hubble resolving these M3 stars
is the actual question
These are stars in this image
https://upload.wi...914a.jpg

As
what appear as points of light
are
not in actual fact points of lights
but
several closed packed stars
it
Just needs scientifically verifying this so

Apr 14, 2019
an existence of BH is a hypothesis.


yep but nothing in the observations breaks GR.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more