Not boring at all, quite the contrary. This video clearly shows us how carefully we should study data and the various conclusions drawn from those data.
Brady, thank you so much for this channel and your others, they're all absolutely fantastic. DeepSkyVideos in particular is an absolute dream come true for me. I've spent many hours poring over dry wikipedia articles about Messier objects and then lo and behold, someone's made a peerless video series about them. God knows what's in the water in Nottingham but the folks you interview are some of the most engaging and entertaining educators I've ever known. Your videos radiate human warmth, and it's in no small part due to your editing and interview styles. Thanks again.
What would be cool and really rattle comfort zones...you should start a Debunked Boring Science series...entitled DBS...I personally would luv it...cool arguments just hanging on to history :)
Dr Smethurst, Thank you for this excellent presentation. As one who received his "Messier Certificate" over 20 years ago, I remember well the consternation around M73. :)
M73 is *not* boring. The "humanness" (confirmation bias, different people interpreting the same data in different ways, etc) involved in researching it makes it interesting.
What Messier and the Herschels did was preserve identifiabilty. If a new catalogue is to supersede an old one, it should contain all the objects in the old one even if some of them have been shown not to belong, simply so that they can still be identified. Messier did this with M40, which he knew was a double star, but someone earlier had reported it as nebulous. He himself said that he wanted to include objects that had been previously claimed to be nebulous, even if they really weren't, for the sake of identification.
I wish this channel would post move videos. They are always so well done and interesting. I also miss seeing all the people in them. What is happening with everyone? How is there own research going? Have they published any papers lately?
Messier's catalogue was just a list of things he'd checked that turned out to not be comets, so it makes sense that he'd include it while John Herschel wouldn't include it in a catalogue of nebulae.
I noticed that Herschel's catalog had elements in the right hand column, presumably from the absorption lines they could discern in the spectra. How ironic that this disproved their proximity.
It is traditionally associated with chess board makers, sellers of onions, manufacturers of plaster images of small religious significance and people allergic to pewter. Also Rincewinds birth-sign.
I didn't think it was boring; it embodied everything that science is! it took three hundred years to confirm that it wasn't anything! that's the beauty of science! in any other human field of knowledge, not just theology but law and philosophy and a bunch of other stuff, the attitude at the end of a "project" is 'I better come up with something definitive, then I'll get my fame and it'll be settled and that'll be that!', whereas in science, its all about the actual truth, over your fame and over having it be settled and moving on. in science, the attitude is always 'I can't make a definitive positive statement about this, so I better pass the question along so that it gets solved one day, because if I make something up, sure I may become famous, but it'll be easy to show that I made the answer up and the ridicule will be even worse, and the question will still go unanswered!'
even when its boring, it isnt, i learnt about how scientists can keep things going even when its not there just because somebody else saw it, i know thats probably gone away alot but good to see how it used to be
Hi Dr Becky Excellent video.....just a beginner looking at the stars......truthfully to me everything looks the same......keep us informed I watch you other videos also
The same object, the same data, but crucially there was a human choice made as to 'these stars are part of it'. Even the slightest bit of subjectivity so easily alters results.
To be fair - when they were displaying the the star field, I *thought* I did see some nebulosity around the lowest of the four stars - @1m10s and @2m00s - pretty circular, so my first thought was lens effect, but then it looked off-center, so I wondered...
Science: - Not the "right" answer, just the best answer we have SO FAR! Scientist: - "I have proven this!" Interesting post showing how the two can differ. Many "facts" I was taught at school in the 50's and 60"s have been revised, but that doesn't deter me from preferring to follow the scientific method.
I'm curious why the teams used the first method at all, checking the colors, instead of the speeds. Is one method usually easier/better than the other? Did they have a particular reason for choosing that method first?
What is a reasonable speed ? for example the earth has an orbital velocity of about 29km/s and Mercury has an orbital velocity of up to 59 km/s so if looked at the right time from the right position we could imagine seeing one at +59km/s and the other at -29km/s. Of course those stars are much further from each other, so probably the expected velocity should be slower. But what would be a reasonable value?
The "problem" here is not with the velocities per se, but with the fact that the stars have very different velocities. The differences are too great for the stars to be part of a bound system. Note that the 2002 paper also looked at distances and spectra, and found that all the data are inconsistent with the stars being part of the same system.
@Michael Sommer, that is exactly my point, someone could see a difference of velocity between earth and Mercury of 88km/s which is comparable to what is seen in this cluster. Of course Mercury is much closer to the sun than those stars are from each other. On the other hands the total mass of those stars is bigger than the sun (I guess it does not compensate for the distance, but you need to do the computations).
The Earth and Mercury are not stars in an open cluster; they will have different kinematics. Also, as I said before, the 2002 paper also looked at distances and compositions, which showed definitively that these stars are not associated with each other.
This might be the most powerful of all the Messier series videos! Definitely a very strong commentary on the scientific process snd how it can go wrong
But wait. Can't stars in an open cluster have different velocities and directions...? If stars have different velocities, does that actually imply they aren't in an open cluster? I'm not an astronomer obviously - why can't stars in the same open cluster have different velocities, and be headed in different directions?
Stars in an open cluster will have different velocities (note that velocity includes both speed and direction), but since the cluster is a bound system, the velocities will be similar. The Odenkirchen and Soubiran paper found the dispersal in velocities to be very high, too high for the stars to be a bound system. Note that they also looked at distances and spectra, all of which strongly suggested that the stars are not related to each other.
The spikes on the stars are from the telescope . I have made a design that does not have those defects my largest has a 20 inch primary mirror Thanks for the clips
I don't think she's (necessarily) describing confirmation bias, *I think she's describing peer pressure* The story of M73 is more like _The Emperor's New Clothes_ where everyone agrees and no-one dare disagree. That's peer pressure, isn't it? In confirmation bias you have a preconceived outcome, you seek confirmation and ignore counterexample. In this case they were (ostensibly) neutral which means there was no preconceived outcome* about what they were going to find they, but then they agreed with what everyone else had said. There are technicalities, and this is a youtube comment but I think that's right. I'm saying *Peer Pressure not Confirmation Bias* PS I wonder if peer pressure will lead to everyone saying: Don't be daft, that was confirmation bias :-) *Sort of
Do we know of any star(s) in the milky way that have zero velocity relative to the sun? Like you and another car with the same speed, x m from each other and if you remove all reference point it looks like both are stationary?
I don't think so, which is sort of expected. Only stars at our sun's distance from the galactic center would be expected to have the same orbital speed and even that neglects things like the spiral arms. Anything else would be a temporary coincidence. (Exactly zero, moving slowly relative to the sun is more likely.) It's possible there are some stationary relative to the sun but I've not seen any in the literature.
I thin the best time to view Orion Nebula is 3-4 am just ahead of the rising sun . The nebula looks so fresh right out of the oven! August is the month ..
The speed diferences might be telling us that some sort of explosion would have happened in between them, and so they are expanding away from it in all directions, some toward us, some to the opposite direction, and others sideways. Not saying this is a definite fact, just pointing out the endless plausible causes one could come up with to explain the observations. That said, we should not be rushing into conclusions without openly considering, debating, and rethinking our ideas together, and not individually in a competitive way, just to,prove a point. The only thing we will be is proven wrong sooner or later. That's just waste of theme, resources, opportunities, and especially it puts fellow researchers fighting each other in a useless war, instead of working harmoniously for the sake of knowledge.
The 2002 paper also looked at distances and compositions of the stars, and found that there was no reason so think they were ever part of a single system.
If anyone know more about stars space or deep space universe then please contact me we will discuss about daily basis im dam crazy exiting to know about universe ... thanks
That's not confirmation bias, that's not what the original list was for. Original list is stuff that's clearly not comets, yet might be confused for comets. Everyone else is putting in everything from historic lists. And they're all adding the footnote "no neb". So the only confirmation bias we are seeing is hers.
The fact that two papers using the same data and the same methods could get diametrically opposite results is a pretty strong indication that at least one of them has to be biased by something.
The Messier catalog was just a list of things that could be confused for comets that weren't comets. Messier started it and had friends add to it so they could more easily find comets without having these "not comets" messing with their searches. (Additionally you have to understand the quality of equipment) The list is of historic importance, which is code for you leave everything on it. That's not bias, that's just accepting that history happens. There's a few things that are not "nebulae" on the list, which is why those later lists say "no neb" they are saying it's not a nebulae, it's just on the list. The two recent papers has one saying they don't think it's an open cluster and the other saying it appears to be a very old and nearly dispersed open cluster, that's not them saying it's clearly a tight open cluster. And it would still stay on every list possible, because the history of the field matters. Two papers using the same data to come up with different conclusions is just science being science. A third paper using a completely different set of data to better answer the previous discourse is just science. Claiming the third paper proves confirmation bias isn't science, it's its own form of confirmation bias. And the object would still stay on every single list because the history of the field matters.
I agree with everything you are saying except that this video is somehow an example of "confirmation bias." She is just misusing a word. She is not biased to confirm a belief she already held while dismissing evidence to the contrary.
@@DeepPastry wish there was someway to highlight your reply. It sums up the situation perfectly. "Science being science" and building on historical data and why that data was originally collected (nebulosity not comets).
If the first method for determining if a set of stars is an open cluster is so inconclusive why use that method at all and instead look at the red shift straight away?
That's fine but what is the point of a fast-but-highly-imprecise method? What is the purpose of it? Why would results from it be worthy of publication, especially in this field?
Who said the results need to be worthy? As currently practised, all that really matters is the paper is published. If the data looks insubstantial, just smear the numbers with some half-understood stats work. Old fashioned and outmoded notions of accuracy or reproducibility are considered as both extravagant and wasteful. Get it weakly peer-reviewed and then published, job done.
Not boring at all, quite the contrary. This video clearly shows us how carefully we should study data and the various conclusions drawn from those data.
Totally agree. Or as Stephen Fry/Sandy Toksvig would say. Quite Interesting.
Quite interesting indeed
Excellent video for an absolutely boring object! Thanks!
There are no other standing theories to explain the data.
Yes, not boring. Are there catalogues of these asterisms?
You could do them in order, but you selected a more Messier approach.
Yeah, but the videos are just so nebulous, I am okay with this approach
"Messier approach"...that's it, Im leaving!
Please accept this congratulatory virtual custard pie to the face…you know that you deserve it ;-)
@@livintolearn7053 lol
Reminds me of Feynman's quote: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool."
Dr Smethurst is an excellent addition to deep sky videos and sixty symbols! It would be awesome if she did a video on galaxy formation.
Agree! But I would also listen to Mike Merrifield 24/7!
And she’s super cute too! 😉
I love having Dr. Smethurst on the video rotation. She's an amazing addition. Keep up the great work!
I actually found this to be one of the more interesting videos on clusters.
Only that it's not a video on a cluster ;) But yeah, it was really interesting!
Not boring, it explains how the dispute was finally settled using relative velocity. Thanks for the video.
Absolutely FAR from boring. I could watch this for hours.
Thank you!
Brady, thank you so much for this channel and your others, they're all absolutely fantastic. DeepSkyVideos in particular is an absolute dream come true for me. I've spent many hours poring over dry wikipedia articles about Messier objects and then lo and behold, someone's made a peerless video series about them. God knows what's in the water in Nottingham but the folks you interview are some of the most engaging and entertaining educators I've ever known. Your videos radiate human warmth, and it's in no small part due to your editing and interview styles. Thanks again.
What would be cool and really rattle comfort zones...you should start a Debunked Boring Science series...entitled DBS...I personally would luv it...cool arguments just hanging on to history :)
We normally get who, what and when on these videos. It's is also great to also get why and how, to describe the process through time.
Dr Smethurst,
Thank you for this excellent presentation. As one who received his "Messier Certificate" over 20 years ago, I remember well the consternation around M73. :)
M73 is *not* boring. The "humanness" (confirmation bias, different people interpreting the same data in different ways, etc) involved in researching it makes it interesting.
What Messier and the Herschels did was preserve identifiabilty. If a new catalogue is to supersede an old one, it should contain all the objects in the old one even if some of them have been shown not to belong, simply so that they can still be identified. Messier did this with M40, which he knew was a double star, but someone earlier had reported it as nebulous. He himself said that he wanted to include objects that had been previously claimed to be nebulous, even if they really weren't, for the sake of identification.
I wish this channel would post move videos. They are always so well done and interesting. I also miss seeing all the people in them. What is happening with everyone? How is there own research going? Have they published any papers lately?
Messier's catalogue was just a list of things he'd checked that turned out to not be comets, so it makes sense that he'd include it while John Herschel wouldn't include it in a catalogue of nebulae.
In a way this video is one of the more interesting of the series. Boring is interesting when interesting gets boring.
I noticed that Herschel's catalog had elements in the right hand column, presumably from the absorption lines they could discern in the spectra. How ironic that this disproved their proximity.
Maybe it's just me, but solving a long standing mystery isn't boring.
This is a fascinating story! So much information about how these things are being thought about.
I really liked this video, and I am happy to hear that conclusion!
It is traditionally associated with chess board makers, sellers of onions, manufacturers of plaster images of small religious significance and people allergic to pewter. Also Rincewinds birth-sign.
Sadly, due to being dismissed he has now not officially ever been born. This may cause some problems.
Would those be all onions including yellow, or just white onions, which you couldn't get because of the war?
I see famous microphone, well deserved trophy :D
I didn't think it was boring; it embodied everything that science is! it took three hundred years to confirm that it wasn't anything! that's the beauty of science! in any other human field of knowledge, not just theology but law and philosophy and a bunch of other stuff, the attitude at the end of a "project" is 'I better come up with something definitive, then I'll get my fame and it'll be settled and that'll be that!', whereas in science, its all about the actual truth, over your fame and over having it be settled and moving on. in science, the attitude is always 'I can't make a definitive positive statement about this, so I better pass the question along so that it gets solved one day, because if I make something up, sure I may become famous, but it'll be easy to show that I made the answer up and the ridicule will be even worse, and the question will still go unanswered!'
even when its boring, it isnt, i learnt about how scientists can keep things going even when its not there just because somebody else saw it, i know thats probably gone away alot but good to see how it used to be
I like M73. Interesting little object and easy to find near M72.
Hi Dr Becky
Excellent video.....just a beginner looking at the stars......truthfully
to me everything looks the same......keep us informed I watch you other videos
also
Yeees!! My all time faveourite channel strikes again ✅✅✅✅🍀🎩🎆😃
Radio podcast trophy from Mr & Mrs Grey at the end there 👑🎉 congrats on winning the trophy Brady
you shouldn't have said it's boring now I feel like a numberphile nerd because I enjoyed it so much!
Excellent. I am learning new things.
The same object, the same data, but crucially there was a human choice made as to 'these stars are part of it'. Even the slightest bit of subjectivity so easily alters results.
Are you sure about "the same data"? I haven't read all three papers, but I'm pretty sure the 2002 paper had data unavailable to the others.
To be fair - when they were displaying the the star field, I *thought* I did see some nebulosity around the lowest of the four stars - @1m10s and @2m00s - pretty circular, so my first thought was lens effect, but then it looked off-center, so I wondered...
Small point. I think it is fairer to label what happened cognitive dissonance rather than confirmation bias. Although I'm probably splitting hairs.
*M73 is a Small server by Lenovo configured with i3, i5 and i7 processors. With an i7 processor, it will really light up!*
Science: - Not the "right" answer, just the best answer we have SO FAR!
Scientist: - "I have proven this!"
Interesting post showing how the two can differ.
Many "facts" I was taught at school in the 50's and 60"s have been revised, but that doesn't deter me from preferring to follow the scientific method.
One Shift
Two Shift
Red Shift
Blue Shift
I'm curious why the teams used the first method at all, checking the colors, instead of the speeds. Is one method usually easier/better than the other? Did they have a particular reason for choosing that method first?
I imagine there's a statistical analysis which could give a number to how closely they follow the pattern.
Boring? I learned something new so how can that be boring?
What do you guys think about this whole Thorium reactor thing? That'd make a great video.
What is a reasonable speed ?
for example the earth has an orbital velocity of about 29km/s and Mercury has an orbital velocity of up to 59 km/s
so if looked at the right time from the right position we could imagine seeing one at +59km/s and the other at -29km/s.
Of course those stars are much further from each other, so probably the expected velocity should be slower. But what would be a reasonable value?
The "problem" here is not with the velocities per se, but with the fact that the stars have very different velocities. The differences are too great for the stars to be part of a bound system. Note that the 2002 paper also looked at distances and spectra, and found that all the data are inconsistent with the stars being part of the same system.
@Michael Sommer,
that is exactly my point, someone could see a difference of velocity between earth and Mercury of 88km/s
which is comparable to what is seen in this cluster. Of course Mercury is much closer to the sun than those stars are from each other. On the other hands the total mass of those stars is bigger than the sun (I guess it does not compensate for the distance, but you need to do the computations).
The Earth and Mercury are not stars in an open cluster; they will have different kinematics. Also, as I said before, the 2002 paper also looked at distances and compositions, which showed definitively that these stars are not associated with each other.
Albert says its all relative
Here is the 2002 paper on arxiv.org: arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0111601.pdf
This. is. GREAT!
This might be the most powerful of all the Messier series videos! Definitely a very strong commentary on the scientific process snd how it can go wrong
But wait. Can't stars in an open cluster have different velocities and directions...?
If stars have different velocities, does that actually imply they aren't in an open cluster? I'm not an astronomer obviously - why can't stars in the same open cluster have different velocities, and be headed in different directions?
Stars in an open cluster will have different velocities (note that velocity includes both speed and direction), but since the cluster is a bound system, the velocities will be similar. The Odenkirchen and Soubiran paper found the dispersal in velocities to be very high, too high for the stars to be a bound system.
Note that they also looked at distances and spectra, all of which strongly suggested that the stars are not related to each other.
The spikes on the stars are from the telescope . I have made a design that does not have those defects my largest has a 20 inch primary mirror Thanks for the clips
My favourite messier object is the Andromeda galaxy
So, If it is debunked now, will it be removed from the catalogues? Not boring at all!
If it's not a real cluster, why can't it be dropped from the catalog?
I don't think she's (necessarily) describing confirmation bias, *I think she's describing peer pressure* The story of M73 is more like _The Emperor's New Clothes_ where everyone agrees and no-one dare disagree. That's peer pressure, isn't it?
In confirmation bias you have a preconceived outcome, you seek confirmation and ignore counterexample. In this case they were (ostensibly) neutral which means there was no preconceived outcome* about what they were going to find they, but then they agreed with what everyone else had said.
There are technicalities, and this is a youtube comment but I think that's right. I'm saying *Peer Pressure not Confirmation Bias*
PS I wonder if peer pressure will lead to everyone saying: Don't be daft, that was confirmation bias :-)
*Sort of
Do we know of any star(s) in the milky way that have zero velocity relative to the sun? Like you and another car with the same speed, x m from each other and if you remove all reference point it looks like both are stationary?
I don't think so, which is sort of expected. Only stars at our sun's distance from the galactic center would be expected to have the same orbital speed and even that neglects things like the spiral arms. Anything else would be a temporary coincidence. (Exactly zero, moving slowly relative to the sun is more likely.) It's possible there are some stationary relative to the sun but I've not seen any in the literature.
Wasn't the Messier Catalog created to provide a list of objects that are not comets? Perhaps M73 was include because it was mistaken for a comet.
True. But subsequent lists had a different objective. "M73" didn't qualify.
I thin the best time to view Orion Nebula is 3-4 am just ahead of the rising sun . The nebula looks so fresh right out of the oven! August is the month ..
Could you do a video about Tabby's star, please ?
Stupid question. Isn't it possible that Messier did see nebula, but it has been dissipated since then?
NeonsStyle considering in astronomical terms a short time span is hundreds of millions of years....no
His telescopes, by today's standards, were not that great.
that microphone, thou...
"Miles apart." No. "Millions of miles." Still no. LOL
So it means that bias it's open to interpretation and it's subjective in this case, just to underline.
Why don't they compare the distances to each of the stars? There's only 7 to compare.
The speed diferences might be telling us that some sort of explosion would have happened in between them, and so they are expanding away from it in all directions, some toward us, some to the opposite direction, and others sideways. Not saying this is a definite fact, just pointing out the endless plausible causes one could come up with to explain the observations. That said, we should not be rushing into conclusions without openly considering, debating, and rethinking our ideas together, and not individually in a competitive way, just to,prove a point. The only thing we will be is proven wrong sooner or later. That's just waste of theme, resources, opportunities, and especially it puts fellow researchers fighting each other in a useless war, instead of working harmoniously for the sake of knowledge.
That's not how explosions work in space, at least to my knowledge
The 2002 paper also looked at distances and compositions of the stars, and found that there was no reason so think they were ever part of a single system.
Astrophysics Kirsten Dunst
Dr. Becky really flares my corona.
You named it after a motorway nice
I say yes, its a small cluster of stars.
Dr. Becky Smethurst seemed to be so excited in her first video, well now stuffs are turning out to be boring for her.. Hmmmm
On the first date you explain Messier 73 and they don't run from the table - luck is on your side...
That's not what confirmation bias is, though.
Please elaborate.
The science is settled.
So Hubble couldn't be of any help?
Hubble has far more important things to do.
She reminds me of Kirsten Dunst.
Astronomy boring? Perish the thought.
is it just me or does this university have some of the hottest female scientists?
inorite
it's an illusion, their intelligence makes them seem hotter than they really are
Intelligence is extremely sexy and that's no illusion. ;)
Not just you. She’s smart and eye candy too. ♥️😍❤️
Add Caldwell objects
Subbed
excellent intellectually honest communiqué to the greater community outside of science on cases in point. good show tally ho!
The method was clearly flawed.
The stars didn't know each other from atom.
Brady's dad hat 😂
2.34
If anyone know more about stars space or deep space universe then please contact me we will discuss about daily basis im dam crazy exiting to know about universe ... thanks
She had me at m-m-m-m-millions of miles! 😃
Much ado about, well, let’s call it a lot of gas.
😍😍
Can't focus. She's too gorgeous. :(
Hi guys i am mexican
Mimikyu
she looks like mary jane from spiderman movie
0:07 Next video
That's not confirmation bias, that's not what the original list was for. Original list is stuff that's clearly not comets, yet might be confused for comets. Everyone else is putting in everything from historic lists. And they're all adding the footnote "no neb". So the only confirmation bias we are seeing is hers.
The fact that two papers using the same data and the same methods could get diametrically opposite results is a pretty strong indication that at least one of them has to be biased by something.
The Messier catalog was just a list of things that could be confused for comets that weren't comets. Messier started it and had friends add to it so they could more easily find comets without having these "not comets" messing with their searches. (Additionally you have to understand the quality of equipment)
The list is of historic importance, which is code for you leave everything on it. That's not bias, that's just accepting that history happens. There's a few things that are not "nebulae" on the list, which is why those later lists say "no neb" they are saying it's not a nebulae, it's just on the list.
The two recent papers has one saying they don't think it's an open cluster and the other saying it appears to be a very old and nearly dispersed open cluster, that's not them saying it's clearly a tight open cluster. And it would still stay on every list possible, because the history of the field matters.
Two papers using the same data to come up with different conclusions is just science being science. A third paper using a completely different set of data to better answer the previous discourse is just science. Claiming the third paper proves confirmation bias isn't science, it's its own form of confirmation bias.
And the object would still stay on every single list because the history of the field matters.
I agree with everything you are saying except that this video is somehow an example of "confirmation bias." She is just misusing a word. She is not biased to confirm a belief she already held while dismissing evidence to the contrary.
@@DeepPastry wish there was someway to highlight your reply. It sums up the situation perfectly. "Science being science" and building on historical data and why that data was originally collected (nebulosity not comets).
It isn't a thing so it doesn't belong in a list of things.
Reminds me of the climate change debate :D
If the first method for determining if a set of stars is an open cluster is so inconclusive why use that method at all and instead look at the red shift straight away?
Measuring the red shifts of multiple stars requires much more observation time.
That's fine but what is the point of a fast-but-highly-imprecise method? What is the purpose of it? Why would results from it be worthy of publication, especially in this field?
Who said the results need to be worthy? As currently practised, all that really matters is the paper is published. If the data looks insubstantial, just smear the numbers with some half-understood stats work. Old fashioned and outmoded notions of accuracy or reproducibility are considered as both extravagant and wasteful. Get it weakly peer-reviewed and then published, job done.
We don't live on a globe.