home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!physics2!ted
- From: ted@physics2 (Emory F. Bunn)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Hubble constant?
- Message-ID: <16hecuINNktk@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Date: 14 Aug 92 23:08:14 GMT
- References: <1992Aug10.192208.20572@cfa.harvard <Aug.13.16.31.25.1992.25521@ruhets.rutgers.edu> <1992Aug14.211056.23716@galois.mit.edu>
- Organization: /etc/organization
- Lines: 28
- NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
-
- In article <1992Aug14.211056.23716@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@zermelo.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
- >
- >Okay, my curiosity is piqued: what's a Pop III star remnant? After a
- >star pops 3 times all that's left is remnants? :-)
- >
-
- This is an example of the maximally obscure terminology so adored
- by astronomers. It is thought that stars can be roughly divided
- into "generations," with a star in a given generation having
- formed, Phoenix-like, out of the remnants of explosions of
- massive stars from the previous generation. The most recent
- generation of stars is called Population I, while its
- predecessor is Population II. There may or may not have
- been a generation before that, but if there was, we would call
- it Population III. Most Population III stars would be too old
- by now to still be shining, so they'd be "Pop III star remnants."
-
- As for why the numbering system goes backwards, don't ask.
- It was probably brought to you by the same people who decided
- that the classification of stars into spectral types
- should follow a simple, intuitive naming scheme, like
- O,B,A,F,G,K,M.
-
- (And if you think that's bad, try learning the _completely_
- haphazard and indecipherable magnitude system for describing
- the luminosity of stars!)
-
- -Ted
-