How to see Mercury, the moon and the Gemini twins pass close together in the night sky this week
During the final week of June and continuing into the first week of July, we'll have a fair chance at sighting Mercury, the innermost planet to the sun.
Many people have never noticed that Mercury swings rapidly back and forth relative to the sun in our sky, while moving along in an orbit scarcely more than half as far from the sun as Venus.
This fastest-moving and smallest major planet (only 1.4 times wider than the moon) orbits the sun 4.15 times a year, but from our own moving vantage point it appears to go around only 3.15 times. Each year it makes about 3.5 swings into the morning sky and as many times into the evening — excursions of highly unequal character because of its eccentric orbit and the varying angles from which we view it.
Typically, as seen from the Northern Hemisphere for after-sunset views of Mercury, its spring treks into the evening skies prove to be the best. Although it did not occur officially within the spring season, this year's first evening apparition that ran from Feb. 23 through March 15 was an excellent one, since for a few days centered around the date of its greatest elongation from the sun (March 8), Mercury set just after the end of evening twilight against a dark sky.
Now, this speedy, rocky little world is again available to view in the evening sky, although on this occasion, not a "spring" apparition, but more like early summer, encompassing the timeframe from June 20 through July 11. This time, Mercury's greatest elongation from the sun will come on July 4. During this current evening apparition, Mercury's climb out of the west-northwest horizon comes at a steeper angle and yet it will attain an altitude essentially as high above the setting sun as it did in late February and early March.
What is different this time around is that it is now early summer, not late winter. So, from mid-northern latitudes, the duration of evening twilight is longer by about 30 minutes. As such, unlike in early March, we cannot hope to glimpse Mercury against a dark sky.
However, during its evening appearances, Mercury always appears brightest in the days leading up to its greatest elongation. On June 20, it shone at magnitude -0.2, brighter than the similarly-hued star Arcturus, the second brightest behind Sirius as seen from northern latitudes. By July 3 it will have faded to a still respectably bright magnitude of +0.5, which would rank it among the top ten brightest stars in the sky. So, it should not be too difficult to sight against the twilight sky, low in the west-northwest about 45 minutes to one hour after sunset.
And during this week, we'll have some help in identifying it thanks to some other celestial landmarks.
TOP TELESCOPE PICK:
Want to get close-up views of planets in the night sky? The Celestron NexStar 4SE is ideal for beginners wanting quality, reliable and quick views of celestial objects. For a more in-depth look at our Celestron NexStar 4SE review.
On Tuesday evening, June 24, Mercury will form a nearly straight line with two bright stars; the Gemini Twins, Pollux and Castor. Going from right to left, the distance between Castor and Pollux measures 4.5 degrees. If you were to draw an imaginary line between these two stars and extend it another 6.5 degrees to the left, you will come to Mercury.
Or, put another way, if you make a clenched fist and hold it out at arm's length, that will measure roughly 10 degrees. The distance from Mercury to the star Castor (going from left to right) should measure a bit more than one fist width, or about 11 degrees.
In addition, keep in mind that Mercury will appear much brighter than either Pollux and Castor. On this night, Mercury will shine at zero magnitude, while Pollux will appear only about a third as bright at magnitude +1.1 and Castor only about one quarter as bright at magnitude +1.6. So, while it's likely that you'll be able to see Mercury with your naked eye, Pollux and Castor will likely be more difficult to see amidst the twilight glow. So be sure to have a pair of binoculars on hand to help you see these Twin Stars teamed up with Mercury.
Remember: if you're looking for a telescope or binoculars to observe Mercury or any other night sky event, our guides for the best binoculars deals and the best telescope deals now can help.
Two evenings later, on Thursday, June 26, another celestial wanderer will appear on the scene — the moon. Only a little over 1.5 days past the new moon phase, it will appear as a very narrow, wire-thin crescent, a mere 3 percent illuminated by the sun. Here again, binoculars will prove most beneficial in helping to find not only Pollux and Castor, but this exceedingly slender lunar sliver.
But what an amazing scene awaits you if you are successful in making a sighting.
On this evening, Pollux and Castor will be pointing directly at the moon and the gap separating this trio will be equidistant: From Castor to Pollux will measure 4.5 degrees and from Pollux to the moon will measure another 4.5 degrees; a celestial triple play.
But don't forget Mercury.
It will be shining about 4.3 degrees to the left and ever-so-slightly above the moon. In short, four prominent celestial objects — the moon, a bright planet and two bright stars — stretched out across a little more than a dozen degrees of the west-northwest sky.
A celestial quadruple grouping!
But please keep in mind that in many parts of the country, June has a reputation for being a sultry, hazy and humid month. So unfortunately, visibility of objects so low to the horizon might hinder seeing this "celestial summit meeting." But if your local sky is clear and transparent, try not to miss it, for gatherings like this of the moon accompanied by bright stars and planets are unusual and wonderful sights.
Mercury will quickly move away from the Gemini Twins in the days following June 26, and will rapidly fade after July 4, transitioning into the morning sky on July 31. On balmy mornings in August, get up early to see this elusive planet climbing almost straight up above the point of sunrise.
By Aug. 19, about an hour before sunrise, it will reach its highest, with the "dynamic duo" of Venus and Jupiter, respectively 15 and 22 degrees higher still. Pollux and Castor will also be nearby and on the mornings of Aug. 20 and 21, the moon will again join in too!
Mark your calendars ...
Joe Rao serves as an instructor and guest lecturer at New York's Hayden Planetarium. He writes about astronomy for Natural History magazine, Sky and Telescope and other publications.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
9 minutes ago
- Medscape
Officials Brace for New Normal of Dengue Cases
As summer ushers in peak mosquito season, health and vector control officials are bracing for the possibility of another year of historic rates of dengue. And with climate change, the lack of an effective vaccine, and federal research cuts, they worry the disease will become endemic to a larger swath of North America. About 3700 new dengue infections were reported last year in the contiguous United States, up from about 2050 in 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All of last year's cases were acquired abroad, except for 105 cases contracted in California, Florida, or Texas. The CDC issued a health alert in March warning of the ongoing risk of dengue infection. 'I think dengue is here with us to stay,' said infectious disease specialist Michael Ben-Aderet, associate medical director of hospital epidemiology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, about dengue becoming a new normal in the US. 'These mosquitoes aren't going anywhere.' Dengue is endemic — a label health officials assign when diseases appear consistently in a region — in many warmer parts of the world, including Latin America, India, and Southeast Asia. Dengue cases increased markedly last year in many of those places, especially in Central and South America. The disease, which can spread when people are bitten by infected Aedes mosquitoes, was not common in the contiguous United States for much of the last century. Today, most locally acquired (meaning unrelated to travel) dengue cases in the US happen in Puerto Rico, which saw a sharp increase in 2024, triggering a local public health emergency. Most people who contract dengue don't get sick. But in some people symptoms are severe: bleeding from the nose or mouth, intense stomach pain, vomiting, and swelling. Occasionally, dengue causes death. California offers a case study in how dengue is spreading in the US. The Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes that transmit dengue weren't known to be in the state 25 years ago. They are now found in 25 counties and more than 400 cities and unincorporated communities, mostly in Southern California and the Central Valley. The spread of the mosquitoes is concerning because their presence increases the likelihood of disease transmission, said Steve Abshier, president of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California. From 2016 through 2022, there were an average of 136 new dengue cases a year in California, each case most likely brought to the state by someone who had traveled and been infected elsewhere. In 2023, there were about 250 new cases, including two acquired locally. In 2024, California saw 725 new dengue cases, including 18 acquired locally, state data shows. Climate change could contribute to growth in the Aedes mosquitoes' population, Ben-Aderet said. These mosquitoes survive best in warm urban areas, often biting during the daytime. Locally acquired infections often occur when someone catches dengue during travel, then comes home and is bitten by an Aedes mosquito that bites and infects another person. 'They've just been spreading like wildfire throughout California,' Ben-Aderet said. Dengue presents a challenge to the many primary care doctors who have never seen it. Ben-Aderet said doctors who suspect dengue should obtain a detailed travel history from their patients, but confirming the diagnosis is not always quick. 'There's no easy test for it,' he said. 'The only test that we have for dengue is antibody tests.' He added that 'most labs probably aren't doing it commercially, so it's usually like a send-out test from most labs. So, you really have to suspect someone has dengue.' Best practices for avoiding dengue include eliminating any standing pools of water on a property — even small pools — and using mosquito repellent, Abshier said. Limiting activity at dusk and dawn, when mosquitoes bite most often, can also help. Efforts to combat dengue in California became even more complicated this year after wildfires ripped through Los Angeles. The fires occurred in a hot spot for mosquito-borne illnesses. San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District officials have worked for months to treat more than 1400 unmaintained swimming pools left in the wake of fire, removing potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes. San Gabriel vector control officials have used local and state resources to treat the pools, said district spokesperson Anais Medina Diaz. They have applied for reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has not historically paid for vector control efforts following wildfires. In California, vector control agencies are often primarily funded by local taxes and fees on property owners. Some officials are pursuing the novel method of releasing sterilized Aedes mosquitoes to reduce the problem. That may prove effective, but deploying the method in a large number of areas would be costly and would require a massive effort at the state level, Abshier said. Meanwhile, the federal government is pulling back on interventions: Several outlets have reported that the National Institutes of Health will stop funding new climate change-related research, which could include work on dengue. This year, reported rates of dengue in much of the Americas have declined significantly from 2024. But the trend in the United States likely won't be clear until later in the year, after the summer mosquito season ends. Health and vector control researchers aren't sure how bad it will get in California. Some say there may be limited outbreaks, while others predict dengue could get much worse. Sujan Shresta, a professor and infectious disease researcher at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, said other places, like Nepal, experienced relatively few cases of dengue in the recent past but now regularly see large outbreaks. There is a vaccine for children, but it faces discontinuation from a lack of global demand. Two other dengue vaccines are unavailable in the United States. Shresta's lab is hard at work on an effective, safe vaccine for dengue. She hopes to release results from animal testing in a year or so; if the results are positive, human trials could be possible in about 2 years. 'If there's no good vaccine, no good antivirals, this will be a dengue-endemic country,' she said. Phillip Reese is a data reporting specialist and an associate professor of journalism at California State University-Sacramento.
Harvard Business Review
an hour ago
- Harvard Business Review
Research: Being Well Connected Isn't Always Good for Your Career
Conventional wisdom says that when it comes to career opportunities, it's not about what you know, but who you know. And research has found, in fact, that prestigious connections do open doors and make people seem more capable than their peers—as if proximity to greatness implies a degree of similar excellence. But what impact do these star connections have after someone has landed a new job? In new research, we sought to find out. Our recent paper, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, investigated whether and how past connections with industry stars might shape long-term career evaluations and outcomes, particularly after an employee's objective performance data becomes available. Through an analysis of the careers of National Basketball Association (NBA) head coaches and an experiment with nearly 500 working professionals, we found that connections don't just help people land jobs: They continue to shape performance evaluations long after working relationships with stars have ended. How Ties to Titans Inflate Performance Expectations To begin our study, we examined the career trajectories of 179 NBA head coaches over 40 years. Professionals in the NBA, like many traditional firms, operate in high-stakes, performance-driven environments with clear career trajectories. This makes the NBA a useful context for studying career and talent decisions. We found that coaches who had previously served under legendary leaders, like Phil Jackson, for example, were less likely to be fired when their new teams performed worse than industry expectations, compared to coaches who weren't connected to stars. However, when connected coaches' teams performed exceptionally well, they were at greater risk of being fired, relative to head coaches who lacked any prior star connections. In other words, our study found that having a star connection helped buffer head coaches from the consequences of underperformance but could hurt them when they performed well. These effects lasted for up to nine years after a working relationship with a star coach had ended. To explore this dynamic further, we conducted a follow-up study with nearly 500 working professionals tasked with evaluating the performance of hypothetical new hires in the design industry. As evaluators, participants made an 'up or out' decision about each designer, one with a prior connection to an industry titan, and the other without such a connection. We found the same patterns arose: New hires with prior ties to an industry star were shielded when they underperformed, but their strong performance was often discounted. Although performance was presented as objective scores, participants' evaluations were skewed by the shadow of the industry titan associated with the connected designer. We also discovered that our participants, especially those who held more inflated expectations for star-connected designers, were significantly less likely to attribute star-connected employees' underperformance to low ability or low effort. Conversely, underperformance from a non-connected designer was attributed directly to the individual's ability and effort. Why Connections Influence Evaluations We believe that the answer lies in a psychological phenomenon known as balance theory. According to this theory, people strive for consistency in their beliefs and associations. When someone is linked to an industry star, evaluators set high expectations for the protégé and seek to maintain a positive image of them and their mentor. This leads people to rationalize evidence that contradicts their expectations, especially when the star-connected individual underperforms. Conversely, strong performance merely confirms what is already assumed and is therefore viewed as unremarkable. Consider Bob Nardelli, a protégé of the legendary General Electric CEO Jack Welch. After being recruited to be the CEO of Home Depot, Nardelli delivered strong financial results early in his tenure. However, he received little recognition and as ultimately forced out: In 2002, after announcing a 35% profit increase that beat Wall Street's expectations, the company's stock still dropped. Reflecting on this, Nardelli remarked: 'I can understand not getting rewarded, but I don't understand getting punished.' Of course, there could have been multiple factors contributing to Nardelli's downfall, including a leadership style that clashed with his company's entrepreneurial culture. Still, it is fair to speculate that his performance might have been judged against the towering expectations set by his association with Welch. Some Limitations As with any research, our findings should be interpreted with some caution. Our NBA field study focused on a male-dominated environment, which may not generalize to other industries with different make-ups. Additionally, the experimental study, although conducted with working professionals, relied on hypothetical scenarios, which may not fully capture the messiness of real-world evaluations. Still, the consistent patterns we found across our studies provides strong evidence that industry stars can, in fact, cast a long shadow on the future evaluations of their protégés. Strategies for Making Better Talent Decisions Whether you're an executive overseeing talent pipelines or an emerging leader navigating your career path, understanding how past ties to prominent figures can distort performance evaluations is essential. Prestige-by-association can create unrealistic expectations, offering not only unfair protection, but they can lead to blind spots and overlooked achievements. Here's how executive decision makers and rising leaders can respond: If you're evaluating rising leaders: Don't let reflected prestige cloud your judgment. Hiring star-connected people is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when their objective qualifications are strong. But be mindful that your (often unconscious) high expectations for star-connected employees can create blind spots in how you evaluate them, while others who lack star connections may be evaluated more critically. Before making key decisions (like promotions or dismissals), ask: Would I judge this person's performance the same way if I didn't know this person's background? What biases do their relationship with this star create? What expectations do I feel, because of this association? Create structured, criteria-based evaluation systems that focus on performance, behaviors, and competencies, minimizing the influence of what evaluators may already know about a person, such as their connections to industry titans or an elite MBA degree. Incorporate 360-degree feedback or use a promotion committee, as multi-source input can help reveal blind spots and social biases. If you're a rising leader: Own your accomplishments. Whether you're star-connected or not, it's important to take ownership of your achievements. Our study found that proximity (or distance) from stars can cause biases among evaluators. This makes it even more important to highlight specific outcomes you've delivered, challenges you've overcome, or innovations you've led that clearly demonstrate your individual contributions. If you do have a connection, it may be useful not to lean on it when it comes time for evaluations. . . . Prestigious connections are powerful. They can help you reach that important first rung on the career ladder. But the ongoing influence of star connections can distort how merit is evaluated and rewarded. In a world obsessed with who you know, let's not forget to focus on what people actually achieve.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who's the coolest person at your July 4 barbecue? They got six things goin' on, according to a new study
An international team of researchers may have just cracked the code for what makes someone 'cool.' And no matter where you live, the personality traits that make someone 'cool' appear to be consistent across countries, according to the study, published this week in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. The researchers found that, compared with people considered to be 'good' or 'favorable,' those considered 'cool' are perceived to be more extroverted, hedonistic, powerful, adventurous, open and autonomous. 'The most surprising thing was seeing that the same attributes emerge in every country,' said Todd Pezzuti, an associate professor of marketing at Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez in Chile who was a co-lead researcher on the study. 'Regardless of whether it's China or Korea or Chile or the US, people like people who are pushing boundaries and sparking change,' he said. 'So I would say that coolness really represents something more fundamental than the actual label of coolness.' The researchers – from Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, the University of Arizona and the University of Georgia – conducted experiments from 2018 to 2022 with nearly 6,000 people across a dozen countries: Australia, Chile, China, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the United States. The participants were asked to think of a person in their lives whom they perceive to be 'cool,' 'uncool,' 'good' or 'not good.' They were then asked to rate that person's personality using two scales: the Big Five Personality scale, a widely used scientific model that helps describe personality traits, and the Portrait Values Questionnaire, intended to measure an individual's basic values. The study participants consistently associated being calm, conscientious, universalistic, agreeable, warm, secure, traditional and conforming with being a good person, more than with being a cool person. Being capable was considered to be both 'cool' and 'good' but not distinctly either. But the formula for being 'cool' was having the six character traits – more extroverted, hedonistic, powerful, adventurous, open and autonomous – no matter the person's age, gender or education level. Pezzuti doesn't think these 'cool' traits are something that can be taught. 'We're born with those attributes,' he said. 'Five of those attributes are personality traits, and personality traits tend to be fairly stable.' The research showed that cool people and good people aren't the same, but there may be some overlapping traits, said co-lead researcher Caleb Warren, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Arizona. 'To be seen as cool, someone usually needs to be somewhat likable or admirable, which makes them similar to good people,' Warren said in a news release. 'However, cool people often have other traits that aren't necessarily considered 'good' in a moral sense, like being hedonistic and powerful.' A limitation of the research was that only people who understood what 'cool' means were included in the study. Pezzuti said it would be interesting – but difficult – to determine whether the findings would be similar among more traditional cultures or remote groups of people who may be less familiar with the term. 'We don't know what we would find in supertraditional cultures like hunting-and-gathering tribes or sustenance farming groups,' Pezzuti said. 'One thing we would propose is that in those cultures, 'cool' people don't have as important of a role because innovation, or cultural innovation, isn't as important in those cultures,' he said. 'So I would say that cool people are probably present in those cultures, but their role isn't as big, and they're probably not as admired as they are in other cultures.' When asked to think of a public figure or celebrity who embodies 'coolness' based on his research, Pezzuti immediately said Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. 'He's a controversial figure, but someone who comes to my mind is Elon Musk,' Pezzuti said, adding that he checks all the boxes of the six attributes identified in the study. Musk is 'undeniably powerful' and autonomous, he said, and appears to be extroverted due to his presence on social media platforms and in the media. 'I hear that he's timid, maybe more timid than he seems, but from an outsider, he seems very extroverted. He's entertaining. He's on podcasts and always in front of cameras,' Pezzuti explained. Some of Musk's behavior also appears to be hedonistic, he said. 'He smoked marijuana on the most popular podcast in the world, 'The Joe Rogan Experience.'' And Pezzuti added that Musk's ideas about colonizing Mars show him to be open and adventurous. The new paper is one of the few empirical studies that examines what exactly makes people 'cool,' said Jonah Berger, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. 'While people have long wondered (and theorized) about what makes people cool, there hasn't been a lot of actual empirical research on the topic, so it's great to see work exploring this space,' Berger, who was not involved in the new paper, wrote in an email. 'While coolness might seem like something you are born with, there are certainly steps people can take to try and move in that direction,' he said. 'Given how many people want to be cool, and how much money is spent with that goal in mind, it certainly seems worth studying.' Future research in this space could evaluate coolness in tandem with goodness and badness rather than in isolation from it, said Jon Freeman, an associate professor of psychology at Columbia University. 'In real life, coolness can be a positive quality but can also have a negative connotation in certain social contexts. It may be valuable for future work to examine the differences between good coolness and bad coolness, and this study's approach offers a great foundation,' Freeman, who also was not involved in the new study, wrote in an email. 'From a scientific standpoint, cool would seem far more a product of inference and social construction than genetics, although low-level temperament informed by genetics could feed into ongoing personality construction,' he said. ''Cool' is deeply ingrained in our social vocabulary because it serves as a shorthand for complex inferences. It encapsulates signals of status, affiliation, and identity in ways that are instantaneous yet deeply stereotyped. From a scientific perspective, studying coolness is important precisely because it reveals how rapid, schematic trait inferences influence behavior and social dynamics, especially in the age of social media and influencer culture.'
