I have a nursery tale to tell you. It’s about newborn babies, gassy babies, babies getting so heated they destroy their nursery. But it has a happy ending.
Our story begins like so many children’s tales: with a picture.
OK, first, wow. That’s a very pretty picture (click it for access to a vastly bigger copy). But what is it?
It won’t really help you much if I tell you that it’s named NGC 1333 (the 1333rd object in the New General Catalog of celestial objects, which was published in 1877, making it not terribly new anymore), but it might help more if I say that it’s a region of gas, dust, and hot young stars (that phrase should up my Google ranking!) in the constellation of Perseus. It’s about 1000 light years away, give or take. I’ve seen many images of it, but none quite like this. Why not? Because this one is in infrared.
Regular readers (both those who eat their bran and otherwise) know that looking in the infrared can tell you a lot more about an object than visible light alone can. In this case, infrared light is useful because it can travel through dust that would otherwise block the visible light. NGC 1333 is a beautiful object in visible light, but there doesn’t appear to be many stars in it. If you look in the IR, though, the stars jump right out as they do in the Spitzer picture.
The very cool science thing about this is you can, using IR, sweep aside the curtain of dust veiling our view and peer deep into the heart of the dust complex (to mix a metaphor). It’s been long known that stars are born in such clouds, but here we see clear evidence for it. Well, I do, at least, but I’m kinda used to looking at things like this. So let’s take a closer look.
A star is formed when a cloud of gas and dust collapses. Maybe it smacked into another cloud, or maybe a nearby star blew up and the blast wave slammed into the cloud. No one is quite sure what triggers cloud collapse, or at least what proportion of collapse is caused by what event. But either way, when the cloud starts to compress, it gets denser and heats up. The core gets pretty warm, and emits IR light. This leaks out of the cloud, so we expect star-forming clouds to pour out IR light. IR is invisible to “regular” telescopes; it takes an IR detector to see it, like the kind Spitzer has onboard. When Spitzer looks at NGC 1333, it sees lots of infrared light, supporting the idea this is a stellar nursery.
As the cloud collapses, random swirls and eddies get amplified because angular momentum is conserved (like when a figure skater draws her arms in during a spin and her rotation increases). The material starts to spin, and as it collapses the stuff on the outer edges flattens into a disk. In the center, the gas is getting very dense and hot. Eventually it forms the star itself. Any magnetic field in the gas gets amplified as the collapse continues, too. Due to some pretty complex physics (that, to be honest, is not entirely worked out) the gas near the center can be blown out as twin beams, like a light house. This is common in young stars, and again if you look at the Spitzer image you’ll see several stars with these beams, or jets, coming out. So this is further evidence we’re looking at stars in the very earliest stage of life.
If you’ve ever played with a top, you know that it can wobble as it spins. This is called precession. It’s due to a force acting on the top, like friction from the floor. The Moon has gravity which tugs on the Earth, and the Earth precesses as it spins, too. So too with baby stars: a nearby star, or a planet that formed in the disk can tug on the disk itself, causing the entire system to wobble. So you might expect to see some of the jets from the young stars to bend, just like how the water sprayed from a sprinkler looks like it’s bending when, in reality, the water drops are moving straight. The source is spinning, making it just look like the stream is bending.
Well, lookie here:
That’s an incredible picture– those jets are billions of miles long, tens of billions. But again, it’s pretty much what you’d expect. See how the gas at the tips of the curved arms is green? In this image, green light (which is really IR and just colored green in the picture) represents warm gas that is hitting cooler gas; in this case, warm gas in the jet hitting the colder gas surrounding the star. Again, more evidence that this is a star in the throes of birth. It’s indirect evidence of a planet in there as well.
NGC 1333 is gorgeous, but it won’t always be. Eventually, as do we all, those stars will age, and reach maturity. Their solar winds will blow away the surrounding gas and dust, leaving behind a cluster of young stars, maybe like the Pleaides. Eventually that too will disburse, and the stars will roam the Galaxy alone. Some may travel in pairs, though. Hmmm… this anthropomorphism goes a long way.
I’ve said it many times, and I’ll say it many times again: one of the reasons I love astronomy is not just because of the beautiful pictures, but because those pictures have such a deep and enthralling story to tell. And it’s a story, a novel, whose plot hangs together, with no plotholes, no deux ex machina, no bad dialog, and no Hollywood ending. We understand so much of the Universe, and there is so much left to learn! That’s why we’ll keep on building telescopes like Hubble, and Spitzer, and Chandra, because so much of the book is still left to be read.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
If you look at the high res IR pic you can clearly see god… just kidding
What truely remarkable pictures! Thank you BA.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
Oh, what gorgeous babies!
November 16th, 2005 at 2:51 am
Nine out of the first ten Google hits for “hot young stars” are astronomy websites. The remaining one has something to do with the New General Catalogue of young males, which looks less interesting. Number 1 on the charts is Lucy Sheriff’s article in **The Register**, “Hot young stars baffle astronomers.” Gosh, I thought astronomers were a fairly suave lot.
November 16th, 2005 at 8:55 am
Do you mean along the axis of rotation, or in the plane of rotation? That is, do the beams come out of the star’s poles, or its equator?
I suspect the former, but it’s not entirely clear to me from the text. For that matter, it’s not at all clear to me how you could have jets coming out of the poles.
November 16th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Wow. Not only do you have some top-class science going on here, but you have a fantastically beautiful picture too!
Arensb, I think the jets come out at the star’s poles, because the equator is surounded by an accretion disc of dust and gas (and planetesimals?). It is probably a similar mechanism to what occurs near black holes, but I’m very vague and hazy on the details.
November 16th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
“It’s been long known that stars are born in such clouds, but here we see clear evidence for it. Well, I do, at least, but I’m kinda used to looking at things like this.”
And this is different from people who are used to looking for an image of Jesus on their toast, just how exactly?
November 16th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Because when people see Jesus in their toast, they are taking a vague, random collection of shapes and seeing a face in it, which is a well-known psychological effect called pareidolia. There’s no scientific evidence to back up their claim, and plenty of evidence that they are more likely to be wrong.
When I look at an astronomical image, I am analyzing it scientifically, knowing that I can be fooled by the data. I also have a long history of experience in analyzing images, and I know what to look for, what to ignore, what to be not so sure about, and what to expect in certain types of objects.
That doesn’t mean I am always right. It just means that I could be considered an expert at this; meaning I have lots of experience in the field, including writing or participating in several scientific journal papers. I’m more likely to be closer to the mark when looking at this image than a random person plucked off the street.
I’ll note that I outlined several features in the image that also do support the idea we are seeing young stars, including the disks, the jets, and the copious IR emission. This also dovetails with many other stellar nurseries observed all over the sky at different wavelengths.
November 16th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Exactly. Besides, if Jesus or Mary did choose to appear in a tree, sandwich, highway overpass, etc., don’t you think their faces would be unmistakably theirs, and not ghostly images that kind of look like a face if you use your imagination?
November 16th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
and down the yellow brick road we go!!!
weee!!!!
as for the stars, excellent article. has anything more been heard about P1 and P2? i hear one of the proposed name-sets is “Screwtape” and “Wormwood” of C.S. Lewis fame, though I can’t find a link. i was wondering what you think of that?
November 17th, 2005 at 8:07 am
You know, I think I love your blog best when you wax rhapsodic about the stars. You’ve got such a gorgeous way of taking the technical and making it simple without patronizing a reader who might not understand the intricasies of your subject matter. Not only are your posts informative and easy to follow, they’re just beautifully written, too.
/compliment
November 17th, 2005 at 9:25 am
Screwtape and Wormwood? Interesting choice, to use character names from a Christian apologetic’s book to name such non-theistic entities.
Which brings me back to my earlier comment. BA, thanks for your well-stated reply. The point I was trying to make is that your charges that “religion tends to induce non-scientific conclusions” means as much to the religious as their charges that “science is anti-theistic” means to you. The scientific and religious communities have both dogmatically staked out paradigms which, if either of them is true, invalidate the worldview of the other. So it’s not really an argument about what’s right or accurate, it’s an argument over which group has to give up their comfort zone to settle the debate.
In my own experience, I have observed religious phenomena that as far as I know have never been explained by science. Speaking in tongues is one example: I have heard country bumpkins with no foreign language experience or training suddenly begin praying in a particular dialect of German. That’s my observation, the only theory/hypothesis I’m aware of that supports these events is a supernatural one. To someone without a background in and understanding of the 2nd Chapter of Acts, it sounds absurd. Is it repeatable? While not “on demand”, such occurences have been reported many times throughout the centuries, and in such peer-reviewed journals as, well, The Bible.
Similarly (as you stated), to someone without training in astronomy or astrophysics, your description of the stellar nursery would sound like just as much “wild speculation”.
Both sides of the argument are too quick to dismiss the perspective of the other side. An old maxim I picked up somewhere claims that until you can present a well-stated argument that supports a viewpoint you personally oppose, you really don’t understand the issue. I’d suggest some of us skeptics (and I do mean “us”) spend a little less time being dismissive and a little more time thinking the whole thing through a bit more.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:37 am
DennyMo, when you say “Screwtape and Wormwood? Interesting choice, to use character names from a Christian apologetic’s book to name such non-theistic entities.” I think you are mistaken. The stars and planets have long been associated with theistic entities. Such as Mercury , Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and so on.
Was CS Lewis an apologetic? I thought he was secure enough in his faith not to need proof.
Also, when you point out:
“Speaking in tongues is one example: I have heard country bumpkins with no foreign language experience or training suddenly begin praying in a particular dialect of German. That’s my observation, the only theory/hypothesis I’m aware of that supports these events is a supernatural one.”
I don’t think the available evidence is enough to rule out these two possibilities: (a) the dialetic or language may have been misidentified, or (b) the person did actually have knowledge of the language but chose to conceal it. If the occasion had been recorded (such as, for instance, with a video camera), the evidence could be examined in more detail. As it is, all we have are eyewitness accounts. If you read much of the psychology literature, you will know how unreliable eyewitness accounts are in terms of recalling / recording details correctly. This is why science does not generally acknowledge anecdotal evidence.
Please notice that I am not rejecting your explanation, I am pointing out that there are other possibilities.
Having said that, I disagree with you when you say:
“The scientific and religious communities have both dogmatically staked out paradigms which, if either of them is true, invalidate the worldview of the other”
Dogma is defined as belief from accepted authority (i.e. “Authority X says this, therefore it is true”), with a heavy connotation of a basis in a priori assumptions. This is the antithesis of science. There is no authority in science: a long-held scientific theory can be overturned by just a few well-performed experiments or observations (if that theory is shown by these experiments to have a fatal flaw). Science is always checking itself against the real world. This is far from dogmatic. Individual scientists may, from time to time, be dogmatic in certain situations, but that is not the same thing.
Also, there is no conflict between science and religion. Religion deals with aspects of the human condition that are beyond the realm of science to assess. Science deals with evidence and how the world works. There is no conflict, unless someone insists on interpreting a religious text literally. This is a matter of personal choice, and I have no problem with someone doing that, as long as they don’t try to then persuade everyone else that the literal interpretation is the only valid one.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:43 am
[...] They’re infrared images of an extremely potent star forming region. The Bad Astronomer has a more in depth analysis. [...]
November 17th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
DennyMo Said:
> While not “on demand�, such occurences have been reported many times throughout the centuries, and in such peer-reviewed journals as, well, The Bible.
Did you just describe the Bible as a “peer-reviewed journal”? What are you smoking?
November 17th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
DaniGirl, thanks! [blush]
November 17th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I don’t know if JasonW’s 1st comment about god which was obviously tongue-in-cheek uncorked the genie for this blog but I have to….
Does god have to be a deity? Everytime I look up I see god and so does every member of humanity. It’s why we look up! Remeber though, the”God” that sparks all the debate was created by man; several times over depending on what religion you want to talk about. Look at the heavens though there’s so much more than we can ever hope to understand but there has to be a reason WHY WE CAN REASON.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
JusANuttaBackYahdah said :
“…there has to be a reason WHY WE CAN REASON. ”
Yes, perhaps, but a good deal of evidence suggests that the majority of the human race can’t, or chooses not to, reason.
November 17th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
on a different note…perusing my favorite web pages and found this link which is related to star formation.
BA, I know you can comment on this much better than I can but what I find enlightening is that science is always revising itself with discovery and new theary, compared to rigid beliefs that are afraid to evolve….guess that whole idea of evolving works against ID….lol
clear skies
Link edited by The Bad Astronomer (it was causing a formatting error on this page).
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
JusANuttaBackYahdah Says:
>Does god have to be a deity? Everytime I look up I see god and so does every member of humanity. It’s why we look up!
There is the Pantheist notion, that takes the universe as a whole and applies religious terminology in a somewhat metaphoric sense in order to describe the sense of wonder and awe. I do take issue with this view, too, mostly because I don’t see the point.
“God” is a descriptive term for an anthropomorphized concept. While individual beliefs about this concept differ, that specific term in that form has taken on a somewhat specific connotation. That connotation is so culturally inundated that I find many people have difficulty identifying in conversations when the other party holds different beliefs from their own.
Just as an example I know someone who was a member in good standing of a Southern Baptist church, even a deacon. Most people would never know to talk to him, because he refrains from expressing his own opinions and beliefs on just about any topic, be it religion, politics, whatever. But once in a private conversation I gleaned enough material from his comments to determine he’s an agnostic Deist, though he wouldn’t describe himself in those terms. Unfortunately, I didn’t get out of him his beliefs on the nature of Jesus’s divinity. He doesn’t believe in miracles per se, and doesn’t agree with praying for little daily things or that God addresses unimportant trivialities such as which sports team will win the ballgame. But he describes himself as a Christian, even though his notion of Christianity is almost Jeffersonian.
Back on topic, I just don’t see the value is mystifying the universe, in wrapping it up in metaphoric God language. Why describe the universe as “God”? What point does it serve, other than to try to make people with traditional religious views more comfortable with you? To me, it seems to foster confusion rather than clarity. It misleads others into thinking you’re saying one thing (what the language means to them) rather than what you are really saying (what the language means to you). I think it is entirely possible to appreciate the sense of wonder at the grand scale of the universe, appreciate the beauty of the wilderness or a beach, without having to worship it. Of course, that requires us to define “worship”. It’s a neverending process to actually communicate, versus pretending we’re communicating but really just misleading each other.
>Look at the heavens though there’s so much more than we can ever hope to understand but there has to be a reason WHY WE CAN REASON.
Why must there be a reason? Why must there be “a meaning” to things? Why can’t they just exist, happen, be? The “reason” why we can reason is because our ancestors’ brains developed in an environment where the right combination of genetic developments and environmental pressures gave advantage to creative reasoning. It is entangled with our sense of self. We see events, we see connections and patterns, we learn there are causes, we learn that we are causes. We develop our sense of self as an active moral agent, able to make choices, take actions, and reap the benefits of the consequences (good or bad). We learn from our choices and the outcomes, and change behaviors based upon past experience. We are able to do this because it conveyed advantage to our ancestors who could over their relatives who couldn’t. It increased the survivability of the species as a whole through improved survival of individuals and groups.
This need for a “reason” in the sense of a meaning, a purpose, is a consequence of our psyche. We see ourselves as thoughtful agents, as acting upon motivations and needs. Thus we attribute that sense of motivations and needs to the events occurring around us, and try to determine what is the source of motivations and needs that drive the naturalistic processes of the world. But that sense is an illusion.
A tree is not a conscious entity, deciding it needs more light and growing toward the openings in the trees around it. That’s an unconscious growth process inherent in the tree’s nature. A rock doesn’t decide it needs to fall off a cliff face to smash into bits on the canyon floor below, it just steadily weakens under the constant pull of gravity and weathering until the dirt, soil, and rock is not strong enough to support its weight, at which point it separates from the cliff face and falls. A glacier doesn’t decide it would be nice to head south for the winter to a warmer climate, it just moves depending on the climatary forces affecting it. Purpose is an act of consciousness.
November 29th, 2005 at 11:14 am
Wow!
What a great sited! I really love how poetic your stories are – especially this one on the birth of the stars. Gorgeous photos too…
Reminds me of my childhood dream of being an astronomer… lost in the ashes of time, stuff like this is just heartwarming and awe inspiring…
Thanks!
Amber B
December 29th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
BA, I’m intrigued by your enthusiasm of astronomy. The way you describe it is quite fascinating and informative. Although I often wonder how we really know how things actually work astronomically when we as humans seem to be the newest critter around. I’m under the impression that to actually study a birth and death, one has to live longer than the born and dying. From all of the astronomy literature I’ve read we are among the infants in our astronomical family. I presume that most of astronomy is accepted theories. Most seem plausible but there is that little matter of scientific ‘proof’.
Danigirl is right on though of how you explain things. Excellent pics and fascinating well-written descriptions!
“Does god have to be a deity? Every time I look up I see god and so does every member of humanity.”
Jus, although I believe God the and not ‘a” deity, your point is valid too. Even with the Hubble we aren’t able to see the other side or to the ends of the great Universe. Here we sit on the outer part of our galaxy with so many other star systems and yet to travel to the other side of our galaxy is inconceivable in our lifetimes. We have billions of these enormous galaxies in our universe. How could one not see God, history, marvels beyond imagination and inspiration by looking up?
Wonderful blog BA! And thanks for a splendid picture!
BTW… notice the hat…. do you work there?
December 30th, 2005 at 1:49 am
Joel, thank you. No, I don’t work for NASA, despite the rabid claims of some of my nemeses. I bought that hat in a gift shop for $16.95.