ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



See starbirth up close

Posted: Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:05 PM by Alan Boyle


NASA / ESA / U. of Va. / STScI / ANU
Click for video: Hubble's new Wide Field Camera 3 captures a detailed view of
starbirth in the spiral galaxy M83. Click on the image to watch a zoom-in video.

The Hubble Space Telescope's new wide-field camera has sent down a picture showing how the "assembly line" of starbirth works in a nearby spiral galaxy.

The galaxy is a stunner in its own right: M83, also known as the Southern Pinwheel, is 15 million light-years from Earth lies in the constellation Hydra. The galaxy can just barely be made out with the naked eye under optimal conditions, but the telescope view reveals a spectacular face-on spiral ... hence the "Pinwheel" label.

Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3, which was installed in May during the space shuttle Atlantis' final visit to the orbiting observatory, focuses on one of the pinwheel's spiral arms. Image data from five different filters, ranging from ultraviolet to near-infrared, were combined to create the big picture released today, said Ray Villard, a spokesman for the Baltimore-based Space Telescope Science Institute (and author of the Cosmic Ray blog).

"This is wonderful for really sorting out the details of what's happening in the picture," he told me.

You could regard the picture as a kind of time machine. Toward the right side of the image, near the dense core, newborn star clusters are being squeezed into existence amid the murk. The stars are swathed in cocoons of dust and reddish-glowing hydrogen gas.

When you turn your eyes to the left side of the image, the star-formation process has advanced further along the timeline: Radiation from the hot, young, blue stars has blown away the surrounding gas and dust, creating bubbles of open space that lets the light shine bright. In today's advisory, the Hubble team describes this as a "colorful 'Swiss cheese' appearance."

"You're really seeing an assembly line in wonderful detail," Villard said. "This is a prime target for getting a God's-eye view of star formation."

Astronomers have also spotted the remains of about 60 supernova blasts, about five times as many as had been seen in previous images of the region. Those blast sites are harder to point out in the image, but the scientists can analyze the chemical signatures of the remnants to figure out what the exploded stars were made of.

The study can shed new light on the process by which heavier chemical elements are created by one generation of stars and passed on to the next generation. Without that process, the elements essential to life as we know it (such as carbon and oxygen) would not exist.

Villard said Wide Field Camera 3 and Hubble's other instruments are primed to take on a new batch of scientific challenges, thanks to May's extreme makeover. "The instruments are all working fine," he said. "Hubble is in full science mode."

One of the goals in Hubble's sights is to identify objects on the very edge of the observable universe. This year, NASA's Swift satellite spotted a gamma-ray burst that is thought to have occurred when the cosmos was only 630 million years old, setting a distance record with a redshift of 8.2. (An object's spectral redshift serves as a cosmic yardstick: The bigger the redshift, the farther away the object is.)

"We hope eventually to say we've found something beyond 9," Villard said. That would mean the light from the object began its journey when the universe was a  mere 550 million years old.

Nailing down the evidence for an object that far away isn't easy. "You're into the very dim and mysterious early formative years, so how you interpret what you have and how you convince yourself that it's real is tricky," Villard said. But I have a feeling that the Hubble Space Telescope and the astronomers who use it are up to the challenge.

For a closer look at the Southern Pinwheel, check out the Hubble team's zoomable view. And to see more of the Hubble team's feats, check out these slideshows:


Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter. And pick up a copy of my new book, "The Case for Pluto." If you're partial to the planetary underdogs, you'll be pleased to know that I've just set up a Facebook fan page for "The Case for Pluto."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

How many stars have we seen be born? None. Because this is the stupidest article ever written.
No doubt that some type of explosive force in the initial startup of the universe occurred, but do we have a pinpoint in the sky? The reason I ask this is due primarily to the data that the scientists are looking for.  In this case, it is to find a redshift past 8.2 - but that theory would only be true if we were moving away from all other objects, would it not?

What I am trying to understand is what if our galaxy was not at the center of the universe; the big-bang occurred 13 billion light-years from us, meaning that areas around the epicenter, it may be possible to see even further back in time, if you think of dropping a stone into a pond and you are positioned near the edge of the pond (the stone being the origin of the big-bang) and you are now just being able to witness your surroundings.  In theory, you should be able to see objects on the other other side of the origin of the big-bang, depending on your perspective? Wouldn't that possibly be farther back in time then the big-bang then?  Just a thought.  
Sorry but you need to take at least basic college astronomy before you write comments on these subjects.  They are most often counterintuitive but correct, nonetheless.  You need to do much real study and real learning before commenting on these matters and even then, you will often remain mystified and even flat wrong.  Example: it is actualy thought that there is no center of the universe and more astounding is that there are portions of the universe we will NEVER see!!  Read more and talk less is always a good policy especially when you really don't have a good understanding of the physics!!!
Wade: A good question! The detail you're missing is that the Big Bang theory predicts that space is expanding in all directions, and all objects (at sufficient distances, when not significantly counteracted by gravity) are moving away from each other - it's not just that *we're* moving away from everything, but that *everything* is moving away from everything.

Under this model, there's actually no need for our galaxy to be at the center of the universe; we'll see every object moving away from us, and every other object will see exactly the same thing from their perspective. Our visual range is limited by the speed of light, so we'll only ever have our own little spherical bubble to observe - we can't go past that, tally up *all* the objects, and say "aha! here's where the real center is!"
Seems to me that a worthy mission for NASA would be to establish a FLEET OF HUBBLE-LIKE TELESCOPES, LOOKING IN ALL DIRECTIONS and a FLEET OF SHUTTLE-LIKE SERVICE VEHICLES !!!  Think this would give MORE SCIENTIFIC BANG FOR THE BUCK than the ISS or Manned Missions to wherever !
Wade, according to big bang theory, there is no center of the universe. The idea is that the fabric of space-time (think Einstein) is expanding (see: redshift). The "bang" itself is not so much a conventional explosion in space, but rather the rapid expansion of space itself.
Findings from space studies are too old stories to tell us the todays situation. objects milions or billions light years away aren´t that the same today. Because the light or radiation we receive today is the only what tells us what we observe. Scienticits should be honest in letting us understand that what they tell us is not todays reality. As a matter of fact todays reality of far space objects will never be understood bacause its the scientist themselves who tell us that the maximum speed achivable is that of light. Stories like ´´new born stars`` are misleading if the idea is to make us believe that the star is now being born while it several million light years away. If our solar system was quite different a billion years ago as scienticit say, we were part of very hot object(s) and lifeless, why not similar changes occured to other solar systems by today. of course we can not communicate because even if there is life that far in space and as interligent as ourselves or more than us, they can not see us in todays reality. They see us in the situation we were so many years ago as far as the distance they are from us.
The nature of a single-point-ignition explosion (like the theorized “Big Bang”) is that everything moves away from everything else, because of the radial nature from the point of ignition, and that everything is further accelerated by the shock behind it. This remains true until something else (impact with particles already displaced from the explosion [none in the “Big Bang” as theorized] and not moving as fast as the exploded particles, or gravitation with other exploded particles) slows it down. If it helps, visualize the first few seconds after a "break" on a pool table. That's the assumption that these theories are based on.

As far as a pinpoint for the center of the explosion, without a fixed reference (the vacuum of space doesn't work really well) or a center of mass (we can't even SEE all the mass), there's no way to determine the center of an explosion, because to every particle in the explosion, every other particle is moving away from IT, so it must be the center.

The article is a journalist's take on scientists’ statements which represent the best currently known explanation of what has been observed. It's what these particular scientists THINK they're looking at, and they're at least as entitled to their opinion as anyone else. At least they've spent more than a few minutes thinking about it. But they are still opinions, and like earlobes, everyone has one or two, and they are occasionally full of holes.

Because science has been sent back to the drawing board SO many times, its nature is one of doubt and caution. The nature of journalism, which never has to support its statements for more than a week or so, is impact and "facts". When science is reported by journalists, the inevitable result of the two participants' natures is that, in addition to the usual miscommunication, theories are made to appear as fact, and doubt morphs into certainty. I wish I knew of a way to prevent all of this and bring real accuracy to journalism, but it is not the result of "stupidity".
It was my understanding that all elements up to and including iron can be forged in the nuclear furnaces of ordinary stars.  Anything heavier on the atomic chart comes from supernova.  
Most excellent article Alan!  Now we're beginning to see just how much improved our refurbished Hubble telescope is.  What a joy to see it's new pictures.  Once again proof that Hubble is taxpayer money well spent!  I also enjoyed the article on the new supernova type today.

Wade brings up an interesting point about can we ever see beyond 13.7 billion years into the past.  Theoretically it should be possible, although considering the other side of the Big Bang is retreating away from us we may never be able to see the other side of it.

Hey "a", your comment is the stupidest ever written here at Cosmic Log!  A pity that Alan posted your tripe, but he is fair and balanced - unlike you.
Wade
In a way we are in the center of the observable universe, as the observable universe extends the same distance in all directions, the distance light has been able to travel in the lifespan of the universe.  If you were 7 billion lightyears away from the earth right now (about 15 billion years after the big bang) and looked the opposite direction from earth, yeah theoretically light would be coming in from 15 billion lightyears away, about 8 billion lightyears further than we can see from earth.  However, if you tried to find the earth, you couldn't.  Couldn't find the sun either.  You'd have to wait another 3 billion years to witness the birth of our sun, another 4.5 billion years after that to witness the author writing this article.  
It's all relative.  By being elsewhere, you could see different parts of the universe, but you would still only see 15 billion years back in time, anywhere, because theres only 15 billion years of time to look back through.
Also, the big bang isn't like a firework, where theres a small point in space which explodes material into space.  There are very few good analogies for what it is, but i'm sure a quick internet search could find you one.
Yes, but at t0 there was no pond. So by definition everything was at the epicenter...
Wade, there is no true center of the universe. Space is expanding in all directions relative to the big bang. Everything was at one point--the 'center'--and expanding uniformly like a balloon subsequently to this day. If that's not the case, then there was no big bang or there was more than one. There is absolutely no evidence of the latter proposition and plenty of evidence for there actually being a singular event creating the universe as we know it.

Due to the expansion of the universe and early hypothetical inflationary phase it would be impossible to see objects on the 'other side' because of intense red-shifting of light. The farther objects are from our current position in space and time the more the light gets blurred to a uniform soup of reddish light. This is a little simplistic an explanation, I realize, because space really isn't inflating 3-dimensionally; scientists aren't quite sure what space is actually 'shaped' like. Read 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' by Brian Greene to get a better explanation of this.
Dear a,

One of your discerning intellect surely has heard of Newton. No, not Wayne Newton. Sir Isaac and his Third Law: For each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Your response has proven Sir Isaac correct. For each and every stupidest article ever written, there is an equally stupid and oppositional response. Bravo sir, you man of science.
Dear a,

It occurs to me that, like Darth Vader said to Obi-wan, "Your failure is complete." In re-reading your response, I now see what you are saying is we have seen no stars being born because the article in question was the stupidest article ever written. You know. Cause and effect? Surely you've heard of cause and effect. I can't see how the two are related but you with your keen eye and Sherlock Holmsian wit are spot on. Can you bend spoons with your massive brain, too?    
A:

In order for us to witness firsthand a star being born, it would have to be extremely close to us.  Even the light from the sun doesn't reach us instantaneously.  Thus, if there were a star formation we could actually witness without the aid of extremely powerful scientific equipment, well...  let's just say things would heat up around here, eh?
a:  What a brilliant, insightful comment.  Keep em coming, hear?

The evoluton of this universe it truly an amazing thing to behold.  Hopefully, government will realize and subsidize continued exploration and study of it.
How much can you see.... anything within a sphere centered on the earth who's radius in Light Years is equal to the age of the universe.  There are undoubtably things outside that sphere BUT their light which started travelling when the universe was created has not had time to reach us yet.  Each year that passes we can see things one light year further away.   At this time there is nothing to indicate that the universe has a center or even an edge, and we could be anywhere in it.

"You're really seeing an assembly line in wonderful detail," Villard said. "This is a prime target for getting a God's-eye view of star formation."
 At Cosmic Ray, “Color-Challenged Astronomers Are Lost in a Latte' Universe”, 04 Nov 2009, Mr. Villard wrote in his blog:
 “God was sitting up late one night designing the universe. He took care of simple things first.”
 “But what color to make the universe?  God looked down into his foamy cup of latte' and decided that the color beige would be just perfect. In reality God hadn't invented the other colors yet so He didn't have much of a choice at the time.”
 “Yuck! How could God ever have such bad taste!”
 I am not sure whether to take Mr. Villard humorously or seriously. Either way, I was not pleased with his imaginary god. “God” was/is created, imagined, and designed by only our species. Well, those with monotheistic religious beliefs—not the polytheists. Just how does Mr. Villard, or anyone, “know” that “God” is a “He”? Doesn’t this imaginary “God” have a goddess spouse, consort, or co-equal?
 Again, incorrectly mixing science with religion. The Universe would exist w/o us but a “god” would not exist w/o our imagination. Universe does not have an imagination—it eventually created us through natural processes.

"How many stars have we seen be born? None. Because this is the stupidest article ever written."

Nowhere was it promised that all processes in Nature would be fast enough or slow enough (remember, 'evolution' MEANS a slow change, as opposed to 'revolution') for humans to see in its entirety.

But if you look at enough examples of something that changes slowly at one moment, and have enough other relevant facts about it, you can reasonably infer what its entire 'life cycle' is, including its beginnings...
Surely those are star clusters that are highlighted in H-alpha star forming regions. I don't think even the hubble can resolve individual stars in a distant galaxy. These regions are contrasted with the old stars that are nothing more than implied as a foggy veil in the rest of the spiral arms.

Non the less, it is always an extraordinary view with the HST. I wonder if in the distant future, space telescopes will have evolved to the point of making out individual stars in distant galaxies and search for extra-galactic planets.
‘A’ has a point. Star formation takes thousands or millions of years. None of us are old enough to have witness a star being born.

Sooo,,, What if the people that spend their days looking at pictures of all the stages of star formation did something unique.

No artist conceptions, computer animations, or anything artificial.

They took a star like our own, put it in the middle of the screen and then, put 2000 pictures of various star formations in front of it.

In other words, a one minute video watching a ball of dust turn into a star? All pictures in order, this is how it works.

Work's for me.
"In other words, a one minute video watching a ball of dust turn into a star? All pictures in order, this is how it works."

If you accept that we understand the physics and dynamics well enough to create a meaningful high-speed simulation of this very slow (in human terms) process, there are plenty of examples to be found...

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=star%20formation&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#
Frank,
I went to your link and it was very informative. Thanks. However, it also showed me I didn’t explain myself correctly.
I already know it’s real. I’m just asking to see the real live pictures that prove it.
A picture of this, a picture of that, all the pictures that when you put them together, in order, this is how it works.

Not a video of a single star being born, but two thousand stars in the various stages of being born.

Two thousand stars in a one minute video. The one minute thing is important. I have dial-up.
wow nice pic alan can you explain million light years to me cause i get a little confused at times like with my eyes and the eyes of a hubble scope to see in real time or light years dosent the hubble shorten my own vision in light ? or is it all the same ...it would seem to me we are crossing paths with light years when seeing with a scope...    
just wondering
Dear Rock,
Just as each of us is in the centre of our own personal observable universe, so our earth is in the centre of astronomy's observable universe. Light travels 186,000 miles per second. The light from our home star, the sun, takes about 9.3 minutes to reach us. The light reflected from planets takes several hours. The light from Alpha Centauri, the next nearest star, takes 4.2 years. So, when we look at distant galaxies, we are effectively looking back in time, at younger and younger objects. Thus, powerful telescopes enable us to see developments of stars and galaxies at different times in the past. If we look far enough, we can see first-generation stars. The big bang, a sudden expansion of space-time, produced almost entirely hydrogen and helium, the two lightest atoms. Stars burn by fusion, joining nuclei to release energy and creating heavier atoms. They can continue until they get to iron, which has the lowest-energy nucleus. Creating heavier atoms would use up energy. After it creates iron, a sun's nuclear fires burn down. Without the energy of fusion to keep it hot, the star collapses inwards because of its own gravity. The energy from gravity smashes iron atoms together and creates heavier atoms.

That's how we know our sun is a second-generation star: our solar system contains heavier atoms than iron. The atoms in our body have already been through one star's furnace.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2120414

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google