New Movie Reveals Birth of Super-Suns

by Nancy Atkinson on November 16, 2009

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Artist's conception of the "boiling disk" surrounding the massive young stellar object known as Orion Source I.  Credit: Bill Saxton, NRAO/AUI/NSF
A two-year look at “proplyds,” or protoplanetary disks in the constellation Orion has provided astronomers with a new high-resolution time-lapse movie that reveals the process of how massive star form. The birth of the largest stars has been mysterious, in part, because massive stars are rare and tend to spend their youth enshrouded by dust and gas hiding them from view. “We know how these stars die, but not how they are born,” said Lincoln Greenhill, a principal investigator for team using radio images a thousand times sharper and more detailed than any previously obtained.

Using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) as a powerful “zoom lens, astronomers studied a massive young protostar called Source I (pronounced “eye”) in Orion. The youthful cluster cannot be seen with traditional telescopes because of the surrounding gas and dust, but this new look shows that massive stars form like their smaller siblings, with disk accretion and magnetic fields playing crucial roles.

The team observed Source I at monthly intervals over two years and then assembled the individual images into a time-lapse movie. Click here to watch the movie.

The VLBA detected thousands of silicon monoxide gas clouds called masers – naturally occurring laser-like beacons often associated with star formation. Some masers were as close to the protostar as Jupiter is to our Sun, which is also a record. Many of the masers existed long enough for their motions to be tracked across the sky and along our line of sight, yielding their 3-d motions through space.

“Source I is the richest source of masers in the Galaxy, that we know of,” said Lynn Matthews, lead author of the new work, who is now a researcher at the MIT Haystack Observatory. “Without the masers, we couldn’t track the gas motions in such detail so close to this massive star, and would be relatively blind to its formation.”

“In astronomy, it’s rare to see changes over the course of a human lifetime. With this new movie, we can see changes over just a few months as gas clumps swarm around this young protostar,” added Smithsonian astronomer and co-author Ciriaco Goddi.

The resulting movie reveals signs of a rotating accretion disk, where gas is swirling closer and closer to the protostar at the center. It also shows material flowing outward perpendicular to the disk in two large V’s – actually the edges of cone-shaped streams of gas. Such outflows foster star formation by carrying angular momentum away from the system.

Intriguingly, the outflow streams appear to curve as they leave the disk. “The bending path of these masers provides key evidence that magnetic fields may be influencing gas motions very close to the protostar,” pointed out Claire Chandler of NRAO, a co-principal investigator of the study.

Magnetic field lines are familiar from their effect on iron filings sprinkled around a bar magnet, outlining loops extending from one pole of the magnet to the other. In the case of Source I and other massive protostars, magnetic field lines may extend outward into space, wrapping in a helix that is shaped much like Twizzlers candy. Outflowing gas streams along those field lines.

“Magnetic fields are supposed to be weak and unimportant to the birth process for massive stars,” said Matthews. “But masers would not travel along gentle arcs unless they experience some sort of force – probably a magnetic force.”

The data don’t show whether the magnetic field arises in the star or in the accretion disk. Future observations by the Expanded Very Large Array (E-VLA) and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) may be able to distinguish between competing hypotheses. The team plans to look for other fingerprints of magnetic fields around Source I.

“Our two-year movie is just the beginning,” said Smithsonian astronomer and co-principal investigator Elizabeth Humphreys.

Source: Harvard Smithsonian

About

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with the Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy podcasts. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

  • IVAN3MAN

    Anaconda:

    And, I add, electric currents cause magnetic fields per Maxwell’s equations.

    And I ask: What causes those ‘electric currents’, then?

  • ND

    “Gravity doesn’t act that fast, on the other hand, electric force, the coulomb attraction, is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity and explains why “changes over just a few months” can be observed & measured.”

    Please be more specific here. What does it mean “Gravity doesn’t act that fast”. Please put this in established scientific concepts. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about here. You’re speaking from vague gut based understanding of physical forces.

    It has been mentioned to you repeatedly that the 10^39 arises when comparing the charge and gravitational influence between an electron and electron or a proton and proton. How does this 10^39 ratio work in the macro world? You’re stuck on this ratio. This appears to be what you’re basing your convictions on.

    “I understand, nobody likes to have somebody come and tap you on the shoulder and say, “you’re wrong”.”

    That depends on how this is done.

  • ND

    “Have I defended my position.

    Yes.”

    You have also been dishonest and lied. “Anti-matter is only a theory.”

  • Anaconda

    From Space.com:

    “The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.”

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/proto_stars_050301.html

    “The results will be published in the Astrophysical Journal.”

    ND, perhaps you should direct your question to Kenji Hamaguchi, a NASA-funded researcher at the Goddard Space Flight Center, or Michael Corcoran, they seems to share my view about gravity having insufficient strength to act this fast.

  • Nereid

    This comment is mainly for cipater (most others who’ve written comments already know this), and Nancy.

    Earlier, here, I said “what Anaconda presented was not “PC/EU”, but his own, personal theory“, and a bit later I elaborated, by saying:

    In this case, the core of deleted comments is [Anaconda's] our own, personal, idiosyncratic, subjective meanings embedded in “magnetic fields and the electric currents that cause them in relation to star formation“.
    To take just one example: “and the electric currents that cause them” …

    To which Anaconda responded:

    Crowell wrote: “The energy of the system is converted into electrical currents, which by Maxwell’s equations will produce magnetic fields.”
    No, Nereid, it is not my “personal theories”.
    It is an established law of physics.

    Now readers who are not familiar with Anaconda’s personal theories could be forgiven for being puzzled … after all, Maxwell’s equations do describe how electric currents and magnetic fields are related, and indeed such currents do produce magnetic fields.

    However, in Anaconda’s personal theory, *all* magnetic fields in plasmas are produced by electric currents in those plasmas.

    And his personal theory gets much, much stranger …

    … you see, in this, a movement of an equal number of homogeneously distributed positive and negative charges, in the same direction is an electric current! (source)

    That being so, Maxwell’s equations become complete nonsense (or at least need dramatic revision).

    Now just to be sure, I checked to see if Anaconda had changed his personal theory after August this year, and I discovered that he hasn’t (at least, not in this regard), as this extract demonstrates (source in my next comment): “charged particles flowing in motion constitute an electric current“.

    (the full context of this extract makes for fascinating, if rather shocking, reading).

    And just to close the circle: whatever may be said about “PC/EU”, and however much the ideas are pseudo-science (or worse), the idea that ‘a movement of an equal number of homogeneously distributed positive and negative charges, in the same direction is an electric current’ is not accepted.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Anaconda said;

    “No, Astrofiend, the problem is that astronomy has banked on the gravity “only” model and it looks to be incomplete, to say the least.”.

    WHERE IS YOU EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS?

    Gravity amazingly seems to work pretty well. It explains the orbit of the planets, stellar evolution, nucleosynthesis, expansion of the universe, shape of galaxies, binary stars, why I am fixed to the ground, relativity, special relativity, mass, stellar formation, pulsating variable stars, supernova, black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, etc. etc.
    .
    All EU has ever says about astrophysical phenomena is that it might – based on some IEEE electricians fooling around with the light switches and power point. If electric voodoo works here on Earth, then, I know it works across the universe.

    You’re not only wrong, Anaconda, you don’t even have the knowledge to prove it. Worst if you can’t understand science and how it works, you have no means of proving your claims. So why prattle on about it all the time?

    I can tell you one thing, when it comes to understanding even EU. “You’re Dead Wrong”

  • Anaconda

    Let’s stay on topic, not take it off in a global discussion which apparently is your want.

    Topic: Magnetic fields play a “crucial” role in star formation, as per the instant post.

    Nereid, let’s see if you can discuss the topic at hand.

    And if Nereid won’t, what does that tell you?

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Anaconda said;
    From Space.com: “The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.”

    … and this means what?

    Could the observations be wrong?
    Has the observation been repeated?
    Are there other kinds of phenomena that do this?
    Could it be an effect of gravitational lensing?
    Could you devise another experiment to verify the result?

    Gravity acting “fast”? How fast? The speed of light, fast as my granny can run, faster than a speeding bullet?

    Sorry. Pure guess work wouldn’t help you at all?

    Critical thinking… no that’s someone else’s problem. “I just report what I see.” Is that right Anaconda?

    Lastly. What his this got to do with the formation of massive stars somewhere in the Orion Nebula?

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Anaconda said;

    “Let’s stay on topic, not take it off in a global discussion which apparently is your want.”

    from ehat he posted;

    From Space.com:
    “The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.”
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/proto_stars_050301.html
    “The results will be published in the Astrophysical Journal.”

    … and this is on topic, how.

    (Do you know how to spell hypocrite?)

  • Paul Eaton-Jones

    While I may take issue with the incoherent ramblings of Anaconda and his fellows I also take issue with censorship. Banning them and their comments merely reinforces their belief that ‘we’ are out to get them and silence the ‘truth’ as they see it. Far better to engage and point out their mistakes and eventually their stupidity. Driving them underground serves no purpose other than for the lucid thinkers to pat ourselves on the back and say “job done”. After a while when they don’t get it we can ridicule them. I know it’s a bit like the aristos did in the18th century and going down to the local asylum and poking the inmates but it does provide innocent amusement.

  • DrFlimmer

    This is so sad,

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    I don’t like to suggest this, but perhaps any article that has to do with black holes, magnetic fields or other stellar active phenomena should be just closed to comments.

    Another possibility is to has a specialised blog page with dedicated moderators who can pull dissenters into line when required.

    In this way these derisive issues regarding EU could be avoided or reduced.

    The hardest thing I find is where do you discuss issues on relating to accretion disks and dense objects without being hijacked every time some one touch on the subject.

    I think their aim is to stop realistic discussion so they can focus on their schemes to make much of this EU mainstream.

    How newcomers or those interested in learning about the sciences, heaven knows. But some kid doing a school project, say on black holes, without the experience to know better hasn’t got a chance.against the purposeful disinformation the speak.

    This is where it is sad part lies pseudo-science masquerading as truth. No wonder the younger generation is so screwed up, Marginalised by those planning an agenda..

  • http://www.nancyatkinson.com Nancy Atkinson

    Comments are now closed on this article and I’ve deleted anyone’s comments that are longer than the article itself.

Previous post:

Next post: