First Full Science Results in From Herschel

by Nancy Atkinson on May 7, 2010

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

The galactic bubble RCW 120. Image credit: ESA/PACS/SPIRE/HOBYS Consortia

Just days before the first anniversary of the Herschel space observatory’s launch, the first full science results – along with some very pretty images – were released at a symposium in the Netherlands. “Herschel is a new eye on a part of the cosmos that has been dark and buried for a long time,” said the mission’s NASA project scientist, Paul Goldsmith at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

Above, Herschel’s observation of the star-forming cloud RCW 120 has revealed not only the huge blue bubble of gas, but also the small white spot is what some astronomers have called an “impossible” star.

It already contains eight to 10 times the mass of the sun and is still surrounded by an additional 2,000 solar masses of gas and dust from which it can feed further.

“This star can only grow bigger,” says Annie Zavagno, Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille in France. Massive stars are rare and short-lived. To catch one during formation presents a golden opportunity to solve a long-standing paradox in astronomy. “According to our current understanding, you should not be able to form stars larger than eight solar masses,” says Zavagno.

A region the the galactic center in the Eagle constellation. Credits: ESA/Hi-GAL Consortium

This image is taken looking towards a region of the Galaxy in the Eagle constellation, closer to the Galactic center than our Sun. Here, we see the outstanding end-products of the stellar assembly line. At the center and the left of the image, the two massive star-forming regions G29.9 and W43 are clearly visible. These mini-starbursts are forming, as we speak, hundreds and hundreds of stars of all sizes: from those similar to our Sun, to monsters several tens of times heavier than our Sun.

These newborn large stars are catastrophically disrupting their original gas embryos by kicking away their surroundings and excavating giant cavities in the Galaxy. This is clearly visible in the ‘fluffy chimney’ below W43.

Click the images for larger versions.

Learn more in this video released by the ESA, or see this ESA website

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.

  • Jean Tate

    It is rather odd, isn’t it, that “gas” vs “plasma” seems to attract such a lot of attention, yet when astronomers (astrophysicists, cosmologists, etc) refer to oxygen as a “metal”, and when a Universe Today writer repeats that reference in an article (even indirectly), no one bats an eyelid?

    Then there’s “baryons”, a term used to refer to one kind of matter in the WHIM (warm-hot intergalactic medium) for example. Now electrons are not baryons, and are just as much a part of the WHIM as protons, helium ions, etc. But no one even comments on this!

    What I find particularly curious, even irritating, is the implication – or outright assertion – that the scientists who are engaged daily in astrophysical research do not understand or appreciate the relevant physics (there are several examples of this in the comments here, and many more elsewhere).

    This wouldn’t be too bad if those making the comments demonstrated that they knew what they are talking about; however, universally they don’t (or, more accurately, haven’t so far).

  • iantresman

    @Jon Hanford: “Sites like these do science a great injustice by proclaiming that these notions are scientifically sound”

    Unlike “mainstream” science which has just come up with scientifically sound “impossible stars”.

  • Jean Tate

    iantresman,

    Your original comment included this: “It was Hannes Alfvén who noted that plasmas may form cellular structure (ie. bubbles).” To which Torbjorn Larsson OM replied: “But that isn’t the explanation here, where radiation pressure predicts the bubbles.

    I cannot be sure, of course, but from the huge number of comments you’ve made on Universe Today stories, and the exchanges you’ve had with others, I think you already knew a great deal about these bubbles and also a fair bit about the astrophysical explanations of them (i.e. what Torbjorn Larsson OM referred to). If so, then many of the responses to your initial comment may not have been “all out of proportion“.

    May I make a suggestion? If you are interested in the contemporary astrophysical explanations, and models, of phenomena involving space plasmas, why not take a course? Or, if it’s more suited to your learning style, go through an introductory textbook (I can recommend a few, if you’re interested)?

  • Jean Tate

    Tom Bridgman makes some good points relevant to the “gas” vs “plasma” discussion, in his blog entry Electric Universe: Lunar electric fields; be sure to read the comments on it, including his own!

  • DrFlimmer

    @ Jean Tate

    Well said! Thanks!

    @ iantresman

    You agree with me, good. But on what, I wonder. Do you agree with everything I said, or just with the very last point?
    Just to make it clear:
    It would be nice if you (and your friends) would STOP with this senseless shouting “IT’S A PLASMA!”. Stop it at once!
    That is the point. I hope you agree with it, too!

  • Jon Hanford

    I’ve been following the thread since it was posted(this is my first reply, though) and feel compelled to point out one factor not yet mentioned concerning this issue, one I feel is of equal importance. That being, iantresman’s link to his Plasma Universe site. Once a layman or noobie clicks on this link, they are confronted with heaping amounts of blatant misinformation. Good luck trying to separate fact from fiction there! Sites like these do science a great injustice by proclaiming that these notions are scientifically sound and are considered mainstream (it sure is easy on the eye and looks authoritative).

    I know no overt mention of this site has been made by iantresman on this thread, but the link is there for the curious to follow, and I worry about those who accidentally fall into this vortex of pseudoscience. This thread may be winding down, but does anyone here think that this issue has been resolved (after 90+ comments) never to appear here again? My guess is no!

    Like Dr. Flimmer plead before, I just had to say it.

  • DrFlimmer

    The only impossible thing here is you….

    If you have problems with descriptions like that, then we can’t help you. “Impossible star” just DESCRIBES the situation that our theories are not complete, nothing more and nothing less.

    And if you meant to be sarcastic or ironic… well, that failed completely.

    Sorry, but I had to speak my mind.
    This is impossible….

Previous post:

Next post: