Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Astronomers Solve Magnetic Fields Mystery 159

Posted by timothy from the let's-say-this-beach-ball-is-your-head dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It is a long-standing and unsolved mystery why 80% of all planetary nebulae are not spherical. Theories suggest that magnetic fields play a role in shaping planetary nebulae. A team of astronomers from Germany has now discovered the first direct clue that magnetic fields might indeed create these remarkable shapes. Planetary nebulae are expanding gas shells that are ejected by Sun-like stars at the end of their lifetimes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Astronomers Solve Magnetic Fields Mystery More

Astronomers Solve Magnetic Fields Mystery

Comments Filter:

  • What about the other 20%? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DominoTree ( 803219 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @03:13AM (#11261652)
    If 80% aren't spherical one must ask why the other 20% are NOT.

    • Re:What about the other 20%? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I would suggest those 20% aren't not not perfectly spherical, but that magnetic forces have figured less into their formation for one reason or another (less iron present?) so they wound up being less not spherical than the other 80%.
    • Perhaps the other 20% are just bipolars we happen to be seeing end on...
      • That sounds a lot like some women I have dated...
      • Astute conjecture, someone with the appropriate resources could make a name for themselves if you are right. I'd look at the spectra of the planetary nebulas for red-blue shifting in the polar areas where a magnetic field would accelerate the gas compared to the circumference of the nebula. Looking for polarized light would be dificault because at the mag poles I assume the the polarization pattern would be radial and thus hard to discern from random polarization.
    • Since the non-sphericalness is supposed to be caused by a magnetic field, it can be inferred that the involved star's magnetic field isn't particularly strong in the case of "The other 20%".
      As the article mentions, it turns out that the observed stars had magnetic fields many times stronger than our sun's.
      Whether the 80-20 ratio is realistic remains to be seen, but in essence it would simply depend on the strength of a particular star's magnetic field.

    • Re:What about the other 20%? (Score:5, Funny)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @11:07AM (#11263497) Journal
      If 80% aren't spherical one must ask why the other 20% are NOT.

      Why even bother to ask why? If you come across something and you can't figure out how it could have occurred, just claim the event or process is the product of Intelligent Design [skepdic.com].

      Why spend year after tedious year engaging in reductionist scientific inquiry when you can just bail out immediately with an answer that cannot be falsified: Intelligent Design [pandasthumb.org].

      Worried that your invisible sky-ghost or imaginary all-powerful personal friend isn't getting the deferential worship He deserves in this age of secular humanism? Sneak your sky-ghost back into the schools and indoctrinate another generation of devout sheep with Intelligent Design [talkorigins.org].

      Remember the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" [cotch.net]: if you're too thick to figure out how something works, it must be because no one can figure it out! Don't sweat it! Just explain it away by saying it was caused personally God^H^H^H an Intelligent Designer!

      Don't waste time asking question or doing science! Just give credit to an Intelligent Designer and go back to sleep!
      • Thanks for the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" link. It has a bit more formal credibility than my "If you don't know how lightning works, it must be Zeus making it" argument.
        -aiabx
      • ..."It Just Evolved".

        There are many, many physical situations in which Intelligent [arn.org] Design [intelligen...etwork.org] is easily the top Ockham's [skepdic.com] Razor [wikipedia.org] candidate [blindatheist.com].

        But thanks for yet another example of argument from ridicule [creationsafaris.com]. <sarcasm>We really, really needed another one of those</sarcasm>
        • If you can satisfactorily explain where the intelligent designer comes from then I might buy the Occam's Razor argument. The only thing using a creator to explain hard problems accomplishes is to displace the complexity. There is always the way a fairly bright 5 year old might put it: "So who created God?"

          I believe that the entire point of Intelligent Design is to dress creationism in a white lab coat; it's been tried before. Creation Science anyone? Since ID's proponents want to call this stuff scienc

          • I believe that the entire point of Intelligent Design is to dress creationism in a white lab coat

            No, it's to saw the question "Was everything designed - by God?" in half, so that each half can be dealt with separately and sensibly.

            Once you saw off the God section and park it to one side, you are free to discuss more kinds of design possibilities than would otherwise be acceptable, and also to ask the "everything is an accident" team to bisect their own question, "Did everything happen at random - because


            • No, it's to saw the question "Was everything designed - by God?" in half, so that each half can be dealt with separately and sensibly.

              Once you saw off the God section and park it to one side, you are free to discuss more kinds of design possibilities than would otherwise be acceptable, and also to ask the "everything is an accident" team to bisect their own question, "Did everything happen at random - because there is no God?"

              This doesn't really happen. Pretty much everybody pushing ID has a political
              • Wow [holysmoke.org], thanks for posting the ICR oath. It really gives an idea of the way these people operate.

                Can you even conceive of a serious/mainstream scientific institute having an unchangeable statement of doctrine which must be sworn by all new hires? A medical school which asks students to swear that influenza is caused by unfortunate conjunctions of stars, and not to think of proposing any alternative?

                The very idea of swearing a list of assertions of fact which cannot be altered is by definition antiscientifi
            • "Was everything designed - by God?" in half, so that each half can be dealt with separately and sensibly.

              Fair enough -- if there are not too many disconnected wires dangling out of the middle.

              ID assumes that there was a mysterious unspecified entity which through mysterious and unspecified means caused a whole chain of complex events to happen over a period of time. That may or may not be true, but such a theory comes off much the worse from Occam's razor.

              You can see that supernatural explanations have

              • ID assumes that there was a mysterious unspecified entity which through mysterious and unspecified means caused a whole chain of complex events to happen over a period of time. That may or may not be true, but such a theory comes off much the worse from Occam's razor.

                That sounds more like a fair explanation of evolution (either cosmological or biological). Lots of very unlikely things need to come to pass to get from cosmic detonation to an iPod or Phoebe Cates (random enough examples for you?). Saying th

                • I suppose the key difference is whether there are an changes which could not have occurred through stepwise natural evolution and that therefore required a separate mechanism. ID insists there are such and calls them macroevolution while admitting microevolution; mainstream biology says they are only accumulations of smaller changes through reproduction with selection. (Is this a fair description?)

                  It seems reasonable to ask ID proponents what mechanism they think *was* responsible, if it was not regular
          • If you can satisfactorily explain where the intelligent designer comes from then I might buy the Occam's Razor argument.
            The Steady State theory doesn't work too well in Materialist circles, but it seems to be fairly popular as far as Ultimate Designers go.
          • ...which is:

            If you can satisfactorily explain where the intelligent designer comes from then I might buy the Occam's Razor argument.

            Just to make sure that both sides of the argument start off on the same page...

            Underpinning every theory are axioms. The key axiom of materialism is that matter exists (either always, temporarily, or in a recurring fashion) in a form which allows it to randomly recombine over the course of a few billion years to produce space and hydrogen, which coalesces to produce stars an

    • In fact, a better question to ask now is, do stars with spherical nebulae exhibit a strong magnetic field? The results reported were on the basis of asymmetrical nebulae, and in each case, evidence of a strong magnetic field was detected.

      The article also states that the astronomers' next step is to try to detect magnetic fields around the stars that have spherical nebulae. If they find none, I would say this pretty much clinches the conclusion, at least until some other unexplained effect is discovered.

  • More and more (Score:3, Insightful)

    by adennis ( 846411 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @03:14AM (#11261656)
    "The First Direct Clue" While this may seem monumental, there will be many, many more clues and each will most likely lead the researches to a completely different conclusion.

    • Re:More and more (Score:2, Insightful)

      by marevan ( 846115 )
      Yeah the topic in this is missleading. They haven't solved anything, just had a major clue. However, as far as I'm concerned, in universal scope one can never have facts, just theories which work in certain fields, until they are replaced by more accurate theories.
      • However, as far as I'm concerned, in universal scope one can never have facts, just theories which work in certain fields, until they are replaced by more accurate theories.

        It's attitudes like this which are stopping us from being omnipotent.
    • So... nobody knows nothing and the universe is stills to discover. That's a great news: we've work for the next centuries ! :o) to help asia: http://www.tsunamiasie.com

  • Great (Score:2, Funny)

    by pronobozo ( 794672 )
    Now explain why the magnetic fields are shaped that way. :-)
  • [clip] has now discovered the first direct clue that magnetic fields might indeed create these remarkable shapes

    When pushed for an explanation of why the crab nebula was so different, one scientist responded with a huff and withdrew into his basement office.

    In other news...

    A couple in the Hamptons has asked the same group of scientists to determine why socks dissapear in the dryer. Film at eleven.

    • Re:this about that (Score:4, Informative)

      by Triddle ( 793231 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @03:21AM (#11261687)
      The crab is a supernova remnant, not a planetary nebula.
      • The crab is a supernova remnant

        Thus the name 'Crab Nebula'? I see now, thanks for clearing that up.

        And the The Crab pulsar? Next I guess you're going to spoil all I have left and tell me it is actally a variable star?

        Very cruel...have you no shame.

        • Yes, Crab Nebula is a supernova remnant (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Thus the name 'Crab Nebula'? I see now, thanks for clearing that up.

          You sir are a typical dumb idiot, exactly the kind that is destroying the Wikipedia through not deferring to authority despite your ignorance, as per a recent Slashdot story. If you don't know something, why do you feel the need to cast doubt on those who do?

          The poster was right, the Crab is a supernova remnant. "The supernova was noted on July 4, 1054 A.D. by Chinese astronomers, and was about four times brighter than Venus, or about
          • You, sir, missed the chagrin. I admitted my ingorance with a slap that missed and came back to me.

            It's a joke...sort of like your concern that a wiki is at risk of dieing due to the very type of activity that brought about the need for it in the first place.

            I'm squashing an earthworm in my hand...want to defend it before my actions threaten the known universe? Better hurry....I see fluids.
      • exactly and that's why (along with some other reasons) their explantion is hazy.

    • Re: this about that (Score:5, Funny)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @03:24AM (#11261701)


      > A couple in the Hamptons has asked the same group of scientists to determine why socks dissapear in the dryer.

      They disappear into the electronic equivalent of a black hole, and re-appear on the internet as sock puppets.

    • A couple in the Hamptons has asked the same group of scientists to determine why socks dissapear in the dryer. Film at eleven.

      This is a common misconception. The socks actually get lost in the WASHER, in the tiny groove underneath the spinner (I don't know what to call it) and the bottom of the washer. You dry your clothes, and you come out with an odd number of socks. At some other time (next load of laundry perhaps), the sock becomes dislodged, and you toss it into the dryer. Again, you have an odd

    • It's well-known why socks disapear in the dryer. Left-handed socks only vanish in right-handed dryers, and vice versa. Since particles have 720' symmetry (see Brief History of Time), the opposite spin creates a matter/anti-matter reaction. This is also why laundry with socks that vanish dry much faster.


      Oh, and Horsa Hedd really was the first person to enter the Horsehead Nebula. :)

  • What about the color intensity? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Man in Spandex ( 775950 ) <prsn DOT kev AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @03:18AM (#11261672)
    Is it the magnetic fields also that makes it so in a nebula, a part of it can look more red than another. Let's say in one part of a nebula, the field is stronger and more matter/gas is attracted within that field (if thats how it works.) would that then create all the variations of whichever color that the star creates depending on how and how much gas is spreaded throughout the field?

    • Re:What about the color intensity? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by StarsAreAlsoFire ( 738726 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @04:19AM (#11261866)
      Most (all?) photos you are likely to see of nebula are enhanced, and thus the colors generally vary depending on what the 'artist' (astronomer) was studying; colors that highlight differences in density will be used by the astronomer studying gas density, colors that accentuate gas temperature by the astronmer studying gas dynamics, etc.

      That isn't to say your argument is wrong in anyway. I would agree with your hypothesis; however am not an expert in nebula dynamics in any way shape or form. I will state with great certainty that IF there are significate magnetic forces within a nebula, you WILL see higher gas densities along the magnetic lines of force -- the same idea as when you have iron filings on a sheet of paper and put a magnet under it: those filings will align with the field lines of the magnet.

      This could be an interesting topic (the whole tread). I hope some good answers come out of it!
    • The other reply to this post is correct, most all astronomical color images are "false color" images. They could have different colors to indicate different light intensities, or they could be a composite of several images.

      In the article, the pictures are just examples of planetary nebulas. They are not the actual images used in the paper. The research was done with spectroscopy, which doesn't make for a very attractive article. Spectroscopy is the bulk of what astronomers deal with anymore, and is far mo

    • Re:What about the color intensity? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Abcd1234 ( 188840 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @01:09PM (#11264611) Homepage
      Well, it's partly that, but keep in mind, planetary nebula are very much three-dimensional objects. For example, the Ring Nebula [nasa.gov] is actually, in all probability, more or a barrel shape like the Butteryfly Nebula [nasa.gov]. However, because we're seeing it edge-on, we see it as a ring, rather than it's true shape. And the result is color concentration on the edges.

      Similarly, some of the perceived complexity in objects like the Ant Nebula [nasa.gov] may be due to perspective, as we see it from an angle.

      And speaking of the Ant Nebula, as is mentioned in the APOD article, another likely contributing factor to nebular complexity is the presence of other bodies orbiting the new white dwarf, such as a companion star or planetary body. These objects likely manipulate the shape of the nebula via gravitational or electromagnetic forces.
  • I have to say it's nice to see magnetic fields getting more praise than usual! All my professors tell me is "magnetic fields aren't important and blah blah blah so don't worry or care about them" ... then again I'm currently majoring in Electrical Engineering. :) It will be great to see what else unfolds in terms of the importance magnetic fields play in the structure of the universe!

    • Re:this is nice to see (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Magnetic fields not important in EE??? Ever heard of a transformer?
      • Considering that electronics engineers study a *lot* more than just transformers, I'd say that the EE's opinion on the matter is justified, whereas you're isn't.

        • Re:this is nice to see (Score:3, Informative)

          by pe1rxq ( 141710 )
          An EE that dismisses magnetic fields is a crap EE.
          Hint: Electric and magnetic fields are kind of related, try creating a current without either one of them.

          Jeroen

        • Re:this is nice to see (Score:3, Interesting)

          by wass ( 72082 )
          Considering that electronics engineers study a *lot* more than just transformers, I'd say that the EE's opinion on the matter is justified

          Considering everyone reading this article is using a computer with some form of magnetic storage, I'd say he's got a valid point.

          Ferromagnetism is way too prolific in magnetic storage, so I'll ignore that and talk about other magnetic effects. Magnetism is directly tied to any inductive element in a circuit, and manifests itself through self and mutual induction. Eg

    • Slip a magnet next to his wallet.... see what he says the next class session.....

  • Plasma (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DiracFeynman ( 655294 )
    Plasma physicists have been saying this for a long time.

  • Solved? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by forceflow2 ( 843966 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @03:30AM (#11261730)
    I'm confused. The title suggests they've solved the mystery, but didn't they just find a huge clue? I mean, I can't come upon a murder, find a footprint, and say I finished. There's much more to it than that. Yes, this is a huge step, but no, everything isn't "solved." In fact, they could be completely wrong...
    • Sadly, unlike in a murder mystery, clues is all you get in astrophysics and astronomy. Where a footprint will lead the detective to question a suspect and perhaps get a confession, what can the astronomer do? Only seek more clues until it becomes likely enough for someone to say it's the case.

      Then again, I'm probably making a false dichotomy. The detective can't be certain either. Certainty is a very rare thing, all we have is theory, belief and evidence (theory and belief being differentiated only by the
      • Well...if the Crab Nebula wasn't such a shy guy, I am sure he would help out a bit...maybe we could talk to his mom or something...
    • From the article:In addition to improving our understanding of these beautiful planetary nebulae form, the detection of these magnetic fields allows science to take a step forward towards the clarification of the relationship between magnetic fields and stellar physics.

      So, that's one step forwards for mankind, and, er.... tune in again; same time, same channel for the next bit of the puzzle.

    • I mean, I can't come upon a murder, find a footprint, and say I finished. There's much more to it than that. Yes, this is a huge step, but no, everything isn't "solved." In fact, they could be completely wrong...

      That depends how far it is from the other footprint.

  • On a similar note... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eMartin ( 210973 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @03:57AM (#11261809)
    What I've always wondered is why the orbits of objects as parts of galaxies, solar systems, or even planet/moon systems pretty much share a common plane. And then, even the rotation of the bodies themselves also line up for the most part.

    Why don't they all rotate and orbit in any direction they want?

    Does gravity just even this all out over time when the objects pass near each other?
    • Consider a cloud that has net angular momentum. As the consitutents of the cloud collide, their random orbital motions get turned into heat. After a long time, all that's left is the average angular momentum: a bunch of objects orbiting in the same direction in the same plane.

      It doesn't turn into a single spinning ball because as the constituents collide, they sometimes stick. The more the empty spaces between them grow, the less often they collide. (Collision rate scales as the third power of the mean fr

    • Orbital planes (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CryoPenguin ( 242131 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @04:34AM (#11261911)
      (IANA astromoner, just a physicist)

      You have to consider where they got the angular momentum to begin with:
      A solar system isn't a bunch of objects that happen to be in the same place. It was originally a gas cloud (perhaps a nebula), which had a little bit of rotation (from whatever source: nova, magnetic fields, or the like). The gas particles, while very dilute from our standards, still interact enough to equalize their (average) velocities. As it collapses, conservation of angular momentum makes it spin faster, until it's dense enough for objects (asteroids, planets, sun) to condense. And since they all condensed out of that same cloud, they're all approximately aligned to the same orbital plane that the original cloud had. (The same explanation applies to why the axes of rotation are also mostly aligned.)

    • Re:On a similar note... (Score:5, Informative)

      by StarsAreAlsoFire ( 738726 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @04:42AM (#11261928)
      On a solar system scale, the spin of the central body plays a large role in this, but it is still a kind of a game of chase-the-tail.

      When the whole system is still gas, something starts it spinning -- a simple thing like a star passing nearby gives objects (the gas particles) a bit of angular moment, which is thus transferred to the system as a whole over eons of time through collsions, gravity, magnetic forces, etc.

      Now, if a LARGE object passed by in the XY plane, and a SMALL object passed by in the YZ plane, you will end up with a spin *mostly* in the XY plane, but the *WHOLE SYSTEM* will balance out with a single plane of spin somewhere in between.

      Eventually the smaller objects become larger objects, which collide less, thus distributing the angular moment less efficiently. There may be one central body spinning in the XY plane, but a few of the large objects can have a wildly different orbital plane. But not many objects will HAVE this wildly different orbital plane, because back when the system was being formed, the angular moment transfer WAS very efficient.

      Also, 'circular' orbits, like the earths or mars or Jupiters, are fairly rare on a random scale of things; and if you have a bunch of objects orbiting in different planes with highly ellipical orbits, they have a much higher chance of smacking into each other (or some larger object, like jupiter) than the same object would if it were in a more circular orbit which happened to be in a different plane than that of the central masses spin. Don't forget the time scales in question here!

      Now, finally, in systems like that of the Earth and its huge moon, you get tidal interactions; while the moon will never shift in its orbit enough to be in an equatorial orbit, it *does* shift more closely to one every day, thanks to the 'gravity drag' between itself and Earth. Really what is happening is that the Earths spin is accelerated in the direction of the moons travel (really, this is slowing our spin rate down, think acceleration in the physics sense). Earth has already done this to the moon; hence the 'tidal lock' which has the moon presenting the same side to Earth at all times.

      Were you to watch the Earth moon system forever, eventually what you would see is two bodies rotating about a central point, both with the axis of spin of each body being parallel to the axis of rotation about said central point (hope you can visualise that!). In reality this won't occur in any amount of time, the influence of the sun, and the fact that the moon would actually leave earths gravitation influence before alignment could occur prevent it. (The orbit of the moon gets larger as it steals earths rotational momentum).

      That was fun.
      • Also, 'circular' orbits, like the earths or mars or Jupiters, are fairly rare on a random scale of things
        Thought here on this, would circular orbit systems become more common with time as worlds collide or spin into space? In other words, whilst eliptical orbits are more common in young systems, would older systems balance themselves into more circular orbits over time?

      • Re:On a similar note... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Aero ( 98829 )
        The Earth and its moon already do rotate about a common point -- the center-of-mass of the combined system. It's just that given the relative masses of the two bodies, the center of mass is pretty darn close to the center of mass of the Earth.
      • "That was fun."

        It sure was. Thanks.
    • Moderate up all the posts above.

      It's about angular momentum and it's a hotly debated field of study in astronomy (not much in astrophysics).
      • My very good friend often refers to herself as an astronomer; her degree says astrophysics. Could you kindly explain the difference so I can make her say "I'm an astrophysicist" when people ask? ;~)

        (She isn't, really; she does have the degree, but she doesn't practice yet -- working on a Phd in a related field.)

        • Wow, you ask very nicely. You like her, don't you? :-)

          Actually there are little difference between astronomers and astrophysicists any more. But some of us call ourselves "astrophysicists" since we tend to pay more attention to physics than doing cataloguing or mere statistical analysis of some star/galaxy distribution.

          But no matter. Like I said, there is little difference. We'll treat her just like as we are.

  • Solved? Yeah sure.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by helioquake ( 841463 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @04:25AM (#11261883) Journal
    Ask astronomers again in a couple of months if they all agree if the morphology of planetary nebulae is solved by the magnetic field alone.

    It's cool that they had done POLARIMETRIC measurement of these objects (that's far more dead than UV spectroscopy), however. Especially there is a star like Eta Carinae [umn.edu] which seems to have a weaker magnetic field and its bi-polar structure is being driven by its stellar wind alone.
  • It wasn't that long ago that scientists thought the world was flat, the stars were fixed in the sky, and everything revolved around the Earth....I wonder how stupid scientists will think we are 2000 years from now...
    • Eratosthenes [cornell.edu] does not seem particularly stupid to me, and he lived more than 2000 years ago.

      There are many many ways to discover that the Earth is round. If anyone thought it was flat they were either stupid or deliberately misguided (or blind or they spent their lives at the bottom of deep valleys perhaps).

    • If you replace "scientist" with "priest", or more accurately, "Roman Catholic" priest, your statement is fairly accurate...

      I'm gonna go to hell, ain't I?

      • Mod the parent of this one up. He gets it! The Physics types are (generally, but for a few, as in no remarks about not all or exceptions please) the most arrogant and frankly ignorant types I have ever met. Many act like they have died and ascended to God status.

        What we don't know about the universe would ..., fill the universe! What we know about it including what we think we know about it is pretty slim. Having been close to some of the highest phyics research and having actually been the one who la

    • Everyone (everyone educated, i mean) knew the world was round since say, at least a century or two BCE. You can see it in Dante's Divine Comedy. Pythagoras knew it. The myth that Columbus was the first to think the world was round was not propagated until the 1830's, by none other than Washington Irving (and some other french guy.) You can read about it yourself, http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatE a rth.html [ucsb.edu]

  • to my superficial observation, the nebulae look remarkably similair to giant CELLs.
    has anyone ever tried comparing Nebulae to EMBRYO development?

    embryonic cosmology [earthlink.net] -- just like you don't explain the movement
    of a compass needle out of the surrounding totality,
    can we find any connections between Nebulae
    and the processes of embryology?

    best regards,
    j.

    ah, go ahead, mod me down...
    i know i'm wasting karma with such a ridiculous idea.
    nobody wants to hear anything really new. :-P

  • VLT Lore -- The Yellow Submarine (Score:3, Informative)

    by mindpixel ( 154865 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @03:31PM (#11266716) Homepage Journal
    Once upon a time there was a telescope operator who was very nervous and when rain clouds threatened Paranal one night her nervousness turned to panic and she could not break from her very long closing script and just close the damn doors no matter the state of the system and hundreds of gallons of rain fell onto the eight meter collecting surface and washed through the central hole in the mirror and down filling the large yellow camera the size of four refrigerators mounted below. That instrument lovingly refered to on Cerror Paranal as The Yellow Submarine is FORS1 [google.com]--the one that intercepted the photons that caused you to read this today.
  • I had always wondered about this when looking at nebulae like Eta Carinae or the Cat's Eye Nebula (google them if you want pictures, I'm not finding a link for you). I believe both of those are actually supernova remnants, not planetary nebulae, but it still fascinated me that neither was symmetrical. For lack of any better explanation, I assumed it was largely due to differences in gravitational forces in different directions. Still, I didn't expect that alone to be sufficient to explain why Eta Carinae ap

Slashdot Top Deals

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close