Herschel's First Science Results, Eagle Nebula 91
davecl writes "Over the next three days, many new science results will come out from Herschel. The first of these, a view deep inside the stellar nursery of the Eagle Nebula, finds a huge amount of activity, revealing new stars and filaments of dust that could not have been detected by previous telescopes. Also open today is OSHI, the online showcase of Herschel images where all the new science images will be found. Herschel news also available on the Herschel Mission Blog."
I'm excited (Score:2)
Also, let me be the first to say this thread is useless without pics.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I had to refresh myself a bit on the mission. This [esa.int] is really good info and of course this [wikipedia.org] is as well.
I think you meant this [wikipedia.org]. The William Herschel Telescope is a ground based scope built in the 80's.
Can this be used to avoid dark matter? (Score:2, Interesting)
If Herschel can can find matter previously unseen with other telescopes, can this be used to avoid the dark matter theory?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I always thought "dark" was taken to mean "beyond detection with our current instruments" ... i.e. a handy compensating factor to fix theoretical equations when those equations don't match observation.
That's literally all it means... dark matter is matter we haven't observed directly, yes. But it isn't really a compensating factor to fix a theoretical equation. It's something that the extremely well tested and verified equations of gravity strongly suggests must exist. We've used the exact same theory t
Re: (Score:2)
The reason we have speculated about dark matter is because we can't account for the gravity we observe, isn't it so?
If so, then how come dark matter can interact with non-dark matter via gravity? in other words, if dark matter can distort spacetime like normal matter, then dark matter is normal matter, by all accounts and purposes.
Then why can't we detect it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason we have speculated about dark matter is because we can't account for the gravity we observe, isn't it so?
Yes in the same way we couldn't 'account' for the wobble of a star, so we speculated that there were planets around it.
If so, then how come dark matter can interact with non-dark matter via gravity? in other words, if dark matter can distort spacetime like normal matter, then dark matter is normal matter, by all accounts and purposes.
No not exactly, because there are "accounts and purposes" of
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Once they sort through all the science images, that might happen.
Those science images, is there nothing they can't do?
I bet they've got a science pole, too.
Re:Can this be used to avoid dark matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
If Herschel can can find matter previously unseen with other telescopes, can this be used to avoid the dark matter theory?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: there are multiple dark matter problems on multiple scales. Galactic dark matter, which is the only kind Hershel might be able to see, may be baryonic (made up of the same sorts of elementary particles as everything else we know about.) Even that is doubtful, based on dynamical analysis of galactic collisions, which strongly favour a non-baryonic component even on galactic scales. And the thing about non-baryonic dark matter is that whatever it is, it doesn't interact electro-magnetically, at least not to a significant degree. If it did, it would be scattered off ordinary matter and be detectable and visible and have pretty much the same spacial distribution as ordinary matter, which it observably does not in the case of galactic collisions.
On larger scales, we know with as much certainty as we know anything that dark matter must be non-baryonic, and therefore almost certainly won't be visible. The reason we know it must be non-baryonic is because the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the early universe, which we can calculate quite precisely based on the universe we see today, puts a strict limit on the amount of baryonic matter, and the extra-galactic dark matter exceeds that limit by a factor of ten or more.
Finally, "avoiding the dark matter theory" is a funny way of putting things, as if somehow dark matter was bad and it would be a good thing to avoid it. Dark matter is a perfectly sensible explanation some peculiar phenomena, and although it is not the only one, it has proven consistent with the experimental and observational tests that have been used to investigate it, particularly the galactic collision analysis mentioned above.
Re: (Score:1)
"unseen" in TFA = obscured by dust, that's all
Re: (Score:2)
My last information is, that the dark matter theory’s problems are already explained with conventional models, for at least a year.
And about dark energy: There is a very simple solution for it:
If you theory predicts a value, and measurements in nature show a different one, then...
FIX YOUR DAMN THEORY!
Seriously, I have never seen a bigger epic fail in all of science. It’s pulling us all in the same dirt where stuff like the “electric universe”, “creationism” and “cub
Dark matter? (Score:1)
I found this statement very interesting:
If what we think is a vast expanse of nothing is actually full of dust and other "real" matter, I wonder if this could account for the gravitational effects of so-called "dark matter".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Current theories suggest that dark matter does not interact with baryonic matter except through gravity, which is why we can see its effects on other matter but can't actually see it. Personally I think the theory is crap, but its the best we have right now.
As a side note, I really hope Einstein was horribly horribly wrong; what kind of sick joke would it be to be given this mind bogglingly gigantic and beautiful universe, destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star that gave us l
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> ...destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star
> that gave us life, lest we condemn ourselves to never seeing our home again.
If you are so timid that you cannot bear the thought of never seeing "home" again you deserve to be so condemned as it will be only your own weakness confining you.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't discover new lands if you never lose sight of the shore and all that...
But there are people that don't leave, don't take chances, have kids, plant their crops and tend their herds. That is probably a good thing, because without them you can't have a society. We can't all be pioneers and explorers.
Its the same way we need to have police to have a society, but not everybody has the mindset to put their life in danger for the common good.
Thankfully for those people we can build robots, I mean that in bot
Re: (Score:2)
I would gladly give up my little blue planet to get a glimpse at the rest of the universe. You shouldn't lash out at people unless you understood what was written, because you clearly did not comprehend my post.
Since I need to spell it out for you, here goes:
What is the point of sending people into the universe never to return if we can never get useful data out of it during our lifetimes? Even if you are willing to wait for longer than humanity has existed the trip would still be futile. It would be a hell
Re: (Score:2)
I am in high hopes that we'll have quantuim entangled bits acting as telegraphs between the colonies by the time that becomes a problem.
Maybe we should send some to Mars on the next launch and see if the bits flip when Time Delay says they should have or not.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll probably be quite disappointed by quantum entanglement then. There are no signs that it can be used for FTL communication. You might as well have high hopes for really fast twinned pigeons.
Re: (Score:1)
Read his post again, dumbass. If you are so illiterate as to misunderstand his lament then ... go off and be condemned to be a computer programmer or slashdot reader or something.
The real shame, by the way, is that we are unlikely to even get outside our solar system - it being so mind bogglingly big, the nearest star so enormously far away, and our lives being so depressingly short.
Re: (Score:1)
I apologise - we all get the wrong end of the stick from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note, I really hope Einstein was horribly horribly wrong; what kind of sick joke would it be to be given this mind bogglingly gigantic and beautiful universe, destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star that gave us life, lest we condemn ourselves to never seeing our home again. We know he was wrong, just not in the ways he needs to be.
No offense, but we'd probably already know if he were horribly, horribly wrong. And we already know that if we go a few billion years in the future, the Sun won't be there any more (unless there's some sort of fancy solar-scale engineering you can do to spruce up the Sun like somehow replenish the hydrogen in the Sun).
Re: (Score:2)
> unless there's some sort of fancy solar-scale engineering you can do to
> spruce up the Sun like somehow replenish the hydrogen in the Sun
That would require either a solar-scale source of hydrogen or an equally boggling supply of energy (in which case, why bother to restart the Sun?). More plausible (if solar engineering can be plausible) would be redesigning the Sun to burn helium and/or other fusion byproducts.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a couple ways to work with Einstein constraints.
Generation ships are the easiest to engineer, as the tech is nearly there.
Another way would be figuring out a way to backup people, ship their records and a genetic engineering factory ship to another star, and then download people in to some kind of life form once there. Not sure if we'll ever be able to really scan a person in to some kind of storage buffer, though.
I guess one could also ship viable sperm/egg and try to run some kind of automated tes
Re: (Score:1)
I think this is a good hypothesis. Let's assume our machines become at least as capable as humans, and designed with similar psychological and cultural values. It would be reasonable to think that a human crew could be brought up by them - and might shine an interesting light on the nature/nurture question of human behaviour.
Of course, an even more likely scenario - given the assumption of intelligent, capable, machines - is that they go off and explore the galaxy leaving us behind. Humans are just too much
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, meat bags kinda suck off Earth. But if there was a way to copy our consciousness to some kind of hardware exploration vehicle, oh man, I'd love to lend a copy.
Another variation I thought of would be a generation ship that would only need to support a maintenance crew. Wouldn't have to have a large population as you could raise new crew members from test tube. I guess there would need to be some minimum number of folks to make a working society, though. Once they got to a candidate system, would have to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No offense, but we'd probably already know if he were horribly, horribly wrong.
I'm confused by this. Are you saying we already know everything about physics? Please elaborate.
And we already know that if we go a few billion years in the future, the Sun won't be there any more
I'm not saying it is pointless to leave, and I sincerely hope we make it out of our solar system without killing ourselves first. It just saddens me that all those colonies of humanity (or whatever we are at that point) will never be able to communicate with each other on a reasonable time scale. Who cares if there is life out there besides our own if we can never see it, or if we do see it, we wouldn't have anyo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused by this. Are you saying we already know everything about physics? Please elaborate.
No, he's probably just saying that any revisions/replacements to Einsten's theory are much more likely to be minor corrections rather than complete reversals. I'll refer to The Relativity of Wrong [tufts.edu], and say that revisions to Relativity are most likely going to be like going from the theory that the earth is an Oblate Spheroid to it's actual, more complicated but still extremely Oblate Spheroidal geometry, not fin
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's probably just saying that any revisions/replacements to Einsten's theory are much more likely to be minor corrections rather than complete reversals. I'll refer to The Relativity of Wrong, and say that revisions to Relativity are most likely going to be like going from the theory that the earth is an Oblate Spheroid to it's actual, more complicated but still extremely Oblate Spheroidal geometry, not finding out that the earth is actually a cube or a torus. The Oblate Spheroid theory was wrong, but it wasn't horribly, horribly wrong. It was extremely close to precisely correct.
My point is that I hope that the speed of light isn't the ultimate speed limit of the universe, not that everything about relativity is wrong. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it is my understanding the biggest issue known (until the late 19th century) with classical mechanics was the precession of Mercury. It took a very long time for our understanding of related fields to become expansive enough to see the holes in classical mechanics. I never suggested we should be using rockets anyway, just that
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that I hope that the speed of light isn't the ultimate speed limit of the universe, not that everything about relativity is wrong.
Well, the thing is that unless just about everything in relativity is wrong, then c most likely is literally the ultimate speed limit. Just about everything in the theory both depends on and implies this -- see the relativistic energy equation, which says that anything with mass traveling at the speed of light has infinite energy. So, that seems like a pretty sure
Re: (Score:2)
It has been a while since I studied physics (as is plainly apparent at this point), and I thank you for your informative response. It just crushes me to think that if we ever got our shit together and got off this rock, it wouldn't matter anyway because humanity (or whatever) will still live a fragmented existence of "nations". Except then it would be fundamental properties of the universe holding us apart, instead of our own greed and stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, one of the most fascinating yet at the same time depressing concepts in relativistic physics is the "light cone", whose volume represents all possible positions in space-time that you could occupy. Ever. If it is outside your light cone, it is outside your feasible future. You can't even communicate with someone outside your light cone.
Believe me, there's a big part of me that hopes Einstein is wrong, too.
Though I'm not sure I'm ready for him being wrong about the whole causality thing... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused by this. Are you saying we already know everything about physics? Please elaborate.
No, we don't know everything. But his theory has been validated to a considerable degree. My view is that FTL is almost surely not possible. There are several experiments that have measured the speed of propagation of various events (particle accelerators, astronomy observations, and quantum information experiments). So far, we have not found a way for information to travel faster than the speed of light. I think it's pretty good coverage of the possibilities too.
FTL is not the only way to skin the cat h
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, it's invisible but leaves foot prints. Can likely also peek in to the women's showers.
Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas (Score:1, Offtopic)
Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6, 4, and 3 year old in the night sky? We're in the pacific northwest of the US.
Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas (Score:5, Informative)
Greetings and Salutations....
Well, it depends on how big a telescope you have. Aperture is everything, alas.
However, even the cheapest scope will show good images of the moon and some level of detail of the planets.
Also, you should be able to see how double stars that appear to be a single point of light when we look at them with the naked eye actually consist of several stars in close proximity.
bigger scopes can show the nebulae and other, dimmer items.
Go check out http://www.skyandtelescope.com/ for many observing suggestions, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Aperture is everything, alas.
Tsk tsk... You saying a 6" Schmidt would beat a 3.5" Apo? It really depends on what you are looking at.
Re: (Score:2)
Tsk tsk... You saying a 6" Schmidt would beat a 3.5" Apo? It really depends on what you are looking at.
Well sure, you can't directly compare aperture sizes between reflectors (like a Schmidt) and a refractor (like APO) and assume the bigger one is better. But within those broad classes of scope, "aperture is everything" is a pretty good first order rule of thumb (even if e.g. a Schmidt has disadvantages vs a similar sized Netwon)
But as far as seeing the dimmest objects, then yes I'd take the 6" Schmidt ove
Re: (Score:2)
Greetings and salutations...
I do not care to get into the holy war between the refractor and reflector camps (*smile*). I would certainly agree that a refractor with top quality glass can provide breathtaking performance. On the down side, they tend to get really expensive really quickly, which tends to make them bad for amateurs just getting their first scope. One can get a good Dobsonian light bucket for not too much money at all, and, have enough light com
Re: (Score:2)
The four moons of Jupiter are pretty easy to see
And by "four moons of Jupiter," read "four most visible (Galilean) moons of Jupiter."
Re: (Score:2)
6, 4 and 3 are kind of young but if you're interested in this as well you might want to consider joining your local amateur astronomy association. You'd get a lot more input as to what's good to find for the backyard astronomer, some access to better scopes and you'd probably learn a great deal about astronomy with it. Space.com's NightSky [space.com] is also a good resource for things that pe
Re: (Score:2)
And for extra podcast enjoyment look out for "Slacker Astronomy" http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/ [slackerastronomy.org] and The "Jodcast" http://www.jodcast.net/ [jodcast.net] with added astronomer humor. I find AstronomyCast http://www.astronomycast.com/ [astronomycast.com] a little bit too greasy and slick myself, but all three podcasts are chock full of interesting information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas (Score:5, Informative)
AstronomyCast doesnt quite hit it with me. Its hosted by two people who do the question and answer routine on a topic each week and I'd rather just hear one of them talk about the subject instead of one of them pretending to know nothing about the subject and asking questions. Its all a matter of taste but I find it a bit too packaged and distracting. Like it was trying to be a conversation but came out awkwardly like a script. The information is always top notch and interesting stuff but the style of the show is not my cup of tea. The Jodcast recently asked its listeners whether they wanted the "objects in the sky for the upcoming month" to be read as a question and answer thing and they voted for one person to talk about it. As I say its a matter of taste so I pointed out a couple of other shows, in case the one I wasn't so keen on, put people off podcasts - theres a big sky out there and there's lots of different podcasts too.
I could mention a few more in addition to
AstronomyCast http://www.astronomycast.com/ [astronomycast.com] top quality show with different subjects explored in depth with a teaching mission that will leave you much better informed than anything on tv ever will. The pedogogic style doesnt suit me but thats just my taste.
"Slacker Astronomy" http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/ [slackerastronomy.org] Practising astronomers interviewed and in-depth subjects discussed by enthusiastic experts, they crack abysmal jokes about technical things which might seem a little silly (or incomprehensible) but the unscripted enthusiasm appeals to me.
The "Jodcast" http://www.jodcast.net/ [jodcast.net] Science staff from Manchester Universities Joderal Bank radio telescope bring us astronomy news, a themed mini drama, the night sky this month, topical discussion and an oft repeated desire for their theme tune to be redone in a heavy metal version. Well connected on Facebook et al, join in the fun.
there are
NASA Blueshift http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/podcast/wordpress/ [nasa.gov] A bit slick the last time I listened, with soundbite interviews instead of a bit more detail from a single person. Most NASA stuff is a bit "wow look at that" without too much depth so I only come back to it infrequently. However it is probably perfect for the younger listener and they will probably be hooked by its friendliness.
"Astronomy a Go Go" http://astronomy.libsyn.com/ [libsyn.com] is the best observing podcast on the net bar none with Alice Few. It may prove a little intimidating to newcomers but the website is also the best general resource for amateur astronomers who want to do observing IMHO. Alice is so thorough and easy on the ear that you could easily play this one three or four times to get yourself fully up to speed on what might be worth doing in the coming month with your observing time. Solid gold this one.
Planetary Radio http://www.planetary.org/radio/ [planetary.org] from the Planetary Society is great if you are into rockets and the exploration of the solar system as opposed to deep space. Always an interesting listen with news features, an opinion spot from the self styled "Bill Nye the planetary guy" and loads of enthusiasm for exploring.
365 days of astronomy http://365daysofastronomy.org/ [365daysofastronomy.org] has a few days left to run with a choice of 365 short programs from this The year of Astronomy - The ones from this year best heard now by browsing through the programs to find ones on subjects you are interested in, but the good news is that they are set to carry on with their volunteer generated 5 to 10 minute programs in 2010. Head on over and make a program for them yourself!
The Silicon Valley Astronomy Lectures http://www.astroso [astrosociety.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the other links.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For a small telescope - say 1.5 to 2 inches and 10 to 100x magnification. The double cluster in Perseus - its below Cassiopeia the W thing and looks like two balls of stars, very pretty at low magnification. The Orion nebula - often called the Sword of Orion, its below the three stars of his belt and is a ghostly greenish mist that you need to zoom a bit more in to see. Dont forget to look at the moon, especially when you can see less than the full moon because the mountains and craters along the line of th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and here's a tip:
Saturn is worth staying up for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That was months ago.
Also, it takes a decent scope to see detail on saturn, such as a C5. A department store scope would never be able to.
While you might not see color bands, even a cheap telescope will let you see the rings. Heck, Galileo could sort of see the rings and he had optics much worse than a department store telescope!
Re: (Score:1)
I absolutely have to second the Pleiades. They look absolutely spectacular at low magnification. Most any open star cluster will be pretty impressive. The same goes for planets and the moon.
Unfortunately, to kids desensitized by pictures from Hubble, galaxies and nebulae seen through a telescope are pretty disappointing. In my mind, the best part about finding some of the dimmer objects is actually finding them. Learning your way around the sky is truly a challenge. I think that kids that young would
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree that there is a quality about seeing them through a telescope that is not present in pictures, but I think it has more to do with the idea that light has been traveling for millions of years and is ending up in my eye. I tend to forget about that when I look at pictures.
In any case, the first time I saw a nebula through a telescope, with a fair amount of light pollution, I was ready to see something like the "pillars of creation" picture of the eagle nebula. All I actually saw was a patch of the s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6, 4, and 3 year old
Yes. Show them this post in about 15 years. Think back about how much wonderment you expected them to have when you unwrapped that expensive laundry rack and took them outside in the bitter cold to fight with each other over control of the eyepiece only to have it break off in the 3 year old's greasy hands. Then regale them with the story of how you tried to fix it right there in the snow while they shivered and whined and tried
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Who knew? Bad Analogy guy has kids!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Without the use of a telescope you could show your kids the surface of the sun by creating your own pinhole box.
Get as large a rectangular box as you can manage which has its ends as large as possible. Affix a large piece of white paper on the inside of one end, close the box then tape all the seams so light can't enter. Take a pin and punch a hole in the end opposite of the one you put the paper on.
Finally, cut a hole in the side of the box near the end where the paper is. When you look into this hole,
Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas (Score:4, Informative)
Please do not suggest looking at the Sun through a telescope even as a joke, it will blind you. You can buy special filters to put over the end of a telescope at the opposite end to the one you look through, which can make a telescope safe to use. But you had better know what you are doing because even a pin hole in the filter will let in so much light that you will blind yourself. If you have ever seen someone set fire to something with a magnifying glass then you should be pretty wary of putting anything glass between your eyes and the sun. I have been using a telescope to look at the night skies for years and have not yet got around to looking at the sun with anything more than a pinbox because of the danger, I'll keep my eyes safe thanks :-)
This is not a case of "ooh you had better wear a crash helmet in case you fall off your bike". You only occasionally fall off your bike. If you look at the sun through a telescope or binoculars it will blind you - first time, every time. This is why a pinhole box is so cool because you can see something that is literally dangerous to do any other way.
Re: (Score:1)
literally dangerous to do any other way.
Quite false...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I agree that it is perfectly safe if you are aware of the dangers and the precautions that you should take. But this is a public forum where the caution is appropriate before the knowledgeble chip in with their experience and knowledge. So I agree with you, but did you mention that you have a personal checklist or mehod whereby you ensure your safety? Like do you remove the optical finder and replace it with a safe sunfinder before you slap on the filter, or that you pick up the filter and check it for p
Re: (Score:2)
Bah! Nothing that a little Lasig surgery couldn't fix!
Re: (Score:2)
The middle star of Orion's sword is the Orion nebula. It might resolve to a reddish smudge or might actually look nebulish.
The Pleides, in the shoulder of Taurus looks very pretty in a small scope as well.
Re: (Score:1)
"Scientific rights"? WTF? (Score:2)
From the article:
I knew about "moral rights", but "scientific rights"? "Owned"? Is this meant to imply that I can be sued in Europe for studying these observations without the permission of the "Progamme"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The actual numbers that go to make up these images are needed to do any science with them - only a fool would try to do science with a JPEG image, but this does happen. The 'scientific rights' refer to the use of the raw numbers for these images in scientific papers. These rights apply for about 1 year after the observations are taken so that the team that has spent years building the instrument and sorting out its science can benefit. This data then becomes completely public.
The real story... (Score:2)
The real story is the massive STFC spending cuts that impact their group. Those spending cuts were announced the same day, and are being blogged about by the same folks:
http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/so-here-it-is-physics-doomsday/ [wordpress.com]
http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/blood-on-the-floor-for-uk-physicists/ [wordpress.com]
20% cuts here, 15% cuts there, and soon enough you won't have enough money to fund anything at all.
Conventional images (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish the web site would show conventional images and contrast that with what Hershel see's. Being a laymen, it's hard to gauge exactly how exciting this type of news is when you don't have a basis to compare with.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yeah and take your scientific rights and shove em where the sun don't shine. God created the universe and owns the rights. Your infringing on divine Intellectual Property.
Re: (Score:1)
OSHI---
It's not the Eagle Nebula (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the great thing about science, its not just the soundbite, its an onion with layer upon layer of history and undersanding that changes only slowly over a lifetime. So we see the sky with our eyes, we learn that radio waves are like light and we look at the sky with different wavelengths or frequencies of light and it looks different at different wavelengths, we see things near the Eagle nebula that we see with light at much longer infrared wavelengths through the Herschel telescope that we could never