Starship Asterisk*

The Elephant's Trunk in IC 1396

Explanation: Like an illustration in a galactic Just So Story, the Elephant's Trunk Nebula winds through the emission nebula and young star cluster complex IC 1396, in the high and far off constellation of Cepheus. Of course, the cosmic elephant's trunk is over 20 light-years long. This composite was recorded through narrow band filters that transmit the light from ionized hydrogen, sulfur, and oxygen atoms in the region. The resulting image highlights the bright swept-back ridges that outline pockets of cool interstellar dust and gas. Such embedded, dark, tendril-shaped clouds contain the raw material for star formation and hide protostars within the obscuring cosmic dust. Nearly 3,000 light-years distant, the relatively faint IC 1396 complex covers a large region on the sky, spanning over 5 degrees. This close-up mosaic covers a 2 degree wide field, about the size of 4 Full Moons.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

I can't type the noise of an elephant trumpeting, so you'll just have to imagine it yourself. ::insert imagination here::

Beyond wrote:I can't type the noise of an elephant trumpeting, so you'll just have to imagine it yourself. ::insert imagination here::

Ann

Wow...really nice picture!!!

I am sure Tarzan would like the Elephant Trunk Nebula... TAMBA Nebula...I am sure he would call it.

:---[===] *

Today's APOD shows us interesting detail in the most famous part of IC 1396, the Elephant's Trunk. In the picture at left, however, we can see the whole nebula in RGB. The Elephant's Trunk is not so prominent here. It can be seen at three o'clock, close to the central blue star.

That blue star, HD 206267, is responsible for lighting up the nebula and sculpting the Elephant's Trunk. The whole nebula, IC 1396, is interestingly similar to an older version of the Trifid Nebula. The young central star of the Trifid, HD 164492, has not had time to blow away all that much of the gas and dust in its vicinity. But HD 206267 has blown away all the dust lanes right next to it, and it has blown away so much of the nearby hydrogen that the red emission nebula surrounding it glows quite dimly. The Elephant's Trunk is a feeble reminder of IC 1396's former bright and dusty glory.

Matt BenDaniel's picture also shows a remarkable star in the Milky Way, Herschel's Garnet Star. It is a monstrously large star which has nothing whatsoever to do with IC 1396, due to the fact that the star is extremely extended and cool and therefore completely unable to ionize an emission nebula. The Garnet star, also known as Mu Cephei, is the orange star seen at eleven o'clock in the image.

We can be sure that Mu Cephei is older than HD 206267, the blue star ionizing the nebula. HD 206267 is young enough that it has a nebula around it in the first place, but Mu Cephei is old enough that it has run through all sorts of fusion processes in its interior. It is easy to think of Mu Cephei as the product of an earlier epoch of star formation which triggered the formation of IC 1396 and the Elephant Trunk. However, that appears not to be the case. According to Hipparcos, Mu Cephei is more distant than IC 1396. If Hipparcos is right, then Mu Cephei is a background object and completely unrelated to IC 1396.

In any case, Mu Cephei is an utterly gigantic star and more deeply orange in color than most "red giants". If you have a good pair of binoculars, why not go outside and look at it yourself?

Ann

Yes, a nice one...
In 2011 I made a 33 hours one and I submited to APOD! Unfortunatelly, for some reason, they do not liked it



Well live goes on.

Cheers,
paulo

One of the most fascinating and least understood features of space.

No one really has a coherent explanation for how such things come to be, or even estimates as to the total mass involved. Dust in that density spanning lightyears, imagine how many planets that represents in mass.

But since no one really has any explanation other than flights of fancy, to me these are evidence of God simply not cleaning up a few raw materials that spilled while creating other ordered planetary systems.

.

Ann wrote:

Beyond wrote:
I can't type the noise of an elephant trumpeting, so you'll just have to imagine it yourself. ::insert imagination here::

Pokeepsie Bob wrote:One of the most fascinating and least understood features of space.

No one really has a coherent explanation for how such things come to be, or even estimates as to the total mass involved. Dust in that density spanning lightyears, imagine how many planets that represents in mass.

But since no one really has any explanation other than flights of fancy, to me these are evidence of God simply not cleaning up a few raw materials that spilled while creating other ordered planetary systems.

That strikes me as the intellectually lazy way to go. "I don't understand this, so it must be magic."

Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws of Prediction

2. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
   When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
3. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
4. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Pokeepsie Bob wrote:No one really has a coherent explanation for how such things come to be, or even estimates as to the total mass involved. Dust in that density spanning lightyears, imagine how many planets that represents in mass.

Actually, there are quite coherent explanations for how such regions come to be, and reasonable estimates of the total mass. Keep in mind, as well, that the actual density of dust is extremely low... so low that if you were in the middle of it, you'd need exquisitely sensitive instruments to even detect its existence.

bystander wrote:

Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws of Prediction

2. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
   When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
3. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
4. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Humans are the most technologically advanced things on the planet. But you'd never know it by the way they act and the things they do, which are very distinguishable from magic.

Beyond wrote:Humans are the most technologically advanced things on the planet. But you'd never know it by the way they act and the things they do, which are very distinguishable from magic.

Far too many humans view our own, very understandable technology, as little different from magic.

A long time running engineering lab joke regarding technology and especially research... Magic smoke is what makes electronic devices work. When the smoke escapes... it no longer works.

Humans are the most diverse creatures on the planet. Humans are all over the map. And not just the geography map. There is way more divergence in the thinking map. It shows apparent when our inner thoughts leak out onto other’s different beliefs or convictions.

When looking for answers of science or spirit, you’re gonna find a lot of questions. I don’t think we will ever know everything absolutely conclusively without question.. some things yes, but not everything! We aspire to know with hope but are limited by our allotted time and space. Lots of folks that think spiritually are looking for scientific evidence to ground the spirit but I believe most just want the magic to be true because it is beautiful... like today’s APOD.

emc wrote:Lots of folks that think spiritually are looking for scientific evidence to ground the spirit but I believe most just want the magic to be true because it is beautiful... like today’s APOD.

That's a position I've never understood. As magic, there is nothing at all beautiful about today's APOD, or the Universe as a whole. Magic spoils the... magic!

What is beautiful about the Universe is the utter elegance of such complexity arising from nothing more than a short, simple set of rules. Rules that we increasingly understand, and which all the evidence argues are, in the end, completely understandable (in any practical sense).

owlice wrote: That strikes me as the intellectually lazy way to go. "I don't understand this, so it must be magic."

Or intellectually desperate. Reading about how there are billions of these little ATP synthase in our mitochondria blew my mind. They are basically little wheels with an axle and they're driven similarly to a water mill by the proton gradient. For just a few moments I panicked and asked, how could this be? How could this and all of these other enzymes just happen to come together and end up doing this? But throwing a supernatural being in the mix wouldn't simplify things. It would make it more complex. My dismay at the complexity would have only been further compounded by concluding that something else must have created this system. I am very interested in finding out how these molecules all came together through evolution, which, despite all of its seeming complexity, is a lot more simple than magic. I think it's a logical fallacy to fail to realize this.

I am a Natural Philosopher through and through. As such I must note that while there are plenty of studies which fail to find the presence of "magic" there are no studies that suggest humans do not need "magic". In fact, our scientific studies involving humans are careful to weed out the effects of “magic”. Other studies show quite positive effects from “magic”. In effect, “magic” need not exist to be beneficial. Isn’t being Human a wonderful thing?

FloridaMike wrote:I am a Natural Philosopher through and through. As such I must note that while there are plenty of studies which fail to find the presence of "magic" there are no studies that suggest humans do not need "magic". In fact, our scientific studies involving humans are careful to weed out the effects of “magic”. Other studies show quite positive effects from “magic”. In effect, “magic” need not exist to be beneficial. Isn’t being Human a wonderful thing?

Much of this can be explained by the placebo effect. The effect varies among individuals and I'd have to say it has very little effect on me. So it works for some and others not at all. It also raises ethical questions.

FloridaMike wrote:I am a Natural Philosopher through and through. As such I must note that while there are plenty of studies which fail to find the presence of "magic" there are no studies that suggest humans do not need "magic". In fact, our scientific studies involving humans are careful to weed out the effects of “magic”. Other studies show quite positive effects from “magic”. In effect, “magic” need not exist to be beneficial. Isn’t being Human a wonderful thing?

There is perfectly good evidence that humans don't need "magic". The fact that some humans receive something interpreted as "benefits" from such beliefs does not suggest in the slightest that this represents a human need, only that it is something that is of value to some humans.

Chris Peterson wrote:

FloridaMike wrote:I am a Natural Philosopher through and through. As such I must note that while there are plenty of studies which fail to find the presence of "magic" there are no studies that suggest humans do not need "magic". In fact, our scientific studies involving humans are careful to weed out the effects of “magic”. Other studies show quite positive effects from “magic”. In effect, “magic” need not exist to be beneficial. Isn’t being Human a wonderful thing?

There is perfectly good evidence that humans don't need "magic". The fact that some humans receive something interpreted as "benefits" from such beliefs does not suggest in the slightest that this represents a human need, only that it is something that is of value to some humans.

Chris & Geck,

While I understand your comments....
Naming an effect does nothing to negate the effect or illustrate any understanding of the effect. We "named" gravity long before having any substantive understanding of it.

The need of which I speak is not a physical need. There are important psychological and behavioral “needs” which benefit from a little “magic”. You may be fortunate enough to not be cognizant of this need but the vast majority of humans on the planet cannot make such claim. There are behavioral studies that suggest that even you would benefit from a little “magic” in your life. I did a quick search for the study I had in mind and found this (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091247.htm ). After perusing the first two paragraphs it seems close enough. The study I was thinking of used a mirror in which it was found that one’s own reflection can increase honesty because being observed has a beneficial effect. If the observer where to “magically” be the “Ultimate Observer” the results should be consistent with the study findings.

FloridaMike wrote:Chris & Geck,

While I understand your comments....
Naming an effect does nothing to negate the effect or illustrate any understanding of the effect. We "named" gravity long before having any substantive understanding of it.

The need of which I speak is not a physical need. There are important psychological and behavioral “needs” which benefit from a little “magic”. You may be fortunate enough to not be cognizant of this need but the vast majority of humans on the planet cannot make such claim. There are behavioral studies that suggest that even you would benefit from a little “magic” in your life. I did a quick search for the study I had in mind and found this (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091247.htm ). After perusing the first two paragraphs it seems close enough. The study I was thinking of used a mirror in which it was found that one’s own reflection can increase honesty because being observed has a beneficial effect. If the observer where to “magically” be the “Ultimate Observer” the results should be consistent with the study findings.

Perhaps we simply have different ideas about what "magic" is. In the context of this discussion, I take it to mean something that a person attributes to some sort of supernatural phenomenon. Many people do that, and in some cases doing so provides apparent benefits. Your "big brother" example does not fall into that category. I have absolutely no problem hypothesizing perfectly reasonable reasons why that might work. The fact that I can't say for sure doesn't lead me to any conclusions that I would remotely call "magic". It's just a psychological trick or illusion that produces a certain behavior. Nothing particularly mysterious there.

Chris Peterson wrote: I take it to mean something that a person attributes to some sort of supernatural phenomenon. Many people do that, and in some cases doing so provides apparent benefits. ...<snip/>... I have absolutely no problem hypothesizing perfectly reasonable reasons why that might work. The fact that I can't say for sure doesn't lead me to any conclusions that I would remotely call "magic". It's just a psychological trick or illusion that produces a certain behavior. Nothing particularly mysterious there.

I agree, which is why I say "“magic” need not exist to be beneficial". The perception of the "magic" is the real magic in my opinion. … And now you have worked your “magic” to cause me to be a little more frank than I intended…

It seems clear that some people really do want to believe in magic. I once watched a TV show with illusionist and skeptic James Randi, in which he revealed that many people had been disappointed or even angry at him for exposing certain self-proclaimed "true" magicians as frauds.

There can be no doubt that there is a real demand for magic and miracles, and everyone is free to believe in such things. In some cases, believing in the supernatural may indeed be beneficial for the individual.

But this doesn't mean that APOD and Starship Asterisk* are in any way obliged to "serve up astronomy" as if it was magic rather than science.

Ann

FloridaMike wrote:I agree, which is why I say "“magic” need not exist to be beneficial". The perception of the "magic" is the real magic in my opinion. … And now you have worked your “magic” to cause me to be a little more frank than I intended…

Right, but what I'm saying is there need not even be any perception of magic. I can't think of anything I perceive that I could reasonably describe with that word, even as applied to nothing more than the perception.

I agree with you that a perception of magic can be beneficial. What I was disagreeing with is that such a perception is universally beneficial to humans.

Mike, this conversation reminds me of the movie Avatar. After that movie was released there were a few news stories floating around about people genuinely feeling depressed or even suicidal (that may be an exaggeration) after watching the movie because they wanted to live in the Avatar world and real life seemed so gloomy in comparison. As far as designed worlds go, I have to agree that it's a pretty darn neat place and quite magical in a sense. Stupid story, but I'd go hang out on Pandora anytime if it were real, haha.