APOD: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:28 pm

neufer wrote:<<Quantum mechanics was first applied to optics, and interference in particular, by Dirac. Feynman used Dirac’s notation to describe thought-experiments on double-slit interference of electrons. Feynman’s approach was extended to N-slit interferometers using narrow-linewidth laser illumination, that is, illumination by indistinguishable photons, by researchers working on the measurement of complex interference patterns... The [given] interferometric equation applies to the propagation of a single photon, or the propagation of an ensemble of indistinguishable photons, and enables the accurate prediction of measured N-slit interferometric patterns continuously from the near to the far field.>>
It's a thought experiment for good reason: in the real world photons are not indistinguishable in the QM sense, and are rarely indistinguishable in other senses. In practice, of course, interferometry doesn't depend in the slightest on any principle of indistinguishability.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by neufer » Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:09 pm

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100106.html wrote:
<<Betelgeuse is so distant it usually appears as a single point of light, even in large telescopes. Still, astronomers using interferometry at infrared wavelengths can resolve the surface of Betelgeuse and reconstructed this image of the red supergiant.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-slit_interferometric_equation wrote:
<<Quantum mechanics was first applied to optics, and interference in particular, by Dirac. Feynman used Dirac’s notation to describe thought-experiments on double-slit interference of electrons. Feynman’s approach was extended to N-slit interferometers using narrow-linewidth laser illumination, that is, illumination by indistinguishable photons, by researchers working on the measurement of complex interference patterns... The [given] interferometric equation applies to the propagation of a single photon, or the propagation of an ensemble of indistinguishable photons, and enables the accurate prediction of measured N-slit interferometric patterns continuously from the near to the far field.>>

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by neufer » Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:13 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:On what are you basing your assumption that we are observing Betelgeuse from a largely polar viewpoint?
There are a number of high resolution images of Betelgeuse that show what are usually interpreted as polar structures. The interpretations could be wrong, of course, but I've seen a number of references to the observed inclination being rather small. This is relevant also in terms of the likely damage a Betelgeuse supernova would cause: if its pole were pointed directly at us, the gamma ray burst could be devastating. Since it is apparently tipped slightly away, the star is considered to be no danger.
Since it is apparently tipped quite far away from its pole were pointed directly at us, Betelgeuse is of no danger.

It is hard to imagine a higher resolution image of Betelgeuse than that in the recent APOD.
The apparent dihedral symmetry is probably an artifact of the processing.

Slow rotators probably resemble our Sun, or perhaps Venus, with quasi north/south symmetry about the equator:

Image

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:53 pm

neufer wrote:On what are you basing your assumption that we are observing Betelgeuse from a largely polar viewpoint?
There are a number of high resolution images of Betelgeuse that show what are usually interpreted as polar structures. The interpretations could be wrong, of course, but I've seen a number of references to the observed inclination being rather small. This is relevant also in terms of the likely damage a Betelgeuse supernova would cause: if its pole were pointed directly at us, the gamma ray burst could be devastating. Since it is apparently tipped slightly away, the star is considered to be no danger.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by neufer » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:34 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:However, considering it's nearly spherical shape Betelgeuse rotates much more slowly than that.
Since we appear to be viewing Betelgeuse from a largely polar viewpoint, how do we know just how spherical it is? I don't think I've seen any measurement data for this, just theoretical analysis.
Well, once in 3 earth years is pretty slow already.

On what are you basing your assumption that we are observing Betelgeuse from a largely polar viewpoint?

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:39 pm

neufer wrote:However, considering it's nearly spherical shape Betelgeuse rotates much more slowly than that.
Since we appear to be viewing Betelgeuse from a largely polar viewpoint, how do we know just how spherical it is? I don't think I've seen any measurement data for this, just theoretical analysis.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by neufer » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:12 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:Convection cell size should be roughly on the same order of magnitude as the thickness of the photosphere.

"The Sun's photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules—cells of gas each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter with hot rising gas in the center and cooler gas falling in the narrow spaces between them."
I don't see why that should be true. There are different scales of convection in the Sun;
most is below the photosphere and has cells hugely larger than the minor convection associated with granularity.
Perhaps:
Image
Chris Peterson wrote:The photosphere of Betelgeuse may be very thick, but it is still- by definition- opaque over its entire depth. It should not be possible to see the core through it. Convection may be within the photosphere or it may be deeper, and causing thermal variation in the photosphere.
Thanks for clarifying.
Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:I think rather that the Betelgeuse bright zones have more to do differential rotation and magnetic fields
I was simply reporting the conclusions of the stellar dynamicists who study Betelgeuse. Their view is that the hot spots are convective. That seems perfectly reasonable, and I don't know enough about the subject to have any confidence in my own guesses over their reasoned opinion.

I do know it's probably perilous to try and compare the behavior of the Sun with a red giant; the two almost certainly exhibit very different behavior.
It's as reasonable a hypothesis as the convection model, IMO, and it has the advantage that
it is probably testable to some degree (using Zeeman splitting and watching for cyclicity).

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by neufer » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:58 pm

rigelan wrote:My other question now is: Doesn't betelgeuse spin? I wonder how they made sure that spinning didn't affect the image.
With an surface escape velocity of just 87 km/s Betelgeuse cannot rotate any faster than about once every 3 earth years.

However, considering it's nearly spherical shape Betelgeuse rotates much more slowly than that.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:50 pm

rigelan wrote:My other question now is: Doesn't betelgeuse spin? I wonder how they made sure that spinning didn't affect the image.
Spinning may have reduced the resolution somewhat. This is a bright object, though, and certainly didn't require a lot of exposure. Also, it's likely that we are nearly looking down on one of the poles (I believe the suspected inclination is about 20°), so the apparent motion of spots is a lot less than if we were seeing equatorial movement.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:41 pm

rigelan wrote:How high do you think our resolution of the data in this image is?
The paper describes the resolution. The interferometer itself was capable of about 9 mas, and the data processing used yielded about 11 mas. So you can use the scale bar on the image as a reasonable approximation of the true resolution.

Of course, actual resolution is unrelated to the number of pixels in the final image, which is highly oversampled.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by rigelan » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:41 pm

My other question now is: Doesn't betelgeuse spin? I wonder how they made sure that spinning didn't affect the image.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by rigelan » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:34 pm

In section 5.3 of their document http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.4167v2 they state that the limiting resolution they achieved is around 11 mas. T1, the northwestern of the two spots is around 11 mas wide. They state that they trust the size of this object. T2 on the other hand, the southeastern one, has a size of 10 mas or less, so they are not as confident about its actual size.

I guess this answers my question.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by rigelan » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:17 pm

To me it still seems like a grid of around 3X7 pixels from the interferometry. Then it looks like it was digitally smoothed.

So my question is this:
How high do you think our resolution of the data in this image is?

Reminds me of these images of Pluto. Not directly taken, but calculated. The brightness data of the surface was mapped onto a sphere.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960311.html

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:04 pm

neufer wrote:Convection cell size should be roughly on the same order of magnitude as the thickness of the photosphere.

"The Sun's photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules—cells of gas each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter with hot rising gas in the center and cooler gas falling in the narrow spaces between them."
I don't see why that should be true. There are different scales of convection in the Sun; most is below the photosphere and has cells hugely larger than the minor convection associated with granularity.

The photosphere of Betelgeuse may be very thick, but it is still- by definition- opaque over its entire depth. It should not be possible to see the core through it. Convection may be within the photosphere or it may be deeper, and causing thermal variation in the photosphere.
I think rather that the Betelgeuse bright zones have more to do differential rotation and magnetic fields
I was simply reporting the conclusions of the stellar dynamicists who study Betelgeuse. Their view is that the hot spots are convective. That seems perfectly reasonable, and I don't know enough about the subject to have any confidence in my own guesses over their reasoned opinion.

I do know it's probably perilous to try and compare the behavior of the Sun with a red giant; the two almost certainly exhibit very different behavior.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by neufer » Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:14 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:In spite of the very low density, the photosphere of Betelgeuse still has a high optical density- in essence, it becomes opaque over a relatively short distance compared with the star's radius. That is apparent in the presence limb darkening which is consistent with standard models. It isn't possible to see very deep into the star.

As far as what we see, one of the spots is unresolved (it is smaller than the 9 mas resolution of the instrument at 1.6 um), and the other is just barely resolved. As the paper notes, convective processes are by far the most likely explanation.
These two comments appear to contradict each other IMO.
Convection cell size should be roughly on the same order of magnitude as the thickness of the photosphere.

"The Sun's photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules—cells of gas each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter with hot rising gas in the center and cooler gas falling in the narrow spaces between them."

I think rather that the Betelgeuse bright zones have more to do differential rotation and magnetic fields:

Total solar irradiance increases during solar maximum because the brightness of large faculae exceeds any dimming due to dark sunspots.
I suspect that one is observing an equivalent irradiance brightening within a Betelgeuse magnetically active region between 5º and 30º latitude :

Image

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:17 am

stormculture wrote:If you look at my earlier posts on the density of Betelgeuse (or just calculate it yourself - see wikipedia for the mass and volume numbers), you see that Betelgeuse is (on average) less dense than even the air of the Earth, so it would not be strange for there to be a yellow/white dense central "core" surrounded by wisps of red plasma that orbit the core like the clouds of the Earth. I think that's something of what we're seeing here.
I don't think that's likely. In spite of the very low density, the photosphere of Betelgeuse still has a high optical density- in essence, it becomes opaque over a relatively short distance compared with the star's radius. That is apparent in the presence limb darkening which is consistent with standard models. It isn't possible to see very deep into the star.

As far as what we see, one of the spots is unresolved (it is smaller than the 9 mas resolution of the instrument at 1.6 um), and the other is just barely resolved. As the paper notes, convective processes are by far the most likely explanation.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by stormculture » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:52 am

Pixelation would be relatively easy to fix. Yes, if we were talking about a single picture, then astronomers would be limited to just the explicit pixels available in that picture with no ability to enhance it. However, if you record such a pixelated image over time, moving the pixel grid (ie, moving your camera/telescope) relative to your target object (in this case, Betelgeuse), you can consolidate all of those pixels into a single, relatively smooth image of your target. That is exactly what this kind of interferometry involves. So this picture of Betelgeuse isn't a "real" picture - it's the result of many hours of accumulated light data (a "video") that has then been churned over by hours more of cpu time to produce the best possible single image of the target.

While "interferometry" is a separate technology, you can see for yourself the way that a set of images over time can be used to resolve details in a subject that are otherwise not possible to see, or in other words, why this picture of Betelgeuse is not a pixelation distortion. Just drive past a common wooden fence that has a small gap between each wood plank (ie, a fence made of 1"x6"x 6' (foot) planks, with a gap between planks of, say, 1/8th of an inch. If you are standing still and trying to see through the fence you can see very little of the yard behind it. This is the same problem as "pixelation". But if you drive past the fence and focus on the objects behind it, you can clearly make out what is behind the fence - and the fence itself becomes a semi-transparent blur. The more light that can be passed through the plank gaps, the more virtually transparent the fence becomes. Some "mini-blinds" are opaque but with tiny holes that make them transparent via the same effect. You can even see this effect by looking through a pasta strainer.

If you look at my earlier posts on the density of Betelgeuse (or just calculate it yourself - see wikipedia for the mass and volume numbers), you see that Betelgeuse is (on average) less dense than even the air of the Earth, so it would not be strange for there to be a yellow/white dense central "core" surrounded by wisps of red plasma that orbit the core like the clouds of the Earth. I think that's something of what we're seeing here. Another thing to compare it to - the "surface" of Jupiter or Saturn (Saturn itself is less dense than water - it would float if you could drop it in a large enough lake).

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by neufer » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:23 am

pferkul wrote:So my question is: What force holds this very tenuous matter in place, since the gravity on the surface of Betelgeuse (6e-4 g's) is much lower than the gravity on the surface of our sun (28 g's)? Wouldn't the solar wind on Betelgeuse rapidly blow the "surface" away?
The escape velocity from the surface of the sun (618 km/s) corresponds to a temperature of about 50,000,000º K :!:
Hence, only the hottest coronal gases are able to escape as solar wind.

While Betelgeuse's gravity is very weak it is a force that remains relatively constant over hundreds of millions of miles.
Hence, the escape velocity from the surface of Betelgeuse is still a quite respectable 87 km/s
corresponding to a temperature of about 1,000,000º K.

While Betelgeuse certainly cannot maintain a 1,000,000º K corona,
it's photosphere is still way too cold to evaporate as solar wind.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by rigelan » Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:01 am

I'm willing to bet the visual patterns look like that just because that's how big the pixels are in our interferometry calculation. It looks to be 3 pixels wide and 7 pixels tall. The pixel grid is angled about 15 degrees from vertical. Probably because that's the direction the telescopes were tipped.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Phil G » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:28 am

"A milliarcsecond is a thousandth of an arcsecond."

Thanks, Chris.
I was going too much by sound and too little by brain.
But maybe, at 75, it's forgivable?
Peace and health,
Phil G

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:06 am

Phil G wrote:A milli-arc-second [one millionth of one arc-second, I assume] is an angular measurement.
A milliarcsecond is a thousandth of an arcsecond.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Phil G » Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:57 am

"I was also wondering about the signification of mas... Charon about the same as Betelgeuse?? I don't think so"

[My apologies for not knowing better how to handle quotes.]

A milli-arc-second [one millionth of one arc-second, I assume] is an angular measurement.
Think of looking through a surveyor's theodolite and measuring the angle from one point to another. The breadth of the object viewed then depends on it's distance from the viewer.
Pluro and Charon are distant from Earth in multiples of A.U. Betergeuse is about 600 light-years away, so its breadth is vastly larger.
Peace and health to all,
Phil G

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by stormculture » Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:18 pm

What holds Betelgeuse's thin outer layers "in orbit" is the same as how Earth's thin outer atmosphere stays in place despite solar wind - gravity. Yes, Betelgeuse is a star with a solar wind that is pushing against the outer layers - but that's why Betelgeuse is so large in diameter. Assuming it is at equilibrium, the "surface" of Betelgeuse is the point at which those thin wisps of hot plasma experience equal forces from gravity pulling them back to Betelgeuse's core and the solar (particle) wind, pushing them out.

That said, Betelgeuse could very well NOT be at equilibrium - it's at the end of it's life and would be experiencing the "bounces" that occur as a star runs out of the easier fuels (Hydrogen, then Helium, and so on) and has to start fusing larger atoms. Each time there is a shift to a larger atom, there is a "bounce" that causes a sudden increase in the pressure against the outer shell of material, but only after a period of contraction. This is why you see multiple, distinct "shells" in planetary nebulae from dying or dead stars.

The actual process, put more clearly, is this - lets say we're talking about our Sun, just for a concrete example:

- Sun starts running out of Hydrogen available to fuse
- total real-time fusion decreases, so the force pushing out on the outer layers (and total radiation) decreases
- Sun starts to collapse - ie its apparent radius diminishes much faster than the normal loss due to radiation/solar wind, and it's density increases
- density in the core increases, which increases the temperature
- at a particular point, the temperature and pressure become great enough to start fusing Helium into Beryllium. This suddenly increases the amount of fusion (and thereby also increases the "radiation" the core is producing.
- the outer shells that had been collapsing on the core are suddenly met with new expanding radiation and particles from the new type of fusion taking place, and so are "blown" back. This is violent - and gets more violent each time it happens - each time the star moves up to heavier fusion. The outer shell now starts expanding again and "bounces" out to an equilibrium point that is actually further away from the core than it had been. Some material is also completely ejected into space at very high speed - this is what we see in a planetary nebula.

This cycle repeats until all that's left in the star is Iron atoms, or the density becomes so great that atomic nuclei can no longer stand the gravitation pressure on them, and they, too, collapse - which is the process that creates neutron stars, black holes, and supernovas.

So the core of dying stars, by necessity, increases in density and temperature continually (until the star "dies" - becomes merely a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole), but the outer shell and the "apparent diameter" of the star increases with each "bounce", until death.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by pferkul » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:43 pm

As pointed out by Stormculture, the average density of Betelgeuse is 3e-8 g/cc. That means the density at the "surface" of Betelgeuse is much less, probably even far less than the density of our sun at it's surface (1e-9 g/cc).

So my question is: What force holds this very tenuous matter in place, since the gravity on the surface of Betelgeuse (6e-4 g's) is much lower than the gravity on the surface of our sun (28 g's)? Wouldn't the solar wind on Betelgeuse rapidly blow the "surface" away? And since the density of the surface of Betelgeuse is presumably far less than the density of our sun's surface, how can we "see" Betelgeuse's more tenuous and cooler surface?

Similar questions arise for blue giants and super giants, which presumably have far greater solar winds than Betelgeuse.

Re: The Spotty Surface of Betelgeuse (2010 Jan 06)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:32 pm

kovil wrote:As to the unevenness of the surface brightness of Betelgeuse, I believe it is 'an artifact', a result of the interferometer process that was used to produce the image...
There is good evidence that the image is showing real structure on Betelgeuse. Time series images show the patterns moving, as you'd expect with a rotating star. Also, the HST has sufficient resolution to resolve the surface of Betelgeuse, and these patterns are seen in single images that undergo conventional processing, no interferometric reconstructions involved. Finally, in addition to the spot structure there is clear evidence of limb darkening, which is difficult to explain in terms of reconstruction artifacts or interference effects.

Top