APOD: M16: Pillars of Creation (2010 Mar 28)

[APOD Robot]

M16: Pillars of Creation

Explanation: It has become one of the most famous images of modern times. This image, taken with the Hubble Space Telescope in 1995, shows evaporating gaseous globules (EGGs) emerging from pillars of molecular hydrogen gas and dust. The giant pillars are light years in length and are so dense that interior gas contracts gravitationally to form stars. At each pillars' end, the intense radiation of bright young stars causes low density material to boil away, leaving stellar nurseries of dense EGGs exposed. The Eagle Nebula, associated with the open star cluster M16, lies about 7000 light years away. The pillars of creation were again imaged by the orbiting Chandra X-ray Observatory, and it was found that most EGGS are not strong emitters of X-rays.

<< Previous APOD

Discuss Any APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

[orin stepanek]

Kind of brings back memories!
http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... f=9&t=8616

[Evenstar]

It is a beautiful picture but I've often wondered with its popularity why the blank areas in the upper right have not been filled in? Now that Hubble is fixed up better then ever maybe it should revisit this?

[Aninnymouse]

Eggs? Someone needs to check that link to Wikipedia.

[neufer]

It is a beautiful picture but I've often wondered with its popularity why the blank areas in the upper right have not been filled in? Now that Hubble is fixed up better then ever maybe it should revisit this?

Those regions contain evidence of extraterrestrials and are being purposefully blocked out by the government.

[Case]

Why have the blank areas in the upper right not been filled in?

Here's an explanation by the Hubble team.

[wonderboy]

Thanks case, I've often wondered about the funny cropped images from hubble and whats so interesting behind the blocked out blocks. now I know its just more of the same.

[wonderboy]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search



Only thing is though, I searched Wide Field Hubble on the Apod archive and all of these images came up. Why arent they cropped? hmmmmm I may smell a rat, then again it might just be my feet from visiting wales in my good trainers.

[Amir]

they old camera was WFPC2, but the new one is WFC3, so there's no narrow field planetary camera. does that mean that we wont see blank areas again?
awesome!

[wonderboy]

Hey Amir, I promised bystander I wouldnt post the joke again, and my names paul, nice to meet ya!

[Amir]

paul, you could have answer me via personal message no need to shout in here!
i asked for it via pm, the difference is like "sending something to my mailbox" and "shouting it in the street!!"
(by the way, nice to meet you too )

[ta152h0]

Must be a very dangerous place to live in, with rosks whizzing by you at incredible relative velocities. No place to have an ice cold one and enjoy the parade

[Guest]

Why have the blank areas in the upper right not been filled in?

Here's an explanation by the Hubble team.

Interesting technical explanation. Thank you. But why not stitch together from another image centered 'northeast' or in 'grid sector I's' upper right corner? You'd then have a 'normal' picture to frame down here on Earth. And it doesn't matter if the missing region lacks pillar structure--maybe there are background stars, a distant galaxy, or nothing of interest. Even nothing is interesting out there.

[biddie67]

Why have the blank areas in the upper right not been filled in?

Here's an explanation by the Hubble team.

Case: thanks for the link to the Hubble explanantion - I had also been wondering why so many pictures from the Hubble looked this way ...

[tesla]

"The clouds are so dense that they contract gravitationally to form stars." Whoever writes these descriptions writes as though it is fact. No so, only a theory. Most astronomers still haven't figured out how our own sun work, (some silly theory about nuclear fusion), so how can they just assume? I suppose it is so they do not loose their grants!

[Chris Peterson]

"The clouds are so dense that they contract gravitationally to form stars." Whoever writes these descriptions writes as though it is fact. No so, only a theory.

This is about as close to a fact as something can get. Calling it such in a forum like this is perfectly reasonable.

Most astronomers still haven't figured out how our own sun work.

The physics of the Sun in terms of fusion processes is quite well understood. People are still working on understanding all its magnetic properties, though.

[J2580456]

The pillars are not really there ... truly not there. Not too much more than a year or so ago we discovered a more-or-less-spherical shock wave from a supernova in the region. It appears that the massively powerful shock wave will reach the pillars of creation in about 1,000 yrs ... but that's only how it appears. We are about 7,000 light years from this formation. The pillars were blew away by the shock wave about 6,000 years ago ... and we won't "see" the event for 6,000 years.

[dougettinger]

"The clouds are so dense that they contract gravitationally to form stars." Whoever writes these descriptions writes as though it is fact. No so, only a theory.

This is about as close to a fact as something can get. Calling it such in a forum like this is perfectly reasonable.

Most astronomers still haven't figured out how our own sun work.

The physics of the Sun in terms of fusion processes is quite well understood. People are still working on understanding all its magnetic properties, though.

How do scientists know that these pillars are not the result of gas and dust blowing pass existing stars by a supernova shock wave? The existing stars attract the dust and gas within about 100 AU's and grow in size. The remaining dust and gases blow by creating the pillar.

[Chris Peterson]

How do scientists know that these pillars are not the result of gas and dust blowing pass existing stars by a supernova shock wave? The existing stars attract the dust and gas within about 100 AU's and grow in size. The remaining dust and gases blow by creating the pillar.

Why would stars attract dust? If you had a dust cloud blowing by, you'd expect material to assume orbits, which is definitely not what is seen. The temperature/color characteristics of the stars are consistent with newly formed stars. The complete nebula is very large and complex, with the mass of thousands or millions of stars. It is almost certain that internal supernovas have created structure, and such shockwaves are responsible for creating regions of local high density, where star forming processes can begin.

[wonderboy]

Absolutely stunning picture. What is causing the brightness in the top left pillar though?

[dougettinger]

How do scientists know that these pillars are not the result of gas and dust blowing pass existing stars by a supernova shock wave? The existing stars attract the dust and gas within about 100 AU's and grow in size. The remaining dust and gases blow by creating the pillar.

Why would stars attract dust? If you had a dust cloud blowing by, you'd expect material to assume orbits, which is definitely not what is seen. The temperature/color characteristics of the stars are consistent with newly formed stars. The complete nebula is very large and complex, with the mass of thousands or millions of stars. It is almost certain that internal supernovas have created structure, and such shockwaves are responsible for creating regions of local high density, where star forming processes can begin.

Yes, the complete nebula is very large and complex. Presently, my interest is about the tips of these very distinct pillars of opaque gas and dust within M16. So it is affirmative; the tip of each pillar represents a new star that is forming. Then why is not this star forming by the nebula theory that assumes material falling toward a gravity source by orbiting inwards toward the protostar? I am a bit confused. Perhaps a new mechanism other than the nebula hypothesis is envisioned.

[Chris Peterson]

Presently, my interest is about the tips of these very distinct pillars of opaque gas and dust within M16. So it is affirmative; the tip of each pillar represents a new star that is forming.

If by "pillar" you are referring to the three major structures visible in the APOD image, then no, it isn't true that a star is forming at the tip of each. Each of these structures is hosting hundreds of new stars in the process of formation. We see many of these at the surface of the pillars, at the tips of their own little spicules of gas and dust. These are isolated from the bulk of the molecular cloud as they and other stars erode away nearby material.

Then why is not this star forming by the nebula theory that assumes material falling toward a gravity source by orbiting inwards toward the protostar?

Presumably, that is precisely how these stars are being formed. Why do you think not?

[dougettinger]

Presently, my interest is about the tips of these very distinct pillars of opaque gas and dust within M16. So it is affirmative; the tip of each pillar represents a new star that is forming.

If by "pillar" you are referring to the three major structures visible in the APOD image, then no, it isn't true that a star is forming at the tip of each. Each of these structures is hosting hundreds of new stars in the process of formation. We see many of these at the surface of the pillars, at the tips of their own little spicules of gas and dust. These are isolated from the bulk of the molecular cloud as they and other stars erode away nearby material.

Then what indeed does create the pillars as seen in these amazing photos?

Then why is not this star forming by the nebula theory that assumes material falling toward a gravity source by orbiting inwards toward the protostar?

Presumably, that is precisely how these stars are being formed. Why do you think not?

Chris, I am quoting you on a posting of March 17: "Why would stars attract dust. If you had a dust cloud blowing by you'd expect material to assume orbits which is definitely not what is seen." This led to my above statement. The nebula hypothesis requires material to orbit inward in a gravitational collapse scenario. Are we communicating about the same thing?

[Chris Peterson]

Chris, I am quoting you on a posting of March 17: "Why would stars attract dust. If you had a dust cloud blowing by you'd expect material to assume orbits which is definitely not what is seen." This led to my above statement. The nebula hypothesis requires material to orbit inward in a gravitational collapse scenario. Are we communicating about the same thing?

Agreed... the key idea being "orbit". A denser area of nebula will certainly provide a gravitational attraction to material around it, but that material won't fall directly inwards or have any sort of momentum that can form pillars. And the actual zone of significant attraction will be quite small.

The large pillars are presumably caused by density fluctuations from supernova shock waves. The tiny little spicules are a combination of the motion of protostar systems the clearing action of winds from those stars. There's no reason to think that each of these protostars isn't surrounded by an accretion disc of the sort predicted by the nebular theory. But the resolution of the image isn't high enough to show them, and the stars forming in these very dusty regions are largely hidden. Nebular accretion discs around more isolated stars have been directly imaged.

[dougettinger]

Are these supernova shock waves that you refer to only one wave from single blast? or several intersecting shock waves? or shock waves from repeated blasts by the same supernova? I cannot visualize how one supernova shock wave or one supernova creates this scene.