APOD: Simeis 147: Supernova Remnant (2017 May 18)

[APOD Robot]

[img]https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/calendar/S_170518.jpg[/img] Simeis 147: Supernova Remnant

Explanation: It's easy to get lost following intricate filaments in this detailed image of faint supernova remnant Simeis 147. Also cataloged as Sharpless 2-240 it goes by the popular nickname, the Spaghetti Nebula. Seen toward the boundary of the constellations Taurus and Auriga, it covers nearly 3 degrees or 6 full moons on the sky. That's about 150 light-years at the stellar debris cloud's estimated distance of 3,000 light-years. This composite includes image data taken through narrow-band filters, enhancing the reddish emission from ionized hydrogen atoms to trace the shocked, glowing gas. The supernova remnant has an estimated age of about 40,000 years, meaning light from the massive stellar explosion first reached Earth 40,000 years ago. But the expanding remnant is not the only aftermath. The cosmic catastrophe also left behind a spinning neutron star or pulsar, all that remains of the original star's core.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

[ta152h0]

should be called " the Brain Nebula "

[Guest]

A small correction, if I may. If the supernova remanant is 40,000 years old, and it is 3000 light years distant, then it light first reached Earth 37,000 years ago, not 40,000.

[Boomer12k]

"I am the brain from beyond space... you shall all bow down.... and eat SPAGHETTI!!!!!! Muuuahhhahahahahahahaha....."

From "The Brain from Beyond Space".... um... 1952, I think....

Very nice image.
:---[===] *

[starsurfer]

Very nice and made even better when rotated north up!

[Chris Peterson]

A small correction, if I may. If the supernova remanant is 40,000 years old, and it is 3000 light years distant, then it light first reached Earth 37,000 years ago, not 40,000.

It doesn't matter how far away it is. Astronomical events are dated based on observation. If the remnant is determined to be 40,000 years old, that means the supernova would have been observed here that long ago.

[heehaw]

Wow! You keep coming up with wonderful images I've never seen! Great! Thanks so much!

[buckiTom]

My first impression was the structure of the hydrogen bomb test that had a similar appearance. After reading the text, hydrogen did provide the framework outline.

[sgibson13]

Greetings! First time post, loooong time apod enthusiast.

This morning I followed the last link in the post to review the paper about the pulsar/neutron star : "The Origin and Motion of PSR J0538+2817 in S147". As a layperson (just a lowly architect) I sometimes enjoy reviewing the technical discussion and graphs to see how conclusions are reached. I did notice a discrepancy. I was trying to see if I could find a location (or visible artifact) for the pulsar-thing in the apod image and I noticed that one of the images is mirrored (top to bottom). If you look at the structure of the lobes on the apod image as compared to the image on page 3 of the article (PDF), you can see that one of the images is flipped vertically . . .
a minor point (which most folk will never see), but I know you folks aim for accuracy.

Respectfully, from Philadelphia

[Loren Acton]

Surely not ionized hydrogen as protons have no optical emission. I suppose you mean the H-alpha line of neutral hydrogen.

[Chris Peterson]

Surely not ionized hydrogen as protons have no optical emission. I suppose you mean the H-alpha line of neutral hydrogen.

The red shows HII regions- areas of singly ionized hydrogen. When one of those atoms captures a free electron the most common transition is the one that produces the H-alpha emission line. Thus, H-alpha is a marker for ionized hydrogen.

[Fred the Cat]

Seems like most things cosmological have a component spin – like the neutron star. Say there is an ether (at dimensions we can’t detect) and it had its own intrinsic spin. Personally I wonder how it’s influence would appear as a quantum effect at the Planck size?

If I only knew how the solve the Schrödinger equation. The odd thing is that there are people who contemplate things like this.

Good thing I know my location because my momentum has me spinning .

[Misha]

A small correction, if I may. If the supernova remanant is 40,000 years old, and it is 3000 light years distant, then it light first reached Earth 37,000 years ago, not 40,000.

It doesn't matter how far away it is. Astronomical events are dated based on observation. If the remnant is determined to be 40,000 years old, that means the supernova would have been observed here that long ago.

Impossible. If it's 3,000 LY away and the supernova blew 40,000 years ago, we wouldn't see it until 3,000 years after it happened.


“This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.” — Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague

[neufer]

A small correction, if I may. If the supernova remnant is 40,000 years old, and it is 3000 light years distant, then it light first reached Earth 37,000 years ago, not 40,000.

It doesn't matter how far away it is. Astronomical events are dated based on observation. If the remnant is determined to be 40,000 years old, that means the supernova would have been observed here that long ago.

Impossible. If it's 3,000 LY away and the supernova blew 40,000 years ago, we wouldn't see it until 3,000 years after it happened.

This is the standard convention for such events (...just as it is standard convention to talk about distant quasars, galaxies, LIGO detected black hole mergers and cosmic background radiation as being old in accordance with the time travel involved).

“This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.” — Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague

Right or wrong, this is standard accepted terminology.

[DL MARTIN]

if one doesn't allow for the time light travels, then one is denying context. Astronomy then becomes a very expensive hobby that should be self-pay.

[Chris Peterson]

if one doesn't allow for the time light travels, then one is denying context. Astronomy then becomes a very expensive hobby that should be self-pay.

Light travel time is allowed for when things are observed across cosmological distances, and the way we see them is relevant to the evolution of the Universe. It has no value at all for local events. What we need to know is how old the object is as we see it, which doesn't depend on the light travel time at all. We are observing a remnant that has been evolving for 40,000 years.

[rstevenson]

A small correction, if I may. If the supernova remanant is 40,000 years old, and it is 3000 light years distant, then it light first reached Earth 37,000 years ago, not 40,000.

It doesn't matter how far away it is. Astronomical events are dated based on observation. If the remnant is determined to be 40,000 years old, that means the supernova would have been observed here that long ago.

Impossible. If it's 3,000 LY away and the supernova blew 40,000 years ago, we wouldn't see it until 3,000 years after it happened.

To add either clarification or confusion... 43,000 years ago a star -- which happened to be about 3,000 ly distant -- exploded. Since then the remnants have been expanding, and the image in today's APOD is a photo of that supernova remnant as we see it now. The explosion wasn't seen on Earth until 3,000 years after it happened, which is when we start to count its age. So the remnant is 40,000 years old from our local perspective. Of course, it's really 43,000 years old, but we can't see the last 3,000 years of its expansion, because the light from that part hasn't arrived here yet, so that fact is irrelevant to us. For us, it's 40,000 years old and that is the convention we use when talking about it.

Rob

[Nitpicker]

Both the distance to the object and the year it was first visible from Earth, are mere estimations. They are not precise numbers. So, it makes sense to refer to the age of such objects with respect to our own time frame.

[Chris Peterson]

Both the distance to the object and the year it was first visible from Earth, are mere estimations. They are not precise numbers. So, it makes sense to refer to the age of such objects with respect to our own time frame.

Of course, sometimes the year things were first visible is known with precision. But the distance almost never is.

[Nitpicker]

Indeed, and the time interval between when it first became visible on Earth and the present time, is typically the most useful description of its age, regardless of its distance.

[neufer]

Indeed, and the time interval between when it first became visible on Earth and the present time,
is typically the most useful description of its age, regardless of its distance.

• Through the Looking Glass : Chapter 8: “It’s my own Invention”

‘You are sad,’ the Knight said in an anxious tone: ‘let me sing you a song to comfort you.’

‘Is it very long?’ Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.

‘It’s long,’ said the Knight, ‘but very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it — either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else — ’

‘Or else what?’ said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.

‘Or else it doesn’t, you know. The name of the song is called “Haddocks’ Eyes.”’

‘Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?’ Alice said, trying to feel interested.

‘No, you don’t understand,’ the Knight said, looking a little vexed. ‘That’s what the name is called. The name really is “The Aged Aged Man.”’

‘Then I ought to have said “That’s what the song is called”?’ Alice corrected herself.

‘No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called “Ways and Means”: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!’

‘Well, what is the song, then?’ said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

‘I was coming to that,’ the Knight said. ‘The song really is “A-sitting On A Gate”: and the tune’s my own invention.’