APOD: Evaporating Blobs of the Carina Nebula (2012 Apr 23)

[Anthony Barreiro]

I didn't notice that little blue-green ring to the left of the central bright star until Flase asked about it, Judy and Chris started talking about the pros and cons of aesthetic image processing, and Ann shared her typically erudite inference that you'd be about as likely to find a planetary nebula within the Carina Nebula as a snowball in hell. In addition to the lovely images, apod's captions, links, and discussion help me to see more carefully and understand more deeply. Thanks all.

[Sam]

For me, clicking on the link for "evaporating" caused a loud "What are you doing Sam?" to be blared across an otherwise silent computer lab.

[Chris Peterson]

Isn't it interesting how "objective" astronomers and scientists will project their own fundamental worldviews to how they describe space phenomena? In the above picture, dust and gas (fertile cosmic soil) becomes refined due to natural processes to ignite a star, which then continues its evolution. But the astronomer implies, darkly (without realizing it), that the dust bodies are living beings being killed by the stars they create.

This is how it is in most of astronomy ... from galaxies cannibalizing one another (instead of beautifully merging), black holes consuming voraciously (black despite they are the brightest phenomenon in the universe, and destructive despite that they unify the whole galaxy together), to supernova being stars 'death-throws', instead of just another evolutionary phase ... evolution which creates all life ...

Such astronomers project the idea that death, destruction, and competition are the fundamental principles underlying all of Nature ... ignoring the harmony, cooperation, and inter-dependence that support universal evolution ...

Astronomers are human, too! And these kinds of expressions have a power in written language that makes them good choices in forums like this. Of course, these concepts aren't found in the underlying science. Scientists certainly introduce an element of the subjective into their research, as well. But what distinguishes science from other approaches to knowledge, and shows its tremendous power, is how little of that subjectivity makes it through into the actual knowledge base that is produced.

[Beyond]

Geckzilla, I hope you've got a few of those smilies on hand. You may be wearing them out pretty Fast!!

[orin stepanek]

Geckzilla, I hope you've got a few of those smilies on hand. You may be wearing them out pretty Fast!!

Ouch geckzilla; I hope your not hitting your real head against a wall! That might hurt!

[Boomer12k]

The APOD picture, "Carina Nebula Panorama from Hubble", dated 2009 May 24. Has the entire span of the Great Nebula in Carina as 300 light years....not 30 light years....


Nice close up picture....

:---[===] *

[Anthony Barreiro]

Isn't it interesting how "objective" astronomers and scientists will project their own fundamental worldviews to how they describe space phenomena? In the above picture, dust and gas (fertile cosmic soil) becomes refined due to natural processes to ignite a star, which then continues its evolution. But the astronomer implies, darkly (without realizing it), that the dust bodies are living beings being killed by the stars they create.

This is how it is in most of astronomy ... from galaxies cannibalizing one another (instead of beautifully merging), black holes consuming voraciously (black despite they are the brightest phenomenon in the universe, and destructive despite that they unify the whole galaxy together), to supernova being stars 'death-throws', instead of just another evolutionary phase ... evolution which creates all life ...

Such astronomers project the idea that death, destruction, and competition are the fundamental principles underlying all of Nature ... ignoring the harmony, cooperation, and inter-dependence that support universal evolution ...

Astronomers are human, too! And these kinds of expressions have a power in written language that makes them good choices in forums like this. Of course, these concepts aren't found in the underlying science. Scientists certainly introduce an element of the subjective into their research, as well. But what distinguishes science from other approaches to knowledge, and shows its tremendous power, is how little of that subjectivity makes it through into the actual knowledge base that is produced.

My two cents:

Scientists generally aspire to freedom from subjective values, and the scientific method provides means of assessing and critiquing the subjectivity of findings and interpretations. But science is an inherently human enterprise, and scientists are just as subjective and just as driven by personal values as anybody else. To the extent that our subjective values are simply taken for granted (assumed, unquestioned, and unconscious, "just the way it is") they will exert an even greater influence on how we interpret the world, what we consider important, what we choose to investigate vs. what we ignore, etc. than values that we consciously critically examine. The ideological belief that science is value-free is a dangerous fallacy.

And it's not just individual scientists who are value-driven. Starting with what kinds of research will get you a Ph.D. and continuing through every grant application and contract with government, business, or a non-profit organization, the kind of science that gets funded, supported, and publicized is a social process driven by (often competing) social values.

I believe it's important for scientists to be clear with themselves and others about their values, and to do work that is truly aligned with personal and social values that aren't embarrassing to say out loud. Given all the dire human and ecological problems in the world today, do you really want to devote your professional career to developing a crunchier potato chip?

Please forgive me if this is off topic, but these are issues that I think about a lot.

[owlice]

For me, clicking on the link for "evaporating" caused a loud "What are you doing Sam?" to be blared across an otherwise silent computer lab.

Made me laugh!!

[Harry FiveEagles]

Those gas wisps remind me of blood clots. Just say'n.

[Chris Peterson]

Scientists generally aspire to freedom from subjective values, and the scientific method provides means of assessing and critiquing the subjectivity of findings and interpretations. But science is an inherently human enterprise, and scientists are just as subjective and just as driven by personal values as anybody else.

It it wasn't clear, that was exactly my point. Individual scientists are inevitably influenced by subjective choices; science as a method, however, is very effective at removing these biases, so that our knowledge base is much more objective.

[Mactavish]

Isn't it interesting how "objective" astronomers and scientists will project their own fundamental worldviews to how they describe space phenomena? ...

Well, anyway… I do understand “blob”.

[Anthony Barreiro]

Scientists generally aspire to freedom from subjective values, and the scientific method provides means of assessing and critiquing the subjectivity of findings and interpretations. But science is an inherently human enterprise, and scientists are just as subjective and just as driven by personal values as anybody else.

It it wasn't clear, that was exactly my point. Individual scientists are inevitably influenced by subjective choices; science as a method, however, is very effective at removing these biases, so that our knowledge base is much more objective.

At the risk of earning the "beating a dead horse" icon, I disagree that the scientific method is completely effective at removing biases. The biggest problem arises from all the research that is never conducted, because nobody can make a living doing it. Anything that would undermine corporate profits has about as much chance of getting funded as a planetary nebula has of forming and surviving in the Carina nebula.

[Chris Peterson]

At the risk of earning the "beating a dead horse" icon, I disagree that the scientific method is completely effective at removing biases.

We're not in disagreement at all. I didn't say that the scientific method was completely effective at removing biases, only that it was very effective. In any case, I'm not sure I'd blame the scientific method for research that isn't conducted. Science is an approach to answering questions that get asked; it isn't necessarily the thing that decides what all those questions are. It is an approach to explaining observations, but can't make the observations in the first place. There are many factors that decide how knowledge will advance. I just think that once the microscope of science is actually applied to a problem, questions will be answered, and our understanding of the Universe will advance.

[geckzilla]

Re: The mirror ghosts

Hi Judy - Oli Usher (ESA/Hubble) here - generally we do remove ghosts. We didn't do so in this case, but there's no particular reason. Sorry that's not a very satisfying answer!

So they are normally removed, just not this one and for no reason. It's just a poor, neglected little ring.

[poppafiji]

Since the "evaporating blobs" are actually dust particles and not liquid, shouldn't they be called "sublimating blobs" instead?

[Chris Peterson]

Since the "evaporating blobs" are actually dust particles and not liquid, shouldn't they be called "sublimating blobs" instead?

Evaporation is a better term. Sublimation almost always refers to a phase change between solid and gas states (which is not happening here). Evaporation is much more general, and is not restricted to a phase change from liquid to gas, but includes dissipation in the form of particles.

[neufer]

Since the "evaporating blobs" are actually dust particles and not liquid, shouldn't they be called "sublimating blobs" instead?

Evaporation is a better term. Sublimation almost always refers to a phase change between solid and gas states (which is not happening here). Evaporation is much more general, and is not restricted to a phase change from liquid to gas, but includes dissipation in the form of particles.

[img3="Sublime: "up to the lintel""]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... dieval.png[/img3]

Sublime, v. t. [L. sublimis; sub under + (perhaps) a word akin to limen lintel, sill, thus meaning, up to the lintel: cf. F. sublime. Cf. Eliminate.]

1. To raise on high. [Archaic]

A soul sublimed by an idea above the region of vanity and conceit. E. P. Whipple.

2. (Chem.) To subject to the process of sublimation; to heat, volatilize, and condense in crystals or powder; to distill off, and condense in solid form; hence, also, to purify.

3. To exalt; to heighten; to improve; to purify.

The sun . . . Which not alone the southern wit sublimes, But ripens spirits in cold, northern climes. Pope.

4. To dignify; to ennoble.

An ordinary gift can not sublime a person to a supernatural employment. Jer. Taylor.

[PoppaFiji]

Thanks, Chris, for your response, which implies there is no phase change occurring here, only the dissipation of particles (from dense clouds into space?). Is that correct?

[Chris Peterson]

Thanks, Chris, for your response, which implies there is no phase change occurring here, only the dissipation of particles (from dense clouds into space?). Is that correct?

Well, there's a lot of energy in an area like that, so undoubtedly there is some material undergoing phase changes there. But the structures we see are simply the result of gas and dust dissipating, both by diffusion and under the forces of stellar winds.

[neufer]

Thanks, Chris, for your response, which implies there is no phase change occurring here, only the dissipation of particles (from dense clouds into space?). Is that correct?

Well, there's a lot of energy in an area like that, so undoubtedly there is some material undergoing phase changes there. But the structures we see are simply the result of gas and dust dissipating, both by diffusion and under the forces of stellar winds.

[Poppafiji]

Thanks, again, Chris. When I think of this gas and dust dissipating into the space of the host galaxy, and when one considers all of the nebulae and other regions within the galaxy where this is occurring, one can easily conclude that there is quite a substantial amount of mass that has been dissipated into the space of the host galaxy. My understanding is that the concept of dark matter was introduced to account for the extra mass needed to reconcile the angular rotational behavior of spiral galaxies. Do you know whether the mass of the dissipated gas and dust was considered when the requirement for dark matter was proposed?

[Chris Peterson]

Thanks, again, Chris. When I think of this gas and dust dissipating into the space of the host galaxy, and when one considers all of the nebulae and other regions within the galaxy where this is occurring, one can easily conclude that there is quite a substantial amount of mass that has been dissipated into the space of the host galaxy. My understanding is that the concept of dark matter was introduced to account for the extra mass needed to reconcile the angular rotational behavior of spiral galaxies. Do you know whether the mass of the dissipated gas and dust was considered when the requirement for dark matter was proposed?

Very little of the mass of a galaxy is in the form of gas and dust, so it is nowhere near sufficient to explain the missing mass. In addition, if the mass needed to explain galactic rotation curves were ordinary matter, it would lie in a disc like the stars do, but the dynamics of galaxy rotation are best explained by mass in a spherical halo- something that wouldn't happen with ordinary matter.

Of course, galaxy rotation curves are just one thing (the first) that pointed to unseen mass. There are many other observations now which also suggest dark matter is present, and which don't involve galaxy rotation at all.

[Poppafiji]

Thanks for your responses, Chris. I enjoyed your comments, which were very helpful.

[jessy27]

APOD Robot,
I'm not sure what there made of but the picture makes a great background for my desktop, thanks