Starship Asterisk*

neufer wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula#Physical_characteristics wrote:
<<Bipolar nebulae are concentrated in the galactic plane, likely produced by relatively young massive progenitor stars; and bipolars in the galactic bulge appear to prefer orienting their orbital axes parallel to the galactic plane. On the other hand, spherical nebulae are likely produced by the old stars similar to the Sun.

Planetaries whose progenitor stars were really no more massive than the Sun are probably intrinsically (very) faint and non-famous. But perhaps the extremely faint Soap Bubble Nebula, which is somewhat famous because it was only recently discovered due to being so faint, was really produced by a truly Sunlike star?

Constellation Guide compared the Ring Nebula with the planetary nebula that will be produced by the Sun:

The Sun will have a similar fate in about 5-6 billion years, but as it is less massive than the Ring Nebula’s progenitor star, once it becomes a white dwarf it will heat more slowly and the planetary nebula that will form once the Sun has ejected its outer layers will be much fainter because by the time the central white dwarf is hot enough to illuminate the nebula, the ejected material will be further away.

I still believe that most (at least relatively bright and obvious) planetaries in the sky have been produced by stars that were originally (considerably, or much) more massive than the Sun.

Ann

Is there any indication that the tube is rolling?

Earthandsky wrote:Is there any indication that the tube is rolling?

I don't think it's dynamically possible for a non-rigid tube to roll. The individual particles would need to be orbiting something... and there's nothing to orbit.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Earthandsky wrote:
Is there any indication that the tube is rolling?

I don't think it's dynamically possible for a non-rigid tube to roll. The individual particles would need to be orbiting something... and there's nothing to orbit.

It's been suggested that magnetic fields are (in part) responsible for the shape.

If so...then magnetic fields might also be responsible for some sort of rotation.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Earthandsky wrote: Is there any indication that the tube is rolling?

I don't think it's dynamically possible for a non-rigid tube to roll. The individual particles would need to be orbiting something... and there's nothing to orbit.

It's been suggested that magnetic fields are (in part) responsible for the shape.

If so...then magnetic fields might also be responsible for some sort of rotation.

I don't think so, unless we take "rotation" very broadly. A magnetic field could cause some of the particles that are moving radially outward to follow a somewhat curved path, but the uncharged particles would still move in a straight line, and the field strength would almost certainly be so low that the amount of curvature of charged particles would be small.

It makes sense that a magnetic field could shape nebulas like this. But that would mainly be the very strong magnetic field of the progenitor star at the very start of particle ejection.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Earthandsky wrote:Is there any indication that the tube is rolling?

I don't think it's dynamically possible for a non-rigid tube to roll. The individual particles would need to be orbiting something... and there's nothing to orbit.

Water is non rigid if you pour it, but it is if you do a belly flop into it. Measurements would decide the question.

earthandsky wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Earthandsky wrote:Is there any indication that the tube is rolling?

I don't think it's dynamically possible for a non-rigid tube to roll. The individual particles would need to be orbiting something... and there's nothing to orbit.

Water is non rigid if you pour it, but it is if you do a belly flop into it. Measurements would decide the question.

True. Fluids and solids can share many properties that gases do not, however. In fluids and solids, the particles are highly interacting. In gases they are not. So lets say it's not dynamically possible for a rarified gaseous tube to roll (outside of the special case of it being a plasma in a strong magnetic field- a case that doesn't appear to hold for planetary nebulas).

Chris Peterson wrote:True. Fluids and solids can share many properties that gases do not, however. [...]

Shouldn't that be liquids and solids?

Cousin Ricky wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:True. Fluids and solids can share many properties that gases do not, however. [...]

Shouldn't that be liquids and solids?

I used "fluids" deliberately, since gases, liquids, and solids are all capable of existing as fluids, and it is the fluid properties that allow something to act (at least to some degree) as a rigid, semi-rigid, or otherwise cohesive body, as opposed to a tenuous gas.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Cousin Ricky wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:True. Fluids and solids can share many properties that gases do not, however. [...]

Shouldn't that be liquids and solids?

I used "fluids" deliberately, since gases, liquids, and solids are all capable of existing as fluids, and it is the fluid properties that allow something to act (at least to some degree) as a rigid, semi-rigid, or otherwise cohesive body, as opposed to a tenuous gas.

You didn’t specify “tenuous” above, though.

Cousin Ricky wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Cousin Ricky wrote: Shouldn't that be liquids and solids?

I used "fluids" deliberately, since gases, liquids, and solids are all capable of existing as fluids, and it is the fluid properties that allow something to act (at least to some degree) as a rigid, semi-rigid, or otherwise cohesive body, as opposed to a tenuous gas.

You didn’t specify “tenuous” above, though.

True. It seemed obvious in the context, but if not... "tenuous".