Starship Asterisk*

Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of Creation

Explanation: To celebrate 25 years (1990-2015) of exploring the Universe from low Earth orbit, the Hubble Space Telescope's cameras were used to revisit its most iconic image. The result is this sharper, wider view of the region dubbed the Pillars of Creation, first imaged by Hubble in 1995. Stars are forming deep inside the towering structures. The light-years long columns of cold gas and dust are some 6,500 light-years distant in M16, the Eagle Nebula, toward the constellation Serpens. Sculpted and eroded by the energetic ultraviolet light and powerful winds from M16's cluster of young, massive stars, the cosmic pillars themselves are destined for destruction. But the turbulent environment of star formation within M16, whose spectacular details are captured in this Hubble visible-light snapshot, is likely similar to the environment that formed our own Sun.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

http://spacetelescope.org/news/heic1501/
http://hubblesite.org/news/2015/01
http://heritage.stsci.edu/2015/01/
http://youtu.be/8lZ8ujdxULU

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=34285#p237446

what is the field of view of this image? even one pixel ?

ApodLover wrote:what is the field of view of this image? even one pixel ?

Looks like the field is about 3 arcminutes on a side (if it's not a mosaic, I'd assume 2.7 arcminutes, since that's the FOV of the WFC3. The camera has a resolution of about 0.04 arcsec/pixel, but this resampled release is around 0.1 arcsec/pixel.

Is it possible to see any movement over the 25 year interval (a mere instant indeed) at this scale? of the gasses themselves or perspective shift as we float by? my guess is not much. We'll simply have to take a photo every twenty five years for the next several million, and have a pretty amazing time-lapse!

Does any one else see a sad panda looking out of the center pillar?

HST is a National and Global treasure to be sure!!

blastoff wrote:Is it possible to see any movement over the 25 year interval (a mere instant indeed) at this scale? of the gasses themselves or perspective shift as we float by? my guess is not much. We'll simply have to take a photo every twenty five years for the next several million, and have a pretty amazing time-lapse!

Overall, no. But there are some streaming jets which are moving with sufficient speed to have captured their movement. It would probably take only a few thousands of years to create an animation rather than millions. One hypothesis is that the pillars will face a shock wave from a recent supernova which will obliterate them in just 1000 years.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/imag ... -print.jpg

geckzilla wrote:One hypothesis is that the pillars will face a shock wave from a recent supernova which will obliterate them in just 1000 years.

Interesting. Which recent super supernova is that? Is there a nearby supernova remnant that is about to swell into this field? Or is there a star here that's expected to blow up soon?

BDanielMayfield wrote:

geckzilla wrote:One hypothesis is that the pillars will face a shock wave from a recent supernova which will obliterate them in just 1000 years.

Interesting. Which recent super supernova is that? Is there a nearby supernova remnant that is about to swell into this field? Or is there a star here that's expected to blow up soon?

See:
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/news/249 ... -Explosion

Chris Peterson wrote:

ApodLover wrote:what is the field of view of this image? even one pixel ?

Looks like the field is about 3 arcminutes on a side (if it's not a mosaic, I'd assume 2.7 arcminutes, since that's the FOV of the WFC3. The camera has a resolution of about 0.04 arcsec/pixel, but this resampled release is around 0.1 arcsec/pixel.

Data posted at MAST! This includes a footprints image.
http://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/heritage/m16/

Nitpicker wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:

geckzilla wrote:One hypothesis is that the pillars will face a shock wave from a recent supernova which will obliterate them in just 1000 years.

Interesting. Which recent super supernova is that?

See:
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/news/249 ... -Explosion

Thanks

Great Photo...

But it made me wonder just how much material (gas & dust) is actually there. And how many stars would it be able to produce. I know that star sizes vastly vary, but was thinking in terms of our own sun (and solar system). And assuming that these structures remain undisturbed by passing shock waves from the local supernova, just how many potential sun sized objects and solar systems are in there just waiting or have already been created? Kind of to give it some scale for the kids...

I've often wondered as I look at APOD photos whether the apparent light and shadows are what my eyes tell me they are. (And the "Pillars of Creation" seem the most extreme example.) Are there really bright light sources where they appear to be, in this case, behind and above the subject structure? Do they really cast what look like shadows in the photo? Are there no bright light sources in front of or below the structure to cast light where there those shadows appear?

Iconic indeed...amazing as always...

:---[===] *

WickedLad wrote:I've often wondered as I look at APOD photos whether the apparent light and shadows are what my eyes tell me they are. (And the "Pillars of Creation" seem the most extreme example.) Are there really bright light sources where they appear to be, in this case, behind and above the subject structure? Do they really cast what look like shadows in the photo? Are there no bright light sources in front of or below the structure to cast light where there those shadows appear?

What you are actually seeing is a complex set of glowing gases. Instead of thinking of what you see as light and shadows coming from the nearby stars, think of the structures themselves glowing gently. There are shadows in a sense because the energy of the stars is what is causing the gas to be energized and emit light so places where the gas does not receive enough energy are not glowing or are glowing more dimly.

geckzilla wrote:

WickedLad wrote:I've often wondered as I look at APOD photos whether the apparent light and shadows are what my eyes tell me they are. (And the "Pillars of Creation" seem the most extreme example.) Are there really bright light sources where they appear to be, in this case, behind and above the subject structure? Do they really cast what look like shadows in the photo? Are there no bright light sources in front of or below the structure to cast light where there those shadows appear?

What you are actually seeing is a complex set of glowing gases. Instead of thinking of what you see as light and shadows coming from the nearby stars, think of the structures themselves glowing gently. There are shadows in a sense because the energy of the stars is what is causing the gas to be energized and emit light so places where the gas does not receive enough energy are not glowing or are glowing more dimly.

Very interesting! Thank you, Geck!

Great image - this (or rather, the original in '95) was the first image I ever downloaded/saved from the Internet to my hard drive!

geckzilla wrote:[What you are actually seeing is a complex set of glowing gases. Instead of thinking of what you see as light and shadows coming from the nearby stars, think of the structures themselves glowing gently. There are shadows in a sense because the energy of the stars is what is causing the gas to be energized and emit light so places where the gas does not receive enough energy are not glowing or are glowing more dimly.

I'd say that the dominant thing we are seeing is dust structures, not glowing gases. The dust structures are directly illuminated by stars, and are also seen against a background of ionized gas. The dust casts shadows. I think it's perfectly proper to say that we're seeing light and shadows from nearby stars, just that most of it is stimulated, not reflected or scattered.

Without all the glowing gas the dust would be nearly completely invisible. There are numerous examples of dark nebulas both being illuminated by a nearby star and not being illuminated and it looks much different from this. I don't see how any of these structures would be so well illuminated without a diffuse haze of glowing gas both surrounding them similarly to a fog and also the brighter glowing gas which is partially comprising the dust structures themselves.

geckzilla wrote:Without all the glowing gas the dust would be nearly completely invisible. There are numerous examples of dark nebulas both being illuminated by a nearby star and not being illuminated and it looks much different from this. I don't see how any of these structures would be so well illuminated without a diffuse haze of glowing gas both surrounding them similarly to a fog and also the brighter glowing gas which is partially comprising the dust structures themselves.

I'm certainly not sure, but it appears to me that the dust structures are primarily lit by direct starlight, not glowing gases. Certainly, they are made to stand out much more strongly by the glowing gas behind them.

Well, I may have emphasized the gas too much. You are right that some of it must be illuminated directly by starlight. In this narrowband image especially I think the glowing gas is dominating our perception of the pillars. But it is perhaps impossible to separate the two.

geckzilla wrote:Well, I may have emphasized the gas too much. You are right that some of it must be illuminated directly by starlight. In this narrowband image especially I think the glowing gas is dominating our perception of the pillars. But it is perhaps impossible to separate the two.

Also, this isn't strictly a narrowband image. We are also seeing a near IR continuum from 900-1700 nm. Stars aren't strong emitters there, but that range represents vastly more total energy than the three narrow visible bands collected in this image.

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:Well, I may have emphasized the gas too much. You are right that some of it must be illuminated directly by starlight. In this narrowband image especially I think the glowing gas is dominating our perception of the pillars. But it is perhaps impossible to separate the two.

Also, this isn't strictly a narrowband image. We are also seeing a near IR continuum from 900-1700 nm. Stars aren't strong emitters there, but that range represents vastly more total energy than the three narrow visible bands collected in this image.

The infrared data is not included in this image. Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm actually putting together a visible + IR image out of the freshly released FITS data right now!

Who's to say the pillars are not living creatures except people whose minds are dwarfed through lack of imagination, which, Einstein said, was more important than knowledge.

geckzilla wrote:The infrared data is not included in this image. Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm actually putting together a visible + IR image out of the freshly released FITS data right now!

Maybe not. When you follow the Fast Facts link for this image it suggests (strongly) otherwise. But I think that the little image at the bottom describes what they're actually trying to say. Badly. Very, very badly.