Cyanoacetylene in IC 342

May 16, 2011 By Jon Voisey, Universe Today
IC 342 - Ken and Emilie Siarkiewicz/Adam Block/NOAO/AURA/NSF

Star formation is an incredible process, but also notoriously difficult to trace. The reason is that the main constituent of stars, hydrogen, looks about the same well before a gravitational collapse begins, as it does in the dense clouds where star formation happens. Sure, the temperature changes and the hydrogen glows in a different part of the spectrum, but it’s still hydrogen. It’s everywhere!

So when astronomers want to search for denser regions of gas, they often turn to other atoms and that can only form or be stimulated to emit under these relatively dense conditions. Common examples of this include carbon monoxide and cyanide. However, a study published in 2005, led by David Meier at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, studied inner regions of the nearby face-on spiral by tracing eight molecules and determined that the full extent of the dense regions is not well mapped by these two common molecules. In particular, cyanoacetylene, an organic molecule with a chemical formula of HC3N, was demonstrated to correlate with the most active star forming regions, promising astronomers a peek into the heart of star forming regions and prompting a follow-up study.

The new study was conducted from the Very Large Array in late 2005. Specifically, it studied the emissions due to 5-4, 10-9, and 16-15 transitions which each correspond to different levels of heating and excitation. The dense regions uncovered by this study were consistent with the ones reported in 2005. One, discovered by the previous survey from another tracer molecule, was not found by this most recent study, but the new study also discovered a previously unnoticed giant molecular cloud (GMC) through the presence of HC3N.

Another technique that can be applied is examining the ratios of various levels of excitation. From this, astronomers can determine the temperature and density necessary to produce such emission. This can be performed with any type of gas, but using additional species of molecules provides independent checks on this value. For the area with the strongest emission, the team reported that the gas appeared to be a cool 40 K (-387°F) with a density of 1-10 thousand molecules per cubic centimeter. This is relatively dense for the interstellar medium, but for comparison, the air we breathe has approximately 1025 molecules per cubic centimeter. These findings are consistent with those reported from carbon monoxide.

The team also examined several of the star forming cores independently. By comparing the varying strengths of tracer molecules, the team was able to report that one GMC was well progressed in making stars while another was less evolved, likely still containing hot cores which had not yet ignited fusion. In the former, the HC3N is weaker than in the other cores explored, which the team attributes to the destruction of the molecules or dispersal of the cloud as fusion begins in the newly formed stars.

While using HC3N as a tracer is a relatively new approach (these studies of IC 342 are the first conduced in another galaxy), the results of this study have demonstrated that it can trace various features in dense clouds in similar fashions to other molecules.

Explore further: Gravitational waves according to Planck

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Studying a Star Before it is Born

Dec 04, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The first phase of a star's formation are thought to begin deep inside a natal cloud of gas and dust. In the earliest stages, material coalesces under the influence of gravity into so-called ...

An X-Ray Santa Claus in Orion

Nov 30, 2007

Right in time for the festive season, ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory has discovered a huge cloud of high-temperature gas resting in a spectacular nearby star-forming region, shaped somewhat like the silhouette ...

The rich chemistry around an evolved star

Mar 11, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Over 170 molecules have been detected in space, from simple diatomic molecules like CO to complex organic molecules with over 70 atoms, like fullerene.

CSIRO telescope spots mega-star cradle

Apr 28, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using a CSIRO radio telescope, an international team of researchers has caught an enormous cloud of cosmic gas and dust in the process of collapsing in on itself -- a discovery which could ...

The rate of star formation

Nov 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- New stars continue to appear in the night sky, as the gas and dust in giant interstellar clouds gradually coalesces under the influence of gravity until nuclear burning begins.

Recommended for you

Gravitational waves according to Planck

15 hours ago

Scientists of the Planck collaboration, and in particular the Trieste team, have conducted a series of in-depth checks on the discovery recently publicized by the Antarctic Observatory, which announced last ...

Infant solar system shows signs of windy weather

15 hours ago

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have observed what may be the first-ever signs of windy weather around a T Tauri star, an infant analog of our own Sun. This may help ...

Finding hints of gravitational waves in the stars

21 hours ago

Scientists have shown how gravitational waves—invisible ripples in the fabric of space and time that propagate through the universe—might be "seen" by looking at the stars. The new model proposes that ...

How gamma ray telescopes work

22 hours ago

Yesterday I talked about the detection of gamma ray bursts, intense blasts of gamma rays that occasionally appear in distant galaxies. Gamma ray bursts were only detected when gamma ray satellites were put ...

The frequency of high-energy gamma ray bursts

Sep 22, 2014

In the 1960s a series of satellites were built as part of Project Vela.  Project Vela was intended to detect violations of the 1963 ban on above ground testing of nuclear weapons.  The Vela satellites were ...

User comments : 34

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Johannes414
1.4 / 5 (20) May 16, 2011
Only mature stars and galaxies exist. Star forming is a hypothetical process, that has never been observed anywhere, and is not based on any plausible physics. The conjecture of scientists is not the same as real science.
hemitite
4.6 / 5 (8) May 16, 2011
So J, the earth has no core cuz nobody's ever seen it, right?
Johannes414
1 / 5 (14) May 16, 2011
Origin questions should be distinguished from plain facts or observations.

Such questions are looking for a process rather than some static fact. If the process happened a long time ago, and is unlikely to be repeated or is impossible to observe in real time, then the origin question can only be 'solved' by indirect evidence. And that by necessity brings in an element of faith.

(The earth certainly has a core. How big it is and whats in it remains a mystery until we have actually observed it though some instrument or technology.)
hemitite
5 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
Whatever...
Jonseer
4.3 / 5 (12) May 17, 2011
Only mature stars and galaxies exist. Star forming is a hypothetical process, that has never been observed anywhere, and is not based on any plausible physics. The conjecture of scientists is not the same as real science.


So in other words you don't know much about astronomy. Star forming is not a hypothetical process. EVERY conceivable stage of star formation has been observed starting with swirling gas collapsing and heating up, barely detectable in the infrared to the end stage of stars, white dwarfs, pulsars and such.

How anyone would come on a science site and make such a stupid statement is the mystery.

farmerpat42
4.2 / 5 (11) May 17, 2011
I didn't observe Johannes414 being concieved and born, so he must not exist!

So, what is real science?
PaulieMac
4.6 / 5 (9) May 17, 2011
Only mature stars and galaxies exist. Star forming is a hypothetical process, that has never been observed anywhere, and is not based on any plausible physics. The conjecture of scientists is not the same as real science.


True, true... Not at all reliable; unlike, say, the collected fables and myths of a random group of iron-age goatherds, which are clearly where any modern, thinking individual should inform themselves of the workings of this universe.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (14) May 17, 2011
I dont know about any such fables you refer you. I rely on the Bible. The Bible has never been disproved. It contains the history of the Jewish people, a people still in existence today. Many facts stated in the Bible have been confirmed by archeology, such as the names of about 40 kings of Israel and Judah, and many other people and events such as the Babylonian captivity, the destruction of the temple and the life of Jesus Christ.
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (11) May 17, 2011
Most regional mythologies will - naturally - refer to places, people, and events that exist(ed).

I, for instance, could write the following:

"Yesterday, I walked through the city of London. A great tower named 'the Shard' was being built. The Mayor, Boris Johnston, walked among the people, and transformed a smouldering cigarette butt into a great feast that fed eight thousand people. And lo! A burning rubbish bin spoke to me, and told me that the universe was created over a period of seventeen days by an immensely powerful interdimensional axolotl, who at the time, was suffering from a frather nasty rash".

There. Accurate historical references - people, places. A few outlandish claims. By your reasoning, as valid as your holy book. Shall you now bow down before the great Itchy Axolotl, and follow his instructions (once I am done making them up)?
Johannes414
1 / 5 (8) May 17, 2011
Paulie you are being silly. The Bible produces these names and places long before archeology could confirm them. A poignant example would be king Sargon who was thought to be mythical until archeology found evidence, and another the correct title procurator for Pilate found in an inscription.

King David has been in the Bible for thousands of years before the Tel Dan Steel was found with his name. The battle of king Sennacherib and king Hezekiah was confirmed in the Assyrian records. The walls of Jericho were discovered where they were once thought to be legendary.

The list goes on and on.

Any professor of ancient history would be able to tell you that such references are clear evidence of authenticity. Its now up to you to provide proof to the contrary. The Bible has confirmed itself over and over again.
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) May 17, 2011
Star forming is a hypothetical process, that has never been observed anywhere, . . .


On that, you are right. However dogmatic religionists and dogmatic scientists are twins.

Stars form on the collapsed cores of previous stars, as the Sun did ~5 Gyr ago:

1. Video: www.youtube.com/w...e_Qk-q7M

2. Figure: www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm

3. Manuscript:

"Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios",
Proceedings SOHO/GONG Conference on Helioseismology:
ESA SP-517, pp. 345-348 (2003)

http://arxiv.org/...410717v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
PaulieMac
4.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2011
Paulie you are being silly. The Bible produces these names and places long before archeology could confirm them.
[snip]

The list goes on and on.

Any professor of ancient history would be able to tell you that such references are clear evidence of authenticity. Its now up to you to provide proof to the contrary. The Bible has confirmed itself over and over again.


No, you've completely missed my point. Because the bible correcly names a historical personage proves *absolutely* nothing of the existence of your sky fairy.

You do see the difference between naming a historical personage and extraordinary claims of the supernatural, right? In my Itchy Axolotl example, I named places and people who exist(ed). I also made a claim about a supernatural being. It is *exactly* the same case, in every substantive way, aside from being a few to a couple of thousand years newer.
farmerpat42
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2011
In the same vein that religious folk can't prove the existance of a god, science cannot prove the absence of one. Also, giving rhetorical claims which sound outlandish without a causal relationship do not disprove something. In this case - they only mock without having a solid point.
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) May 18, 2011
In the same vein that religious folk can't prove the existance of a god, science cannot prove the absence of one.


In fact, spirituality and science seem to merge at the outer limits of knowledge.

See last paragraph in: "Is the Universe Expanding?"
The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

PaulieMac
4.4 / 5 (7) May 18, 2011
In the same vein that religious folk can't prove the existance of a god, science cannot prove the absence of one. Also, giving rhetorical claims which sound outlandish without a causal relationship do not disprove something. In this case - they only mock without having a solid point.


Ugh. For a start - I am not attempting to 'disprove god' I am attempting to point out the fallacy inherent in taking the bible in particular as an authoritative source of information explaining the existence and workings of our universe.

There is a solid point; which you have evidently missed, too. Illustrate for me the substantive difference - other than age - between my Axolotl myth, and the creation myth in genesis? What 'causal' relationship are you talking about?
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (8) May 18, 2011
In the same vein that religious folk can't prove the existance of a god, science cannot prove the absence of one.


Ugh. For a start - I am not attempting to 'disprove god' . . .


Great!

Can we also try to avoid ego battles?

Your religious beliefs are none of my business.

Can we now return to the subject of star formation?

PaulieMac
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2011
In the same vein that religious folk can't prove the existance of a god, science cannot prove the absence of one.


Agreed - it does indeed appear impossible to prove or disprove the existence of every possible 'god'. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example - can you refute its existence? Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? My Itchy Axolotl?

Many of the literal claims made in the xian bible, however, are easily disproved. The flood being one very obvious example.

People are free to believe and to speak as they will. If an individual chooses to post logically weak 'arguments' trumpetting (for example) that xian creationism is the literal truth, then that individual can expect to have their logic challenged. Or do you think that unfair, for some reason?

ACW
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2011
and this all pertains to Cyanoacetylene in some way?
PaulieMac
4.4 / 5 (7) May 18, 2011
Can we now return to the subject of star formation?



Sure. How do you reconcile your theory that Sol is secretly a neutron star with the Chandrasekhar limit, which posits that the minimum size for a neutron star is roughly 1.4 solar masses? Where did the great man go wrong? Why is the astrophysics community seemingly unaware of your refutation of his calculations?

Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2011
Where did the great man go wrong?
When he decided to become a Great Man. Which is impossible for him as he is nothing of the sort and refuses to do the math that would support him if he was right. He wants the recognition and refuses to do the work, probably because he is vaguely aware that the work would show him wrong.

If he could prove his concept I suspect he would do the work. He can't because he is wrong so he doesn't.

But for the moment let us pretend that he could. What he would achieve is to become both famous and infamous. Everyone would be amazed with his work and appalled at his no longer private life.

Heck even that boy that is making the videos for him would know about his past.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2011
The Bible has confirmed itself over and over again.
It has contradicted over and over again. The first two chapters contradict themselves on the order of creation. Both fail to match the physical evidence. That alone shows the Bible is not a source of inerrant revelation.

The list goes on and on.
Yes it does. Failed prophecies, self contradictions, and bogus history. The list does go on and on.

So when was the Flood? If the Bible is so perfect surely you can add up the ages and produce a date. Go ahead and do that then we can check it against the physical evidence. Of course there shouldn't be any conflict with known history. So please show how you can manage both and then produce some actual physical evidence.

I always like the part right before Sodom and Gomorrah where Jehovah talks to Abraham just before walking to Sodom to check on the rumors of vile behavior. Some all knowing Jehovah is in that story. And walking there is so fitting with all-powerful.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2011
Can we now return to the subject of star formation?


How do you reconcile your theory that Sol is secretly a neutron star with the Chandrasekhar limit, which posits that the minimum size for a neutron star is roughly 1.4 solar masses?


1. Dogmatic religionists and dogmatic scientists are identical twins.

2. The Sun's neutron star is based on:

a.) F. W. Aston (1933) Mass-Spectra and Isotopes (Edward Arnold & Co., London)

b.) W. Baade and F. Zwicky (1934) "Cosmic rays from super-novae", PNAS 20, 259

c.) J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff (1939) "On massive neutron cores", Phys. Rev. 15,
374

d.) J. H. Reynolds (1960) Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 8.

e.) P. K. Kuroda (1960) Nature, 187, 36.

f.) B. W. Ninham (1963) Physics Letters 4, 278.

g.) P. K. Kuroda & O. K. Manuel (1970) Nature 227, 1113

h.) O. K. Manuel et al (1972) Nature 240, 99

i.) D. D. Sabu & O. K. Manuel (1976) Nature 262, 28

j.) O. K. Manuel & D. D. Sabu (1977) Science 195, 208

to be continued . . .
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2011
2. The Sun's neutron star is based on:

k.) R. V. Ballad et al. (1979) Nature 277, 615

l.) O. K. Manuel (1980) Icarus 41, 312

m.) D, D. Sabu & O. K. Manuel (1980) Meteoritics 15, 117

n.) O. K. Manuel & D. D. Sabu (1981) Geochemical J. 15, 245

o.) G. Hwaung & O. K. Manuel (1982) Nature 299, 807

p.) O. K. Manuel and G. Hwaung (1983) Meteoritics 18, 209

q.) J. T. Lee et al. (1996) Geochemical J. 30, 17

r.) O. Manuel (1998) Meteoritics 33, A97, 5011

s.) O. Manuel et al (2001) J. Fusion Energy 19, 93

etc.

x.) O. Manuel, "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun"
Energy and Environment 20, 131-144 (2009)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

y.) O. Manuel, "Neutron Repulsion", The
APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011);

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

z.) O. Manuel, "Is the Universe Expanding?"
The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) May 18, 2011
All based one questionable idea from one single person O. K. Manuel supported by not one other scientist. Even your own students have never backed you up anywhere that even you can find. You refuse to even make a conclusive statement about the range of the alleged neutron repulsion.

There is absolutely nothing in your one piece of evidence for NR that distinguishes it from the Pauli Principle and your only response, other than reposting the stuff that is in question, is to consistently give ones to people that ask fully reasonable questions about it.

But I will ask anyway.

What is the range of neutron repulsion?

What evidence is there for the existence of it in any test in any lab on Earth that can even remotely distinguish it from the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

Posting you own stuff is not an answer. Posting the one single LETTER not paper on Sun as a pulsar by a man that has never had anything to say about it since is not an answer as we have seen it all before.

Ethelred
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
Where did the great man go wrong?
When he decided to become a Great Man. Which is impossible for him as he is nothing of the sort


He he; Sorry, Eth - by 'Great Man' I was referring to Chandrasekhar...
Bog_Mire
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
Johannes states: ' A poignant example would be king Sargon who was thought to be mythical until archeology found evidence..."

and yet those very same archaeologists have unearthed, for example, a 40 000 + year old Neanderthal long term dwelling in France, among many, many others. Yet YOU and your batshit crazy friends CHOOSE to deny their existence and come up with absolute bullshit denouncements of their aging and dating techniques - of which there are a myriad, all iron clad and entirely scientifically valid and cross referenced. The very SAME archaeological dating methods that you jump on to prove your fantasy book is valid, accurate and based on real people and events.

Yet you claim a universe of a few thousand years in age all created by your Ghod.

The hypocrisy you display here is just breath taking.

Go away.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
There is absolutely nothing in your one piece of evidence for NR that distinguishes it from the Pauli Principle and your only response, other than reposting the stuff that is in question, is to consistently give ones to people that ask fully reasonable questions about it.
I would thank you for proving my point except I would prefer that stop being a Crank. You refused to answer as predicted and you gave Paulie ones as well as me.

You are a One. In all ways. As a scientist, a debater, and most distressingly as a human being. It is too late to fix much of the damage you done. You can however try to become a decent person with the time remains for you. Being an utter ass is not the way to do that.>>

Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
I believe that people can change. You are messing with my belief. Fortunately there are people that have managed profound changes in their behavior. My favorite example was a vile, hate filled politician, Governor George Wallace, who stood blocking a school door to keep children from a fair education simply because they were black.

"segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever"
If a man like that can become a decent human being so can you. Of course for him it took a bullet in his back. You were justly prosecuted. For him it was a prompt to start doing the right thing. For you, you only steepened your path to becoming a Crank.

Stop being a Crank. Become a decent human being. I have tried to get this though to you before. You adamantly insist on remaining a detriment to humanity and science.

Change NOW, Change Tomorrow, Change Forever.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2011
What is the range of neutron repulsion?


This question merits a reply, and has been answered many times before.

The universe is not limited by the opinions of simple, binary minds.

The universe is not limited to [Strong/Weak, Good/Bad, Long/Short, Up/Down] answers.

The Sun, our very lives, and the dynamic universe are all sustained by continuous, on-going, dynamic competition between two opposing forces:

Gravitational Attraction/Neutron Repulsion

Opposing forces that drive the cyclic expansion and compression of the universe [1].

Opposing forces that binary minds call (weak, long-range) and (strong short-range).

The "weak, long-range" gravitational force becomes strong at short distances.

The "strong, short-range" neutron repulsion becomes weak at great distances.

Expansion of the universe occurs because:

a.) Neutron-repulsion triggers neutron-emission
b.) Neutron-emission triggers neutron-decay
c.) Neutron-decay generates stellar H
d.) The SW H becomes interstellar H
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2011
The initial volume of the fundamental particle expands or contracts by a factor of ~10^23, i.e., ~100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


Reference for above posting:

1. "Is the Universe Expanding?"
The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
See also today's news story on dark energy and the expansion of the universe:

www.physorg.com/n...rgy.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
The Tao of Pooh"


May help dogmatic religionists and wannabe scientists (identical twins) realize the futility of trying to win arguments.

The first story, "The Vinegar Tasters" (pp. 1-7) illustrates the advantage of accepting what is, whether or not it fits your idea of what should be.
Bog_Mire
4.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2011
Oliver I sincerely hope you include yourself in the cliche of "wannabe scientists."

Once again you answer nothing and obfuscation is your game.

Tiresome you have become. With kind regards - please answer direct questions with direct answers rather than meaningless drivel.
that_guy
4.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2011
@bob - unfortunately there is no option to give you 100 stars, but I'll try my best.

It just boggles me why all the religious/tea party nuts camp out here. They don't agree with anything in the articles, and they think 3 quarters of the stuff here is going to be used in some socialist/atheist plot.

Dammit! I want to argue over points like, why are the cosmologists so confident about so much when they have to search out other molecules to determine hydrogen density. Really? How does that affect estimates of hydrogen density/mass in the universe/galaxies. What is the margin of error on that measurement.

Look, God isn't handing these answers out like candy, and the socialists don't care. So lets get to discussing the real questions.