As stars form, magnetic fields influence regions big and small

As stars form, magnetic fields influence regions big and small
The Cat's Paw Nebula, also known as NGC 6334, comes alive in this infrared image from the Spitzer Space Telescope. A new study of this nebula finds that magnetic fields influence star formation on a variety of scales, from hundreds of light-years down to a fraction of a light-year. In this representative-color photo red shows light at a wavelength of 8 microns, green is 4.5 microns, and blue is 3.6 microns. Credit: S. Willis (CfA); NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSC

Stars form when gravity pulls together material within giant clouds of gas and dust. But gravity isn't the only force at work. Both turbulence and magnetic fields battle gravity, either by stirring things up or by channeling and restricting gas flows, respectively. New research focusing on magnetic fields shows that they influence star formation on a variety of scales, from hundreds of light-years down to a fraction of a light-year.

The new study, which the journal Nature is publishing online on March 30th, probed the Cat's Paw Nebula, also known as NGC 6334. This nebula contains about 200,000 suns' worth of material that is coalescing to form new stars, some with up to 30 to 40 times as much mass as our sun. It is located 5,500 light-years from Earth in the constellation Scorpius.

The team painstakingly measured the orientation of magnetic fields within the Cat's Paw. "We found that the direction is quite well preserved from large to small scales, implying that self-gravity and cloud turbulence are not able to significantly alter the field direction," said lead author Hua-bai Li (The Chinese University of Hong Kong), who conducted the high-resolution observations while a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).

"Even though they're much weaker than Earth's magnetic field, these have an important effect in regulating how stars form," added Smithsonian co-author T.K. Sridharan (CfA).

The team observed polarized light coming from dust within the nebula using several facilities, including the Smithsonian's Submillimeter Array. "The SMA's unique capability to measure polarization at high angular resolution allowed access to the magnetic fields at the smallest spatial scales," said SMA director Ray Blundell (CfA).

"The SMA has made significant contributions in this field which continues with this work," said Smithsonian co-author Qizhou Zhang (CfA).

Because dust grains align themselves with the magnetic field, the researchers were able to use dust emission to measure the field's geometry. They found that the magnetic fields tended to line up in the same direction, even though the relative size scales they examined were different by orders of magnitude. The magnetic fields only became misaligned on the smallest scales in cases where strong feedback from newly formed stars created other motions.

This work represents the first time magnetic fields in a single region have been measured at so many different scales. It also has interesting implications for the history of our galaxy.

When a molecular cloud collapses to form stars, magnetic fields hinder the process. As a result, only a fraction of the cloud's material is incorporated into stars. The rest gets dispersed into space, where it is available to make new generations of . Thanks to magnetic fields, the star-forming process is more drawn out.


Explore further

Magnetic fields play larger role in star formation than previously thought

More information: Self-similar fragmentation regulated by magnetic fields in a region forming massive stars, Nature (2015) DOI: 10.1038/nature14291
Journal information: Nature

Citation: As stars form, magnetic fields influence regions big and small (2015, March 30) retrieved 20 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-03-stars-magnetic-fields-regions-big.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1105 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 30, 2015
Ooh stars and magnetic fields? The headline alone tells me I need to get my popcorn ready for the inevitable Electric Universe nutters

Mar 30, 2015
These findings match perfectly with the Young Earth Electric Aether theory, which any scientist would stab you to death for revealing because they have to protect the standard model at all costs.

Mar 30, 2015
Little by little the standard model is being chipped away. Its been a dead end for years!

Mar 30, 2015
These findings match perfectly with the Young Earth Electric Aether theory, which any scientist would stab you to death for revealing because they have to protect the standard model at all costs.
@dtxx
ROTFLMFAO
most people will not comprehend the hyperbole or satire in that comment... i loved it!

Little by little the standard model is being chipped away. Its been a dead end for years!
@delirious
so... point out what in the above article or study is refutation or in any way against the standard model?

It supports it, from what i read

the problem the eu has (as with most pseudoscience's) is that they have refused to accept the evidence
that is not how science works
that is only how PSEUDOSCIENCE works
that is why zephir, cd, hannes and the rest are relegated to the fringe crackpot area

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 30, 2015
Cosmic and stellar radiation affects particle distribution the same way that vibrating a flat surface with a small pile of sand on it will cause the sand grains to spread out. This influences measurements of the magnetic field strength.

Mar 30, 2015
I don't know what electric universe theory is but I do know you get a magnetic field with a magnet or with moving electricity...So are there huge magnets in a gas cloud or where is the electricity coming from and where is it going?

Mar 30, 2015
poor man's attempt to reconcile the accretion model of star formation with known magnetic and electrical activity observed within our sun.

Mar 30, 2015
I don't know what electric universe theory is but I do know you get a magnetic field with a magnet or with moving electricity...So are there huge magnets in a gas cloud or where is the electricity coming from and where is it going?


The Electric Universe is total bullshit.

Mar 30, 2015
The stars receive their power from outside, not inside. Any nuclear reactions are taking place on the surface of the Sun and not in its core. The solar wind is an electric current connecting the Sun with its family of planets and with its galactic clan, so the 90-year-old theory of fusion firing the solar furnace needs to be reexamined.

Stephen Smith

Mar 30, 2015
I don't know what electric universe theory is but I do know you get a magnetic field with a magnet or with moving electricity...So are there huge magnets in a gas cloud or where is the electricity coming from and where is it going?


The Electric Universe is total bullshit.


So are idiots whom associate their online identities with a pathetic war against a diminutive nation, or any war for that fact.

Mar 30, 2015
@stevepidge

You have yet to post an intelligent, scientifically based comment, keep it up, we can use the laughs.

Mar 30, 2015
I don't know what electric universe theory is but I do know you get a magnetic field with a magnet or with moving electricity...So are there huge magnets in a gas cloud or where is the electricity coming from and where is it going?


The Electric Universe is total bullshit.

Ok, I get that point from reading these messages and other messages on this website but you didn't answer my question either.... so where are the magnetic fields coming from?

Mar 31, 2015
He has no clue. Agent orange ate his brain!

Mar 31, 2015
I don't know what electric universe theory is but I do know you get a magnetic field with a magnet or with moving electricity...So are there huge magnets in a gas cloud or where is the electricity coming from and where is it going?


The Electric Universe is total bullshit.

Ok, I get that point from reading these messages and other messages on this website but you didn't answer my question either.... so where are the magnetic fields coming from?


http://en.wikiped...ic_field

Mar 31, 2015
Muti-dimentional mathematical masturbation is what we have in MS physics. Vietvet's simple bar magnet is an incorrect representation of the magnetic "field lines" observed in galactic formations and our own sun. For a true representation look no further than David LaPoint's primer fields and his dipole bowl shaped magnets.

Mar 31, 2015
The electric models are being validated almost daily. They make common sense as well. Gravity just isn't strong enough to drive planet, star, and galaxy formation. That is a fact. The mathematical creation of black holes, neutron stars and dark matter/energy was necessary to try and salvage this concept. None have ever been observed or experimentally confirmed. The whole standard model is a house of cards, one unproven theory used as the basis for the next. It requires the known laws of physics and chemistry to break down. It is now in free fall as new technology yields more and more data.
The intergalactic magnetic fields are formed by Birkeland currents between galaxies, recently reported as "intergalactic rivers of hydrogen". These forces are 10 to the 39th times more powerful than gravity. They don't require "mathemagicians" to account for observations. Math should be used to confirm observations, not create an unobservable reality.

Mar 31, 2015
Muti-dimentional mathematical masturbation is what we have in MS physics. Vietvet's simple bar magnet is an incorrect representation of the magnetic "field lines" observed in galactic formations and our own sun. For a true representation look no further than David LaPoint's primer fields and his dipole bowl shaped magnets.

Bravo.......this was an impressive presentation. The newest radio telescope data is confirming electric models almost on a daily basis. The standard model is so full of holes and imaginary concepts it just can't hold up much longer. The simplicity, confirmability, and predictive value of the EU models are overwhelming. There will be a lot of people losing jobs and reputations but eventually the truth will win out. So will Thornhill, Scott, Birkeland, Alfvens, Maxwell, Faraday, Peratt, and a host of others that had the vision to see the universe for what it is....an electromagnetic event from the smallest atom to the largest galaxy.

Mar 31, 2015
The electric models are being validated almost daily. They make common sense as well. Gravity just isn't strong enough to drive planet, star, and galaxy formation. That is a fact.

A delusional statement without a shred of evidence.

Mar 31, 2015
@stevepidge

You have yet to post an intelligent, scientifically based comment, keep it up, we can use the laughs.

Link us to one us one of yours.......?

Mar 31, 2015
http://holographi...ova.html

What!!! No Iron core detected in supernova "explosions"??? HOW CAN THIS BE!!!

Mar 31, 2015
Here is some evidence.

The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime. [CCD Astronomy, Summer 1996, p.40.]
"Around 1900 FG Sge was an inconspicuous hot star (T = 50,000 K) of magnitude 13. During the next 60 years it cooled to about 8000 K and brightened in the visual region to magnitude 9, as its radiation shifted from the far-UV to the visual region. Around 1970 a whole new bunch of spectral lines appeared due to elements such as Sr, Y, Zr, Ba and rare earths. .. The star cooled further in the 1970s and 80s and then all of a sudden in 1992 its magnitude dropped to 14. Further drops occurred from 1992 to 1996

Mar 31, 2015
Ooh stars and magnetic fields? The headline alone tells me I need to get my popcorn ready for the inevitable Electric Universe nutters


This article explains all that the 'Electric Universe' states... that magnetic fields play a more significant role than gravity in the structure and function of astrophysical phenomena. That's all. The source of the magnetism (as always) is the movement of charged particles... which is the definition of electricity.

There's nothing to argue besides semantics. Don't allow your deep beliefs and faith in a gravitational theory cause you to think foolishly.

Apr 01, 2015
@FineStructureConstant. As far as I've read and understood EU supporters' comments, their beef seems NOT with the observation/technical work done by all the hardworking and brilliant technicians and astronomical observers/observatories. Rather, they disagree with certain theoretical/interpretational 'overlays' ON those observations using assumptions/theories which the EU commenters point out alternatives to. I've no objections to EU/other commenters presenting alternative/dissenting interpretations/views re observations made by hardworking technicians/astronomical observers/observatories; because more than once their/others' dissenting/alternative interpretations/views have stimulated insightful, informative discourse (and even provided learning opportunities for some 'mainstreamers' who thought they knew it all, but didn't; especially regarding even some KNOWN science of Stellar/Galactic plasma physics processes/features which some 'mainstreamers' had NOT been aware of). Stay cool. :)

Apr 01, 2015
Re: The Primer Fields. It's long, repetitive and been abandoned by the author. However, it does offer a reasonable alternative explanation for some (Astro) physical phenomena. Not though necessarily correct.

@24volts - the magnetic fields are a result of the alignment of the individual atomic magnetic moments. The electric component may be viewed as a result rather than the cause. This has caused a bit of friction (!) between LaPoint and the EU believers.

My view? God knows! (Oops)


Apr 01, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good and just prime me. Did you miss me for being gone like I have for a week? One of the other couyons jumped the gun when I was gone for just three days and thought I got the boot. But you see me now so I guess I did not, eh? I just been really busy with some new things on my work but every thing is good.

Apr 02, 2015
Link us to one us one of yours.......?
@Benni
a fair warning- he has previously stated his religious like adherence to Velikovski and other irrational pseudoscience... in his own words
I think you are an idiot if you consider anything scientific "fact"
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

As far as I've read and understood EU supporters' comments, their beef seems NOT with the observation/technical work done by all the hardworking and brilliant technicians and astronomical observers/observatories
@RC
then you've missed the BULK of cantdrive's posts as well as most of hannes, reset and others
See: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html for starters, and then view the bulk of the arguments without a chred of evidence against modern astronomers and their knowledge of plasma physics from CD et al

@reset
sorry for the upvote
my internet connection is having issues

Apr 02, 2015
.x
Error

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more