# Image: Hubble sees a dying star's final moments

A dying star's final moments are captured in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The death throes of this star may only last mere moments on a cosmological timescale, but this star's demise is still quite lengthy by our standards, lasting tens of thousands of years!

The star's agony has culminated in a wonderful planetary nebula known as NGC 6565, a cloud of gas that was ejected from the star after strong stellar winds pushed the star's outer layers away into space. Once enough material was ejected, the star's luminous core was exposed, enabling its ultraviolet radiation to excite the surrounding gas to varying degrees and causing it to radiate in an attractive array of colors. These same colors can be seen in the famous and impressive Ring Nebula (heic1310), a prominent example of a nebula like this one.

Planetary nebulae are illuminated for around 10,000 years before the central star begins to cool and shrink to become a white dwarf. When this happens, the star's light drastically diminishes and ceases to excite the surrounding gas, so the nebula fades from view.

Explore further

**Citation**: Image: Hubble sees a dying star's final moments (2015, July 31) retrieved 24 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-07-image-hubble-dying-star-moments.html

## User comments

viko_mxReturnersIf Hydrogen fusion is like high performance gasoline, Helium fusion would be like trying to burn watered-down gasoline in your car. Sure it might "run" for a while, but it's mostly just going to choke and sputter, and your top speed won't be as fast, simply because there isn't as much energy available. Less energy = less expansion.

ReturnersThe reason is the maximum energy of Fusion of any object is actually much less than the Gravitational potential energy of the same object, and the gravitational potential energy cannot exceed the mass-energy of the object either, so:

Mass-energy >= Gravitational Potential Energy >> Nuclear Fusion Energy.

Which means that, excluding anti-matter annihilation events, the amount of energy released from a Star will never equal, never mind exceed, the mass-energy of the fuel consumed. In fact, the mass energy is about 100 times greater than the maximum energy available from Fusion, and as a consequence the GPE is much greater than the maximum energy from Fusion.

So fusion should not cause stars to suddenly expand once they have previously collapsed to an equilibrium status.

ReturnersIn Newtonian gravity, the internale GPE of a star would actually be infinite, because as the radius, r, shrinks (approaches zero) the GPE of an object in any outer layer of the Star with respect to any inner layer of the star paradoxically increases. This effect is not observed on planets, nor over human life times, because planets don't shrink significantly nor undergo fusion.

You can integrate the gravity formula to see why this is, or just attempt to take the "limit" of the gravity formula as "r" approaches zero, and see why this is. While the gravity formula has a positive infinity at 0, the integral does not, because the left and right hand limits have opposite signs.

The Newton equation must be wrong in this respect,however, because we know intuitively that a finite object doesn't contain infinite amount of energy.

ReturnersThis is a problem for both Newton and Einstein.

In Newton's gravity, when r->0 the right hand limit of the integral goes to infinity, and the left-hand limit goes to negative infinity.

In Relativity, the left hand limit as v-> c goes to positive "real" infinity, and the right hand limit as v->c goes to positive "imaginary" infinity. Therefore the limit does not exist.

What does this mean?

Neither equation is a rational explanation for reality, since both of them produce left-hand and right-hand expressions which cannot be equal at the same place and time, even though they NEED to be in order for the formula to make sense.

This is yet another set of reasons for why the standard model of Stellar evolution does not work: The equations it uses have mathematical incongruence built into them.

ReturnersOne of the problems I have with this equation is that "Energy" is actually a fictitious quantity produced by spatial modeling...and I even got several post-doctoral physicists on "physforumsdotcom" to admit that, and those guys hate my guts, and they still had to admit it.

So the equation "E=mc^2" is actually describing a fictitious "substance" which is actually an artifact of spatial interpretation of motion.

There is actually no such thing in "real physics" as "potential energy", there is only "Potential momentum".

Let us not confuse the original Greek word for "Power" from which we get "Dynamite" with our modern, flawed concept of "Energy".

Momentum is a linear vector, while the flawed "kinetic energy" concept is a quadratic, like Einstein's mass-energy.

ReturnersReturnersHowever, When observed from any other reference frame, Momentum will be conserved, and "Energy" will not be conserved, which is to say those reference frames will see different amounts of heat and/or sound created, and they will record different kinetic energies and different changes in kinetic energies for the object.

This result makes no sense, because we know the object is what it is. Moving faster shouldn't change what it is.

Returners"Velocity" is actually represented as a fraction in standard physics: Delta-D/Delta-T.

But if we allow Delta-T to approach zero we get a 0/0 term, which means that the "limit" does not exist.

This is a problem because "conservation of energy" and conservation of momentum" imply that the INSTANTANEOUS quantities are always the same for the universe....but if you try to calculate the INSTANTANEOUS momentum or INSTANTANEOUS energy of a system....you get a term which is UNDEFINED in existing mathematics.

This means one of two basic things:

1) Either the mathematical expression(s) of physics are fundamentally flawed.

or

2) Human understanding of Mathematics itself is incomplete when denominators equal Zero.

Perhaps "n/0" actually does exist, for example, but just means something we can't understand....

Either way, physics is screwed.

ReturnersIf you are trying to track how much over-time you should get paid this week, or how fast you were driving to or from work, then these equations are okay for that. If you are trying to calculate so-called "energy" involved in the collapse of a star, or the very fast movement of cosmic radiation or of galaxies far apart from one another, they don't actually work so well.

ReturnersNormal:

A = GM/(r^2)

Massage it:

(A(r^2))/G = M

Since G is a constant, we never need worry about division by zero terms,a nd this to my mind means that this is the more "natural" form of the gravity equation....

If it looks like the formula for the area of a circle, it's because that's very nearly what it is....it's the formula for the surface area of a sphere....

Mass is therefore directly tied to space itself, even in Newtonian physics.

It doesn't merely "warp" space.

Mass and space are actually somehow equivalent.

It's been in the equation all along, but because people were interested in formulating the acceleration equation in a way to predict motion, they never really bothered to formulate it in a way as to "define" mass in terms of space itself.

With the equation arranged this way, we can see mass is "tied" to space somehow.

ReturnersAll Einstein really did was replace the terminology "Ether" with the terminology "warping of space-time", but Newton was actually closer to the truth than Einstein in some respects, as I posited based on some observations I had made about orbital systems, that space must have "something" in it tied to mass, and that reasonably this "something" must be more dense near more massive objects.

Attraction of objects is actually not explained by the mere warping of space and time (the rubber sheet model used as a 2-dimensional example of the 3 space dimensions space in relativity is flawed because it only works because the "real" gravity is in fact pulling down on the balls on the rubber sheet...a silly circle-jerk.

ReturnersThe "singularity" problem then disappears, as it is actually an artifact of a flawed representation of a math equation. When possible an equation should be written in a form that never leads to division by zero. When we take that approach to the gravity equation, the "infinite density singularity" at "r = 0" simply disappears....which means that no such singularity exists. It is an artifact of PERCEPTION, which is to say man's obsession with using the equation to predict motion in the (other form) leads to the wrong conclusion that there is such a thing as an infinitely dense singularity in objects called black holes.

Note that the original "Dark Star" concept was not a singularity.

ReturnersReason space must be "filled" with something (tied to mass) after all, is because Einstein's space-time doesn't have an actual method of interacting with matter or light...it simply assumes that matter and light "follow" curved space-time, but this makes no sense, because every other interaction in physics requires something to "mediate" it....the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear force, etc, are (in quantum theory) mediated by particles. IN Einstein's gravity, there is no "force" there is merely the assumption that the curvature of the mainframe causes EM radiation and matter to move in a curve (orbit)....but in spite of Einstein complaining about QM "spooky action at a distance" Relativity itself is "spooky action at a distance" because there is no "mediator" between space and matter in Einstein's interpretation. This is a clear flaw on Einstein's part, since it is actually implied (demanded) in Newton's equation.

ReturnersTherefore, whatever scientists are observing when they think they are observing "black holes", it is not a "singularity" hidden inside an event horizon. Whether or not event horizons are real, the gravity equation, correctly represented, implies that "mass" has a maximum density, by its own merit...something even I have previously overlooked.

A(r^2)/G = M

As r->0 then M->0, therefore the standard explanation of what a Black Hole is must be flawed, since A*0 = 0, even if A is very large.

I hypothesize that the maximum density of an object is determined by its Schwarzchild Radius, (assuming "c" is an actual cosmic limit) and that no such thing as a singularity could exist inside a "black hole"....

ReturnersIt comes to:

6.3293465*10^-95kg

Which is a hell of a lot smaller than the particles we call "Protons, Neutrons, and electrons".

Quite frankly, this means people have completely misinterpreted both Newton and Einstein for generations. I think it is also strange that Einstein shouldn't have noticed this more correctly written version of Newton's equation, since it s clearly there. We know the spherical surface area is divided into mass in order to obtain acceleration, what isn't obvious is that this operation is not "natural" in the sense that it artificially introduces the potential for "division by zero" where nature does not actually do so.

ReturnersThe Higgs Boson (also a circle-jerk) seen in Colliders decays spontaneously, nearly instantly, because it is a man-made freak which does not actually occur in nature. The fundamental unit of mass is far, far smaller, and space and mass are linked in a way more profound than Einstein could dream, because they actually limit one another, and I don't just mean in terms of an "open or closed universe". I mean the amount of space is determined by the amount of mass, or rather they are mutually determined by the mediating "material" represented by the correctly formulated equation.

Mass doesn't "warp" space-time.

Space (and time) and mass are mutually co-created. There's a difference.

ReturnersThat's why I said the Higgs particle is a circle-jerk.

The real fundamental unit of mass is many orders of magnitude smaller than the Higgs particle, and it is not a circle-jerk tied to mysterious "fields" because the mathematics ties it to space (via both "r" and "A") and time (via the denominator in the "A" term) directly, without the need to introduce new concepts of Higss "mass field" permeating space....that is wrong-minded, and Newton had it right to begin with.

Occam's Razor, why introduce an extra concept when the original equation said something more correctly to begin with?

ReturnersSpace and mass can be related mathematically because there is a THING which mediates the two.

Einstein invented the concept of "space-time" to try to explain this away, but what he couldn't do is explain why a ball moving through space-time should "feel" any so-called "curvature" in space-time in the first place, unless there was a mediating entity tying mass to space, sort of like how your hand would pass right through the curvature of a basketball if not for the EM force (well technically a basketball wouldn't exist without the EM force, but you get the idea), and a ball would pass right through Einstein's rubber sheet in the 2-d model of General Relativity if not for the EM force holding the rubber together AND repelling the balls so that they don't pass through.

Thus curved space-time without a mediating "entity" does not work anyway.

ReturnersI think there are real things in the universe which are neither particle nor wave, and to give an example, "Dimension" is actually one such concept which is neither a particle nor a wave, so in that sense mainstream physicists already agree with me, the difference is the only non-particle, non-wave entities they consider are "dimensions".

We talk about concepts, in regards to dimension...."position"...

What the heck determines the "position" of an object along a "dimension", especially if in Einstein's view "observables" are relative with respect to other observables, such as velocity and/or gravity?

There must be a THING which ties a particle to a "position"...they can't just mysteriously be floating through "curved nothingness" else how can velocity be moderated?

ReturnersIt only appears to be a particle if you are actually "looking at it". If you look away (the two slits) it appears to be a wave.

What if the photon is neither a particle nor a wave, because those a man-made classifications of "observed entity-events" when reality is not entirely observable to humans.

We know reality is not entirely observable to humans, yet physicists cling to definitions of real phenomenon which assume reality is entirely observable to humans (the so-called collapsing wave function whereby observation supposedly determines the characteristics of the outcome). This is a misinterpretation of the true underlying reality, and it is rather arrogant/egotist.

ReturnersYour arrogance has truly blinded you, anyone who actually defends the voracity of the standard models of physics.

Quantum experiments, like the double slit experiment, is not evidence of "spooky action at a distance". It is in fact evidence that "space" and other entities within space are tied together. Particles, waves, or whatever they are, don't just drift around in arbitrary reference frames.

ReturnersOr you might plot the size of a chicken with respect to its age if you are a farmer, because you want to know when it has reached its optimal size for harvesting.

So people are okay with thinking about "material" as an actual "Dimension" when it suits their fancy, but when you suddenly interject that certain "entities" in physics might be something other than a particle or a wave, the forum mafia loves to give you lots of negative feedback.

how does the universe "know" the location of entangled particles?

Well, duh, the same way it "knows" the location of non-entangled particles.

The front of a coin is opposite from the back of a coin, and the universe never gets the two mixed up (well, unless you melt the coin anyway), why do physicists think action at a distance violates some sort of information principle, "c"? It doesn't.

PPihkalaYou have interesting issues in your comments. I hope someone would take those seriously and would see what is wrong about them or where they lead.

Enthusiastic FoolReturner's "likes" to put things in "quotes" and make "assertions" while "railing" against "mainstream physics" _without_ evidence. He should write a "paper" and submit it for "peer" review. It's like an astrophysics filibuster in here. When is 23 posts about a variety of "problems" in the Standard Model warranted in the comments section of an article about a planetary nebula wherein the article is shorter than 2 of your comments? You must have really needed attention yesterday. Sorry to leave you hanging for so long and I hope you are okay.

Enthusiastic FoolI'll say!

JustAnotherGuyBetter a simple link than a comments cascade. Good advise! But why to stop there? Why not to compile all the ideas (or whatever...) and arguments, present these on a clear and organized structure, topic by topic, with their respective references, examples and hypotheses, for all the interested to read in a handy and comprehensible manner??

Let me make clear I'm not talking about get that "stuff" peer-reviewed, nor even to be supported by someone, etc... It is just about proper and civilized communication.

Hmm... some irony there?

JustAnotherGuyNo. Actually it is the same person that publish his "issues" who has to do that. There are no bad students, just bad teachers...

Now, if you want to know where those comments lead, there are some clues...

By bringing here its "wastebasket" and dump it all on an article, I have to guess that is just an internet troll trying to make a perfect "1-star" comments combo......... achieved!

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