ALMA reveals inner web of stellar nursery

March 7, 2018, ESO
This spectacular and unusual image shows part of the famous Orion Nebula, a star formation region lying about 1350 light-years from Earth. It combines a mosaic of millimetre wavelength images from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) and the IRAM 30-metre telescope, shown in red, with a more familiar infrared view from the HAWK-I instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope, shown in blue. The group of bright blue-white stars at the left is the Trapezium Cluster -- made up of hot young stars that are only a few million years old. Credit: ESO/H. Drass/ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO)/A. Hacar

This spectacular and unusual image shows part of the famous Orion Nebula, a star formation region lying about 1350 light-years from Earth. It combines a mosaic of millimetre-wavelength images from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) and the IRAM 30-metre telescope, shown in red, with a more familiar infrared view from the HAWK-I instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope, shown in blue. The group of bright blue-white stars at the upper-left is the Trapezium Cluster—made up of hot young stars that are only a few million years old.

The wispy, fibre-like structures seen in this large image are long filaments of cold gas, only visible to telescopes working in the millimetre wavelength range. They are invisible at both optical and infrared wavelengths, making ALMA one of the only instruments available for astronomers to study them. This gas gives rise to newborn stars—it gradually collapses under the force of its own gravity until it is sufficiently compressed to form a protostar—the precursor to a star.

The scientists who gathered the data from which this image was created were studying these filaments to learn more about their structure and make-up. They used ALMA to look for signatures of diazenylium gas, which makes up part of these structures. Through doing this study, the team managed to identify a network of 55 filaments.

The Orion Nebula is the nearest region of massive star formation to Earth, and is therefore studied in great detail by astronomers seeking to better understand how form and evolve in their first few million years. ESO's telescopes have observed this interesting region multiple times, and you can learn more about previous discoveries here, here, and here.

This image combines a total of 296 separate individual datasets from the ALMA and IRAM telescopes, making it one of the largest high-resolution mosaics of a region produced so far at .

Explore further: Image: Star formation in the Chamaeleon

Related Stories

Image: Star formation in the Chamaeleon

November 27, 2017

A dark cloud when observed with optical telescopes, the Chamaeleon I region reveals itself as an active hub of star formation in this far-infrared image from ESA's Herschel space observatory. Only around 550 light-years away ...

New Hubble mosaic of the Orion Nebula

March 17, 2017

In the search for rogue planets and failed stars astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have created a new mosaic image of the Orion Nebula. During their survey of the famous star formation region, they found ...

Hidden secrets of Orion's clouds

January 4, 2017

This spectacular new image is one of the largest near-infrared high-resolution mosaics of the Orion A molecular cloud, the nearest known massive star factory, lying about 1350 light-years from Earth. It was taken using the ...

Ageing star blows off smoky bubble

September 20, 2017

Astronomers have used ALMA to capture a strikingly beautiful view of a delicate bubble of expelled material around the exotic red star U Antliae. These observations will help astronomers to better understand how stars evolve ...

Image: Intense star formation in the Westerhout 43 region

August 1, 2017

Hidden from our sight, the Westerhout 43 star-forming region is revealed in full glory in this far-infrared image from ESA's Herschel space observatory. This giant cloud, where a multitude of massive stars come to life in ...

Orion's hidden fiery ribbon

May 15, 2013

(Phys.org) —This dramatic new image of cosmic clouds in the constellation of Orion reveals what seems to be a fiery ribbon in the sky. This orange glow represents faint light coming from grains of cold interstellar dust, ...

Recommended for you

Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets

October 18, 2018

The word "HAZMAT" describes substances that pose a risk to the environment, or even to life itself. Imagine the term being applied to entire planets, where violent flares from the host star may make worlds uninhabitable by ...

Astronomers catch red dwarf star in a superflare outburst

October 18, 2018

New observations by two Arizona State University astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have caught a red dwarf star in a violent outburst, or superflare. The blast of radiation was more powerful than any such outburst ...

Blazar's brightness cycle confirmed by NASA's Fermi mission

October 18, 2018

A two-year cycle in the gamma-ray brightness of a blazar, a galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, has been confirmed by 10 years of observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The findings were announced ...

36 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2018
This gas gives rise to newborn stars—it gradually collapses under the force of its own gravity until it is sufficiently compressed to form a protostar—the precursor to a star.

This is utter bollocks, the filamentary structures are due to plasma processes and electromagnetism, gravity has little to no affect at these scales.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2018
This is utter bollocks, the filamentary structures are due to plasma processes and electromagnetism, gravity has little to no affect at these scales.


Which plasma and EM processes? Be specific.

For those interested in the real science, the paper is here:
http://www.eso.or...809a.pdf

RNP
4 / 5 (12) Mar 07, 2018
This gas gives rise to newborn stars—it gradually collapses under the force of its own gravity until it is sufficiently compressed to form a protostar—the precursor to a star.

This is utter bollocks, the filamentary structures are due to plasma processes and electromagnetism, gravity has little to no affect at these scales.


And on what basis do you make this claim? Where is your evidence? How are all the astrophysicists that successfully model such structures using gravity as the predominant process wrong? Surely, you must be able to provide SOME evidence for your extraordinary claims.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2018
Which plasma and EM processes? Be specific

The Bennett pinch and Marklund convection.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2018
Which plasma and EM processes? Be specific

The Bennett pinch and Marklund convection.



And the evidence for these happening is...................? And the hypothesis that these things have anything to do with star formation?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2018
How are all the astrophysicists that successfully model such structures using gravity as the predominant process wrong?

They can only do so by invoking magical faerie dust and was never predicted but added ad hoc after the filamentary nature of the Universe was discovered. Whereas Alfvén predicted the filamentary nature of the Universe back in the 1930's due to the known properties of plasma. You got any evidence for your faerie dust?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 07, 2018
You got any evidence for your faerie dust?


Yes. Far more evidence than there is for anything advocated by the lightning bolt mythology cult.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2018
And the evidence for these happening is.

We can see the filaments, and those are the physics that are used in labs for decades to describe plasma filaments. We can also see the preferentially sorted matter as described by Marklund convection.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2018
@cantdrive85
OK, So, let me get this right. You STILL can not provide any evidence for your silly claims, All you have to present is poorly informed opinions? Then, how am I supposed to discuss this with you? Your posts are valueless.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2018
And the evidence for these happening is.

We can see the filaments, and those are the physics that are used in labs for decades to describe plasma filaments. We can also see the preferentially sorted matter as described by Marklund convection.


And DM models predict filaments. And the DM filaments produce lensing, which we can observe. Where is the evidence for these pinches? Just link a paper, as I'm sick of your naive, simplistic crap. Show us where this has been observed and modelled for these regions. Otherwise you're making it up.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
Yes. Far more evidence than there is for anything advocated by the lightning bolt mythology cult.

So now you have a second M.O. to complement your unfettered use of logical fallacy, it would be a devoted reliance upon willful ignorance.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2018
You STILL can not provide any evidence for your silly claims,

Just decades of lab research with shows beyond reasonable doubt that plasma is filamentary due to the known physics of plasmas and electromagnetism. No invisible, undetectable faerie dust required.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2018
You STILL can not provide any evidence for your silly claims,

Just decades of lab research with shows beyond reasonable doubt that plasma is filamentary due to the known physics of plasmas and electromagnetism. No invisible, undetectable faerie dust required.


That does NOT prove that the same processes can take place on an astrophysical scale. If you believe otherwise, where is your evidence that they can?

Your argument is based on the easily falsifiable "it looks like it, so it must be it" argument. Are the filamentary structures we see in the clouds in the sky also "electromagnetic". No! Of course not. Your argument has ZERO scientific value.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2018
Are the filamentary structures we see in the clouds in the sky also "electromagnetic". No!

Ummmm, it could very well be electromagnetic. Just because you use the easily falsifiable "nu huh" doesn't mean it isn't. Your skepticism of real known physics ILO faerie dust physics suggests your opinion is of zero scientific value.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2018
And DM models predict filaments.

Ad hoc, after discovering a filamentary Universe.
And the DM filaments produce lensing, which we can observe.

Assumed. And EM fields and plasma processes can also produce lensing.
Where is the evidence for these pinches?

Sometimes it's as easy as opening your eyes, clearly the matter is pinched into filamentary structures. Not to mention that gravity alone cannot reconcile the speed at which the matter is being compressed, nor can it reconcile the sorting on the matter.
Just link a paper, as I'm sick of your naive, simplistic crap. Show us where this has been observed and modelled for these regions.

Already have numerous times, but you resort to logical fallacy and claim this eminent plasma physicist is this and not that or some other BS.
It's a tremendous irony that both of you insist that this plasma shouldn't behave as plasma should but should instead behave like your beloved faerie dust.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2018
And EM fields and plasma processes can also produce lensing.


Links to observations of such in astronomical scenarios, please.
Still not seen anybody observing or modelling this nonsense in the scientific literature.
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2018
Are the filamentary structures we see in the clouds in the sky also "electromagnetic". No!

Ummmm, it could very well be electromagnetic. .........


OK. We really are in looney tunes land. I am happy to leave you to your delusions as they really do provide some cartoon-like comedy.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
cantdrive85, jonesdave, RNP you have to combine your theories - Fritz Zwicky was not creating additional matter, he was stating a fact; he measured but could not see the mass he had just measured, for want of better description, he called it darkmatter! Small galaxies are not as luminous as their mass suggests, there is no darkmatter!
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
Links to observations of such in astronomical scenarios, please.
Still not seen anybody observing or modelling this nonsense in the scientific literature

It has been shown to you, you derided it with your typical logical fallacy, waved your hands about, and exclaimed ""nu huh", that's impossible!" That's the extent of your arguments.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2018
Our magnetic universe - Cambridgeshire University
Cambridge university shows electric fields maintaining their tenuous wispy filaments against force of gravity 200 Lys wide by 20,000 Lys long, their magnetic field lines providing the skeleton that holds the wispy filaments together against their surrounding destructive force of gravity, the amount of gas contained in a typical thread is one million times the mass of our own Sun at the same mix of hydrogen, helium, Including the other elements that comprise our Sun, but for the electric fields these wispy filaments would have dispersed a long time ago.
shadybail
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2018
"And on what basis do you make this claim? Where is your evidence? How are all the astrophysicists that successfully model such structures using gravity as the predominant process wrong? Surely, you must be able to provide SOME evidence for your extraordinary claims."

@RNP, you are dealing with someone who has a narcissistic personality. Subclassification mostly likely is:

Qualifier deaf: Some people can't hear other people's interpretive qualifiers and assume therefore that every debate is a know-it-all battle that their opponent started. This may seem an exotic trait until you consider how many people grow up in families where every disagreement is a know-it-all battle. If that's what you grew up with, you could easily come to assume that conversation comes in just two flavors, agreement or war.
shadybail
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2018
Further evidence of NPD is the lack of supporting evidence offered when engaged in conversation 'I know what I'm talking about' etc. Also, we see a heavy use of emotional pathos in the patients arguments. Once again, the same thing as 'I know what I'm talking about. So, I don't have to prove it.'

Clinical recommendation: Avoid engagement with this patient. If not, placate and patronize the patient if possible.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2018
There is plenty of evidence, as with anything you have to be willing to look.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2018
There is plenty of evidence, as with anything you have to be willing to look.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2018
There is plenty of evidence, as with anything you have to be willing to look.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2018
Links to observations of such in astronomical scenarios, please.
Still not seen anybody observing or modelling this nonsense in the scientific literature

It has been shown to you, you derided it with your typical logical fallacy, waved your hands about, and exclaimed ""nu huh", that's impossible!" That's the extent of your arguments.


Are you prattling on about Peratt's failed model? It failed. Observation, or lack thereof, based on his own predictions kills it. It was a non-event paper in an engineering journal.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2018
And Vershuur explained why the currents are obscured, but you don't understand real plasma physics nor do you care to learn.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
And Vershuur explained why the currents are obscured, but you don't understand real plasma physics nor do you care to learn.


Really? Where? Not that I'd take him particularly seriously.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
Really? Where? Not that I'd take him particularly seriously.

Not surprising considering his papers undermine your big bang religion.
By the way, he is Professor Emeritus at Arecibo, clearly not worthy. What is your title, other than Professor of Moron, of course?
http://outreach.n...my/staff
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2018
Really? Where? Not that I'd take him particularly seriously.

Not surprising considering his papers undermine your big bang religion.
By the way, he is Professor Emeritus at Arecibo, clearly not worthy. What is your title, other than Professor of Moron, of course?
http://outreach.n...my/staff


He was into plasma cosmology woo, and kept trying to throw doubt on the WMAP findings. He was wrong.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2018
He was into plasma cosmology woo, and kept trying to throw doubt on the WMAP findings. He was wrong.
As the Planck mission showed.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2018
He was into plasma cosmology woo, and kept trying to throw doubt on the WMAP findings. He was wrong.
As the Planck mission showed.


Yep. Essentially he was seeing what he wanted to see. Nobody took it particularly seriously, judging by the number of citations to those papers. However, he did prompt one paper which considered his claims, and dismissed them as insignificant:

Correlation between galactic HI and the Cosmic Microwave Background
Land, K. & Slosar, A.
https://arxiv.org...1703.pdf

We tested for correlation between the third-year WMAP CMB maps and LAB data of Galactic HI......... We do not find any convincing evidence for a correlation. The lack of correlation demonstrates how impressively clean the WMAP CMB maps are, outside of the masked regions.

.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2018
He has also since shown the error of the ways of his "debunkers", their statistical methods were flawed. Just as with Arp, Alfven, Birkeland, et al, research, the "protectors of the standard theory religion" detract, ignore, and with willful ignorance cast aside challenges to their closely held beliefs without proper consideration. Just like you fools.
agent-smith
5 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2018
The article talks about cold diazenylium gas.
This is deceptive as diazenylium "gas" has a formula of N2H+.
This therefore means that we are talking about plasma and not gas as stated in the article.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2018
He has also since shown the error of the ways of his "debunkers", their statistical methods were flawed. Just as with Arp, Alfven, Birkeland, et al, research, the "protectors of the standard theory religion" detract, ignore, and with willful ignorance cast aside challenges to their closely held beliefs without proper consideration. Just like you fools.


No, he hasn't, which is why he's still talking to himself. Just like Arp. There are only so many times that people can be bothered rebutting such claims, before they simply ignore them.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2018
The article talks about cold diazenylium gas.
This is deceptive as diazenylium "gas" has a formula of N2H+.
This therefore means that we are talking about plasma and not gas as stated in the article.


Then read the paper - it is clearly stated in there.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.