Star "birth" captured by ALMA

[pirogronian]

As inform space.com, ALMA telescope array captured something, what is identified by astronomers as star birth. Two published images are very interesting, because elestric star formation is very diffrent from standard gravitational theory. So I've looked on it carefully and the only obvious thing I noticed is clearly visible z-pinch of plasma. I'm too amateur to notice more subtle things. Anyone want to comment more what we can see on presented images?

Composed image from ALMA and NTT. Separate views on oryginal article page.

[neilwilkes]

It looks to me very much like the object in the Pink trail (at it's head) has been ejected from what also looks like a Z-Pinch to me. I am reminded of the trail we see after a launch.

[pirogronian]

Indeed this stream following something ejected from central area feel the eyes. It and blue bulb around reminded rod in bulb. But what is it? I don't know. Maybe it is (and whole jetting machanism) related to Arp's quasars ejected from cores of galaxies. Well, I must read more about z-pinch. There is article on wikipedia to translate into polish...

[JeffreyW]

I hope they don't say this is the first one discovered because these things are quite common. It's been known for a while now that new stars are created in z-pinch mechanisms, but the establishment is just coming to apparently. The below referenced birthing stars are "dying stars" to the establishment. They have it backwards.

Google:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0509/bo ... st_big.jpg

http://0.tqn.com/d/chemistry/1/0/7/j/rednebula.jpg

http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~icke/pi ... ritage.jpg

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/ar ... rue_11.jpg

[JeffreyW]

What is also very strange to me is that they say its "star birth". I thought their religion of Big Bang only allowed for stars to be born right after the "creation of the universe". I mean, that's how they DATE stars is measured by their helium/hydrogen content as measured against their creation event?

Thus to have a "birthing star" to the establishment is impossible because of Big Bang Religion. All stars were born at the moment of the Big Bang.

Or am I missing something?

-Jeffrey

[JeffreyW]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NGC6543.jpg

If you check the description on the wikipedia page the "experts" state this is a dying star. It is not. It is a birthing star. They had to make it a "dying star" because if it was birthing then Big Bang is useless for the determination of stellar aging. All stars to them were born "as is" right after the creation event.

As we all know though to challenge big bang would be loss of $$$$ and is a career ender because you lose credibility. You don't get to use the big boy telescopes unless you are lockstep with their religion.

-Jeffrey

[pirogronian]

birthing stars are "dying stars" to the establishment

Indeed. They identified this object as "birthing star" parhaps because it is in gas and dust cloud. But expect it I cannot see any difference between this object and referred "dying stars" or "planet nebulaes".

You don't get to use the big boy telescopes unless you are lockstep with their religion.

Oh yes, I heard that Halton Arp is good example.

[nick c]

What is also very strange to me is that they say its "star birth". I thought their religion of Big Bang only allowed for stars to be born right after the "creation of the universe".

No, that is not the case. Mainstream astronomy considers star formation via gravitational accretion in molecular gas clouds as an ongoing process. For instance, the Orion nebula is considered to be a stellar nursery with newly formed stars. The EU does not necessarily disagree with the assertion that the Orion nebula and like objects are stellar nurseries, but does disagree with the mechanism, ie gravitational accretion.
Perhaps you are thinking of galaxy formation which is a process that occurred as an after effect of the BB. Not that I agree with any of that, but just saying for the purpose of clarification.

[viscount aero]

What is also very strange to me is that they say its "star birth". I thought their religion of Big Bang only allowed for stars to be born right after the "creation of the universe".

No, that is not the case. Mainstream astronomy considers star formation via gravitational accretion in molecular gas clouds as an ongoing process. For instance, the Orion nebula is considered to be a stellar nursery with newly formed stars. The EU does not necessarily disagree with the assertion that the Orion nebula and like objects are stellar nurseries, but does disagree with the mechanism, ie gravitational accretion.
Perhaps you are thinking of galaxy formation which is a process that occurred as an after effect of the BB. Not that I agree with any of that, but just saying for the purpose of clarification.

I was just going to comment on galaxy versus star birth: Notice how the BB/mainstream never alleges (to my knowledge) that a galaxy is being created? It is always a star. Never is a galaxy being born or formed. Only stars can be formed. Isn't this a bit silly?

And have you noticed, too, that to BB cosmologists "star birth" and "star death" nearly always look exactly the same, as if they have randomly chosen a colorful nebula to be a "birth" or a "death"--as if picking at random?

[justcurious]

What frequencies do the colors represent? I saw this image in my phone science news today, seems to be an overlay of data form two different sources.

[pirogronian]

seems to be an overlay of data form two different sources.

Of cource it is. Part of it originates from ALMA, part from ESO's NTT. In article linked in my first post there is separate presentetion of this two image and composition as well. Top left blue bulb with pink ribbon is from shorter wavelenght ESO's NTT. But I don't know what is accurate colours meaning.

[celeste]

I don't think we are all interpreting this picture correctly. First, that is not a void in the center, but an opaque dust cloud, or we would see stars through it. That means the filament is not inside, but in the foreground, or it too would be blurred. If we were seeing some straight current filament crossing in front of the dust cloud, it would be odd that the filament just happens to end (or enter dark mode),right where we see the background dust cloud end.
Here is what we are seeing: We are seeing a filament that spirals AROUND the dust cloud. The bright blue and green areas at the two extremes, are where we are looking through more of the filament, as it bends around the dust cloud. This would of course mean that the forming star is skimming around the dust cloud surface. But isn't that the same thing our sun does http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17833816 ?
Even more telling is this line from the abstract "The upwind magnetic field direction is nearly parallel to the cloud surface. " Isn't that also required in the first picture in this thread? A magnetic field parallel to the dust cloud surface, would cause that filament to spiral as it does.

[pirogronian]

celeste, green light reflecting on dust cloud surface suggest that there is as you said. However magnetic field arounding dust cloud suggest that this is kind of closed circuit. What it's powered by? BTW linked article seems to be behind paywall, it's a pity...

[celeste]

celeste, green light reflecting on dust cloud surface suggest that there is as you said. However magnetic field arounding dust cloud suggest that this is kind of closed circuit. What it's powered by? BTW linked article seems to be behind paywall, it's a pity...

One more line from this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17833816 : "The sun and cloud space motions are nearly perpendicular". Meaning if the sun is spiraling along the surface AROUND the cloud, the cloud itself must be FLOWING down through the center. We need only make the assumption that the cloud is NOT neutral, and this flow of charge gives us the magnetic field parallel to the cloud surface that we do observe. The flow of charge through the center powers the toroidal current. I would suggest that the same thing is happening in the picture of HH46/47.

[viscount aero]

I don't think we are all interpreting this picture correctly. First, that is not a void in the center, but an opaque dust cloud, or we would see stars through it. That means the filament is not inside, but in the foreground, or it too would be blurred. If we were seeing some straight current filament crossing in front of the dust cloud, it would be odd that the filament just happens to end (or enter dark mode),right where we see the background dust cloud end.
Here is what we are seeing: We are seeing a filament that spirals AROUND the dust cloud. The bright blue and green areas at the two extremes, are where we are looking through more of the filament, as it bends around the dust cloud. This would of course mean that the forming star is skimming around the dust cloud surface. But isn't that the same thing our sun does http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17833816 ?
Even more telling is this line from the abstract "The upwind magnetic field direction is nearly parallel to the cloud surface. " Isn't that also required in the first picture in this thread? A magnetic field parallel to the dust cloud surface, would cause that filament to spiral as it does.

Correct. The so-called void is an opaque structure that is behind but moreover AMONG the colorful phenomena in the foreground. In other words, the article is correct in that it describes the "dust and gas" to be surrounding the visibly hidden green and yellow part of the structure (that is revealed in the photo composite which is a mixture of the visible and radio spectrum).

However the article is largely vague and incorrect in its description of what is happening.

As it is never stated in the article, to me, it is quite obvious that the phenomena is ionized and a plasma structure in the process of matter compression with a typical hourglass shape of bowl-shaped mag fields (toroidal structures/iterations) whose center star comprises the magnetic equator or "flip point"--the convergence of ionized matter shot out of the bottom of each magnetic bowl.

I would assume that the opaque matter region is feeding the entire process, a sort of cosmic amnion whereby the matter enters both the north and south magnetic bowls, gathers at the confinement domes whose excess pressure is relieved and shot out as a jet of material.

The article alludes to this process, saying "It also seems to be a textbook example of a simple model where the molecular outflow is generated by a wide-angle wind from the young star"--not knowing or admitting that the "outflow" is generated by a magnetic field and not a "wide-angle wind."

Furthermore, the article confusedly states: "But it is also unusual because the outflow impacts the cloud directly on one side of the young star and escapes out of the cloud on the other. This makes it an excellent system for studying the impact of the stellar winds on the parent cloud from which the young star is formed." This is clearly in error and falls short of telling what is probably actually happening: magnetic compression of matter.

Instead the article claims this example is "unusual because the outflow impacts the cloud directly on one side of the young star and escapes out of the cloud on the other"--which exactly describes a very usual and typical process of matter being drawn and compressed into north and south polar magnetic bowls.