G-cloud is the answer

[celeste]

Solar,
It's interesting that they say Betelgeuse is going to collide with the cloud (linear bar) in about 12,500 years. Again going back to the 24,000 yr spiraling of the Double Helix Nebula: If you look at that Nebula in two dimensions only, it appears that any star crashes into the other filament every 12,000 years. We know that in three dimensions a star passes in FRONT of a filament, then 12,000 years later, crosses BEHIND the same filament, never into it.
Now with Betelgeuse, are we seeing one filament (the one with Betelgeuse), nearly end on? And the other filament (the bar), nearly edge on? If we could look at the Double Helix Nebula from an angle slightly down it's axis, rather than edge on, could we not zoom in on a star and see the same configuration?

[jjohnson]

If Betelgeuse is in fact in a filament and it has an extended dusty envelope, doesn't that image remind you of the morphology of a planetary nebula, but with a large, cool central star? Two inverted wine glasses or funnels facing away from each other along their central axis, the classic Bennett pinch?

Here, Hubble astronomers explain what they conjecture may happen over time with such a situation involving three central stars, the central one of which is a red giant. We may be looking at something like this if that model is a plausible explanation of what is happening. Having white dwarfs orbiting interior to Betelgeuse's stellarsphere, if they aren't very bright, could render them invisible, given the relative brightness of Betelgeuse and the light extinction in the direction "along the pipe" toward Earth observers.

The arcs may lie on the cylindrical surface(s) of the pinching filament (which itself seems to be in dark mode) rather than on some spherically supposed bow wave "caused by Betelgeuse plowing through the interstellar medium". Here is a sketch on an inverted color image, and two similar nebula pictures illustrating the possible conditions surrounding Betelgeuse.

Betelgeuse may simply be a part of an intermediate stage in the formation of a pinched-current "planetary" nebula.

Jim

[celeste]

Jim, Yes, the arcs lie on the cylindrical surface of ONE of the two filaments in the pinch. http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KzR8on8Tdmw/RlDr9 ... wisted.jpg
Imagine in this image, that Betelgeuse is in the red filament, coming down from the top, and right at the point of crossing behind the blue filament for the first time. The "bar" or "wall" they see is the blue filament. You would have to be sitting at the letter m in the word filamentary. You see down the red filament at this point,and the blue filament runs across your field of view. Does that help?

[Solar]

Yes, you guys are on the right track imho.

In general, as we all know, astrophysicists don’t view stellar dynamics as integrated forms of electrical discharge processes. It’s all just gas and dust mysteriously blowing outward from stars (“mass loss”) and "collisions". There are a couple of locations in the Betelgeuse paper that reference ‘stellar interactions’ and/or Circumstellar Envelope-ISM ‘interaction regions’ wherein a star interacts with the ISM and/or the filaments therein. The paper is sort of an interesting read but, like most of the other papers, seems short because of the episodic “mass loss” interpretive focus which is discussed as being problematic at the onset in the Introduction. I think the ‘interaction regions’ might be the more worthwhile pursuit. Tracking down some of the references with regard to that concept led to:

Far-infrared circumstellar 'debris' shell of red supergiant stars

And

Fitting of the surface brightness using data in the 3 shortest bands suggests that the observed enhancement is caused by the temperature enhancement rather than the density enhancement, prompting a need to warm up dust grains primarily on the east side of the outer rim. Given the coincidence between the direction of the proper motion of the central star and the direction of the apex of the peripheric surface brightness/temperature enhancement in the shell, we infer that the observed shell structure represents the contact surface of the AGB wind-ISM interaction which is inclined to give an overall spherical shape instead of a typical parabolic bow shock structure. – The interface between the stellar wind and interstellar medium around R Cassiopeiae revealed by far-infrared imaging

The “linear bar” itself is touched on a bit more thoroughly after the hydro-sim section (pg 20, Sec 5). It is interesting that the last paragraph of that section cites the possibility that:

The bar might also be a linear filament in the interstellar cirrus, as also seen in the galactic centre whose possible origin is linked to the Galactic magnetic field…

(…)

Optical polarization measurements in the direction of Betelgeuse … show that the position andgle of the local ISM galactic field is consistent with the position of the linear bar. – L. Decin et al

At this point, and considering the references to ‘interaction regions’, I’m beginning to think that the “mass loss” interpretation may be smothering perceptions of the actual electrodynamic relationship between the star(s) and the filament(s). It’s not episodic “mass loss” nor "debris shells". I think its charge exchange via resonant periodic (oscillating) electrical discharging at a larger scale between the double-layers of star and filament. Perhaps this is why there is an almost ‘sonic’/’reverbative’ characteristic to the 2D image interpreted as "bow shock" and/or “mass loss”.

From the referenced lead Far-infrared circumstellar 'debris' shell of red supergiant stars

Have a look Fig 7 of Ori at 60 um: “The structure can be viewd in two parts: a roughly symmetric shell, plus a filament…” The next page refers to “b) The Circumstellar-Interstellar Interface” with regard to these “extended circumstellar emissions”. I think care is to be advised though; they're not really sure distance wise where the "linear bar" is in relation to Betelgeuse.

[celeste]

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... elim.shtml

This is understandable if we know that Betelgeuse is in a filament, and we are seeing it with a light path that grazes down along and into the filament.
First, what they are not seeing: Betelgeuse is not changing in size. They say it's not changing in brightness,but it's changing in size? So it's getting hotter? No, they don't see that either. Mainstream or EU, you can't have a star getting smaller in size, without getting dimmer, unless it kicks out more light /unit area (changes spectrum).
Remember the work of Ed Dowdye Jr? He showed that light was bent as it grazed the sun. Not because of gravitational bending of space, like the mainstream thinks, but simply from passing though all the plasma right at the sun's surface. Bent in the direction of increasing plasma density.
Well,if the plasma in a current filament does the same thing, and we see Betelgeuse with light that leaves the filament on a grazing path(we are looking mostly along the filaments edge), then light from Betelgeuse is bent towards the filament surface. The changes in path length from one side of Betelgeuse to the edge, are merely a function of how much plasma we are looking through at the time.
So Betelgeuse's size and parallax distance are both going to be skewed by this viewing angle through all that plasma. (even a low plasma density filament gets to be a lot of plasma when you look down through it)

[Solar]

That’s a good and probable analysis Celeste. Especially considering that one could also be gazing through the increased edge density of any one, or more, of the 15 or so local interstellar “clouds” mentioned in an earlier referenced paper. There is also this:

The electric model of bright stars shows that there is an exquisitely simple control mechanism introduced by a bright photosphere. The photosphere acts like a junction transistor to regulate the current flow between the star and its environment. It results in a remarkably steady output of light and heat radiation despite a varying power supply. For example, the Sun, viewed in X-rays, is avariable star. X-rays are generated high above the photosphere and are a measure of electrical power input. They reveal the variability of the Sun’s power source. The photosphere generates the radiant output, which is stabilized by its transistor effect.

Dim red stars like Betelgeuse do not have the same power control mechanism. They respond to variation in their power supply instead by varying the surface area of their glowing plasma sheath—in other words, their visible size. Our own Sun varies slightly in size, much to the puzzlement of astrophysicists. However, what is called “the photosphere” of Betelgeuse is physically and electrically nothing like the photosphere of bright stars.

The decrease in diameter of Betelgeuse over 15 years suggests a slow change in the power input to Betelgeuse. Shrinking is a normal response of a glow discharge plasma sheath to an increase in the availability of electrons from the galactic plasma. Such an increase may be due to rising current in the local galactic circuit. Or it may be due to a decrease in dustiness of the plasma near the star (dust particles tend to scavenge electrons). Our Sun registers such a change through the sunspot cycle and X-ray output. It seems likely that Betelgeuse will expand or oscillate in size in future. The presence of hot spots on Betelgeuse should be correlated with changes in its diameter. – The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star

Has any astrophysicist or astrophysical processing ever measured the actual ‘surface/edge’ of any star? Or have they been gauging (misinterpreting) plasma sheath variability in terms of stellar size?: And where did the bright spot go?

Townes and former graduate student Ken Tatebe observed a bright spot on the surface of Betelgeuse in recent years, although at the moment, the star appears spherically symmetrical. – Red giant star Betelgeuse mysteriously shrinking

[celeste]

Solar, They measured the size of Betelgeuse by interferometry, and located the bright spots on it using the same method. Of course,interferometry depends crucially on the light path. The mainstream knows this, and has developed ideas to test for warped space or gravity waves using interferometry. But if Ed Dowdye is right about plasma bending light, then all their measurements are in question. Looks like Dowdye did for interferometry, what Arp did for the redshift/distance scale.

[seasmith]

`
An outburst from a massive star 40 days before a supernova explosio n

Type IIn supernovae are a diverse class of transient events, spectroscopically defined by narrow and/or intermediate-width hydrogen emission lines (up to a few thousand km s−1 wide)8, 9, 10. These emission lines probably originate from optically thin circumstellar matter ionized by the supernova shock and/or radiation field. The spectra and light curves of these supernovae are interpreted as signatures of interaction between the supernova ejecta and mass that has been expelled before the explosion...

A surprising result is the short time between the outburst and the explosion, which is a tiny fraction (~10−8) of the lifetime of a massive star. Even if massive stars have multiple mass-loss episodes (with mass loss ) during their lifetime, the number of such episodes cannot exceed ~5,000; otherwise, the mass lost will exceed a typical stellar mass. A conservative estimate shows that so far it might be possible to detect such an outburst in a sample of up to about 20 nearby type IIn supernovae, which have deep pre-explosion observations (see Supplementary Informationsection 7). Therefore, the probability of observing a random burst one month before the explosion is 0.1%. We conclude that such outbursts are either causally related to, or at least two orders of magnitude more common before, the final stellar explosion.

The nature of the precursor bump is very intriguing and can potentially tell us a great deal about the supernova explosion and the progenitor. The only interpretation that is fully consistent with the photometric and spectroscopic evidence is that the first bump represents an outburst from the SN progenitor about one month before explosion, while the brighter bump is initiated by a full explosion of the star a few weeks later. Below we analyse this model in the context of the photometric and spectroscopic data. In Supplementary Information section 6, we discuss some alternative models and conclude that they are unlikely.,

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 6

Alternative interpretations
Here we consider alternative interpretations regarding the nature of the precursor bump and show that they are not consistent with the observations. One possibility is that this feature is due to a shock breakout (e.g., Colgate 1974) prior to the SN rise. However, given the feature’s luminosity, its duration is at least an order of magnitude too long to be consistent with a shock breakout (e.g., Nakar & Sari 2010; Rabinak & Waxman 2011).
A second possibility is that the first bump represents a SN explosion while the second peak is due to the interaction of the SN ejecta with dense CSM and the conversion of the SN kinetic energy into radiated luminosity. However, this scenario can be rejected based on the fact that by fitting a black-body spectrum to the spectra (see SI Figure 3), we can find the temperature and photospheric radius evolution between days 5 and 27. These fits suggest that the photosphere is expanding with a mean velocity of ∼>4300 km s−1, and that the black-body radius at day 6 is ∼ 6 × 1014 cm. Extrapolating backward, this suggests that the SN outburst happened after day −10.
Another argument against this scenario is that the SN spectrum at day 27 after discov- ery (main text Figure 2), shows a P-Cygni profile with a velocity of ∼ 104 km s−1. At the same time, the black-body radius of the SN photosphere is ∼ 1.5 × 1015 cm. These values are roughly consistent (to within 30%) with an explosion time at day 0, and are less con-
sistent with explosion at day −37 day relative to discovery. A caveat in this statement is that the photospheric radius which controls the black-body temperature of the continuum is not necessarily at the same position where the P-Cygni absorption is generated.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... E-20130207

[celeste]

Seasmith, I'm still wondering about what we are seeing in those supernova bursts.
How do we know we are not seeing this: Instead of gas being throw off in a shell, we have a wave of gas forming out of the plasma around the star. We don't even need to have this much mass ever in the star in the first place. What we see as blue shift, which the mainstream sees as expansion, is really just less free electron density (as Ari's work says). The very act of plasma combining to form the gas, explains the lower free electron density,and hence apparent blue shift. That would obviously help explain why they are having trouble matching their expansion rate data (if redshift is not expansion, they can't use it to extrapolate back to the initial time zero) . May it help us in EU to see where mass comes from/goes when a star fails?
I'm getting ahead of myself. First, can we tell if it's an expanding shell, or a wave of recombination? Keeping in mind their assumptions of cloud cooling due to expansion, are they right, or not?

[seasmith]

First, can we tell if it's an expanding shell, or a wave of recombination?

Celeste, well the data as presented certainly leaves open a substantial number of interpretations ( as do most astronomical-scale events, since we are afforded only one spatial perspective in contrast to the nano-scale, where ~3D is often possible; and why i rarely have anything useful to contribute on these cosmic phenomena).
Proceeding with the assumption that an SN is the Visible phase, and the article heading is: "...outburst 40 days before supernova...", I'm looking for a possible terrestrial analogue.
And also, still try to make sense of their supplementary info saying, "

Another argument against this scenario is that the SN spectrum at day 27 after discov- ery (main text Figure 2), shows a P-Cygni profile with a velocity of ∼ 104 km s−1. At the same time, the black-body radius of the SN photosphere is ∼ 1.5 × 1015 cm. These values are roughly consistent (to within 30%) with an explosion time at day 0, and are less con-sistent with explosion at day −37 day relative to discovery.

If this is against Their scenario, then comes to mind the biggest "explosion" experienced locally- ie an H-Bomb.
Here we have an immediate expanding spherical-radiative energy 'front', followed by a sphere-filling atomic/ionic 'cloud'.
In other words, i haven't a clue, but do welcome any possible elucidation you may be able to provide....
~

[celeste]

seasmith, I now think a supernova is an explosive feedback of expansion and recombination. Charles Chandler was right here: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9717
Let's say that flash, 40 days before the supernova, started the star expanding gradually. What happens as a star expands? The gravitational forces at it's surface decrease. Eventually, you get recombination (the opposite of compressive ionization). But as Charles shows, the recombined matter can not be packed so tightly, meaning more expansion. Which leads to sudden explosive feedback: expansion causes decrease in gravity at the surface,decrease in gravity leads to recombination,recombination leads to expansion. I don't know if Charles has figured this out already, but it's just his compressive ionization feedback, only run in reverse.
As a matter of fact, if that first flash just started blowing mass off the star, eventually gravitational forces would decrease until you reached that same point of explosive recombination/expansion feedback.

[CharlesChandler]

I don't know if Charles has figured this out already, but it's just his compressive ionization feedback, only run in reverse.

You're right -- I haven't gotten this far, but I definitely agree with your analysis. If compressive ionization is a force feedback loop that latches onto a plasma and binds it together into a star, then the failure of that feedback loop will re-release all of the potential, perhaps catastrophically.

I have considered this as a possible explanation of red giants, which go through a brief period of rapid expansion, during which they glow brightly. "Brief" = a couple million years, according to the consensus, but I don't know how they got that estimate. Anyway, it's interesting to note that the road to the red giants is populated with Cepheid variables, whose luminosity fluctuates over a period of days to months. Elsewhere I discuss competing forces that regulate the power output of the Sun, and then I describe how that regulator might be breaking down in the Cepheids, resulting in wild fluctuations. This might create enough heat to cause the expansion of the star, and that would decrease the density of the gravitational field. And that might lead to the failure of the feedback loop holding the star together. So it would make sense that the luminosity increases as the power regulator fails, and then the star falls apart in a "brief" but extremely luminous flare-up.

So you're going the next step, in saying that the stellar failure might be a lot quicker than a couple million years. Perhaps it's the same failure, but the difference between a supernova and a red giant is that in a supernova, another process kicks in? For example, with an extraordinary amount of heat from charge recombination, perhaps there's a thermonuclear explosion? I dunno -- that's as far as I've gotten.

[seasmith]

As a matter of fact, if that first flash just started blowing mass off the star, eventually gravitational forces would decrease until you reached that same point of explosive recombination/expansion feedback.

I have no problem with that explanation, tho i guess the recursive force needn't be solely gravity.

A thermonuclear explosion produces blast, light, heat, and varying amounts of fallout.

So what is happening? This page provides a nice explanation:
When a bomb explodes, the area around the explosion becomes overpressurized, resulting in highly compressed air particles that travel faster than the speed of sound. This wave will dissipate over time and distance and will exist only for a matter of milliseconds. This initial blast wave inflicts the most damage. When this blast wave reaches a structure or person, two things will initially happen. First, the person will feel the force of the blast, which is the primary and initial impact of the shockwave. This will damage a structure or body on impact.
That article also talks about blast wind – air that flows back into the vacuum caused by the explosion. You can see the blast wave and then the blast wind in this video of a nuclear bomb blast:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... clear-bomb
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2011/04/ ... struction/


Replace "air' with the ISM, and we have the the initial shock-and then recoil, typical of any large, centralized explosion.

º

[celeste]

Charles, There's definitely a thermonuclear explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis
"Production of the elements from iron to uranium occurs within seconds of a supernova explosion. " Seasmith's analogy of supernova as H-bomb is right.
Those seconds are where your compressive ionization feedback fails, and runs backwards, to explosive decompressive recombination. That provides the heat and pressure for the fusion. I think it is that simple.

[celeste]

seasmith, That's it. Charles ideas explain the source of heat/pressure for the fusion to begin. Then it's one big fusion bomb from there.
So is it slow expansion from that first flash 40 days before the supernova, until gravitational forces can't maintain compressive ionization(day 40), at which point we have that feedback of expansion and recombination, which generates the heat from recombination and pressure from rapid expansion, and fuels the nuclear reactions that both give us the heavy elements, and blow the star apart?