Slashdot Mirror
Herschel Spectroscopy of Future Supernova
davecl writes "ESA's Herschel Space Telescope has released its first spectroscopic results. These include observations of VYCMa, a star 50 times as massive as the sun and soon to become a supernova, as well as a nearby galaxy, more distant colliding starburst galaxies and a comet in our own solar system. The spectra show more lines than have ever been seen in these objects in the far-infrared and will allow astronomers to work out the detailed chemistry and physics behind star and planet formation as well as the last stages of stellar evolution before VYCMa's eventual collapse into a supernova. More coverage is available at the Herschel Mission Blog, which I run."
Isn't that supernova really in the past if we see it go kablooie soon?
You can really see stars as the engines of life, not just as the energy source, but the source of our building materials. We are made of stardust as Carl Sagan used to say.
Interesting notes from the article referring to the PACS and Spire instruments.
The SPIRE spectrum, a portion of which is shown (Fig. 1 right), has prominent features from carbon monoxide (CO) and water (H2O).
Many of the features are due to water, showing that the star is surrounded by large quantities of hot steam.
In the PACS spectral range, more than 400 spectral lines of which more than 270 are water lines have been detected. The envelope of VY CMa resembles nuclear power plants on Earth, where water is used to cool the environment of the central engine.
They can do some experiments, at least in the astrophysics branch of the science (I recall jetliners with atomic clocks being used to test time dilation). Not to mention some of the planetary exploration robots, or that recent bombardment of the moon (which let us detect water there).
But generally, you are right - most of astronomy is dedicated to observation. Astronomers basically work out theories based on empirical observation of natural phenomena, which is as strong a foundation as any other hard science. And while experimentation may be part of some definitions of science, that seems more like a problem with the definitions than with astronomy.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Science is the ability to formulate hypothesis and test them against experiments or observations (or both). So yes, astrophysics is a science.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
The jetliner experiment isn't just astronomy - it's a test of general relativity, which is just like testing a basic principle like F=ma.
People might think twice when they attack the string theorists for not having experimental evidence for their theories. They do in fact have an infinite number of theories which get rid of the divergences that occur in quantum gravity, so give them some credit for that.
Planet, there's a place you can go,
I said, planet, when your velocity's low,
You can orbit, and I'm sure you will see,
A supernova for you and me.
It's fun to orbit VYCMa,
It's fun to orbit VYCMa,
They have everything that you need to enjoy,
Being utterly destroyed.
Heh. Nice to see results from this. I just did some work related to SPIRE in Summer 08. Namely, some nonlinearities with regards to bolometers (the type of detector used on SPIRE). Just some coop work, but it's kind of nice to see a project you worked on get some nice results. Unfortunately, you can't see the effects of my work because they only show up as second and third harmonics, and the data here doesn't show enough to see it.
Cynical Idealist
An experiment is a prediction of something whose result is not yet proven. Just as in, say, chemistry, you can make predictions and test them with an experiment, so for astronomy. You make a prediction about what will be observed under certain conditions. The experiment requires better telescopes to test, so 20 years later, when Hubble comes along, you test the predicted outcome, and possibly disprove the prediction. Or maybe you only need to make a new observation which no one has made yet to test your idea.
It may not be a classic mix-and-watch experiment, but it seems like one to me.
Infuriate left and right
When they say "soon" is that "soon" in cosmic terms, like say within 10,000 years, or "soon" as within my lifetime?
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
FTFA, it says that the star in question is 4900 light years away. To really understand what that means- the image of the star as we see it today left from it close to 5000 years ago, when the career prospects for laying 50 ton stone blocks were quite high in the Nile delta. For all we know, it might have gone supernova already at any point within the last 5000 years, and if we could instantly teleport to its location now we may actually just see the white dwarf remnant. Which means what we're observing may well be what once was, and not what currently is.
Starlight is the closest we can get to time travel, in a way. To look at it another way, Betelgeuse is 640 light years away; if anyone could observe Earth from there now with telescopes (!!), they would see us as we were during the middle ages, with the Black Plague sweeping across Europe.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
No instead use a proper formula to calculate the time by utilizing the gravitational pull of a planet in the field of reference. In this case you could pull the answer out of Uranus.