Posted on by Jean Tate

What is Absolute Temperature?

If you measure temperature relative to absolute zero, the temperature is an absolute temperature; absolute zero is 0.

The most widely used absolute temperature scale is the Kelvin, symbolized with a capital K, which uses Celsius-scaled degrees (there’s another one, the Rankine, which is related to the Fahrenheit scale). We write temperatures in kelvins without the degree symbol; absolute zero is 0 K.

Another name for absolute temperature is thermodynamic temperature. Why? Because absolute temperate is directly related to thermodynamics; in fact it is the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics that leads to a (formal) definition of (thermodynamic) temperature.

Roughly speaking, the temperature of an object (or similar, like the gas in a balloon) measures the kinetic energy of the particles (atoms, molecules, etc) of the matter it’s made up of … in an average sense, and macroscopically. Note that blobs of matter have far more energy than just the kinetic energy of the atoms in the blob – there’s the energy that holds the atoms together in molecules (if there are any), the binding energy of the nuclei (unless the blog is pure hydrogen, with no deuterium), and so on; none of these energies are counted in the blob’s temperature.

You might think that at absolute zero a substance would be in its lowest possible energy state, especially if it is a pure compound (or isotopically pure element). Well, it isn’t quite that simple … leaving aside zero point energy (something quite counter-intuitive, from quantum mechanics), there’s the fact that many solids have several different, stable crystal structures (even at 0 K), but only one with minimal energy. Then there’s helium, which is a liquid at 0 K (the solid phase of a substance has a lower energy than the corresponding liquid phase), unless under pressure.

The Kelvin is one of the International System of Units (SI) base units (there are seven of these), and is defined with reference to the triple point of water (“The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water” is the 1967/8 definition; the current one – adopted in 2005 – expands on this to take account of isotropic variations).

Why is it called the Kelvin? Because William Thompson – Lord Kelvin – was the first to describe an absolute temperature scale, in a paper he wrote in 1848; he also estimated absolute zero was -273o C.

Project Skymath has a nice introduction to absolute temperature.

Some Universe Today material you may find interesting: Absolute Zero, Coldest Temperature Ever Created, and Planck First Light.

Sources: Wikipedia, Hyperphysics

Posted on by Jean Tate

Pillars of Creation

One of the Hubble Space Telescope's most famous images, the "Pillars of Creation" in the Eagle Nebula. Credit: NASA/ESA

[/caption]
The pillars of creation are a part of the emission nebula, or H II region, M16 (also called the Eagle Nebula).

The iconic Hubble Space Telescope image shown here was taken on April Fool’s Day, 1995, using the WFPC2 camera (you can tell it’s that camera from the W-shaped bite taken out of it). It was snapped as part of a research program by Arizona State University’s Jeff Hester and Paul Scowen, and released to the general public on 2 November (i.e. after the proprietary six-month period was over). Embryonic Stars Emerge from Interstellar “Eggs” – that’s the title of the HubbleSite Press Release; “eggs” is a play on EGGs, Evaporating Gas Globules, “dense, compact pockets of interstellar gas“. Interestingly, the name “pillars of creation” is found only in the image title, and nowhere in the Press Release text!

The pillars of creation – and M16 – are about 7,000 light-years away, and each are several light-years long (of course, there’s no “up” in space, so if you turn the image upside down, you see downward hanging linear features … but ‘stalactites of creation’ just isn’t at all catchy).

This region of M16 has been imaged in the x-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum, by Chandra, in the infrared by Spitzer, and in infrared hi-def from the ground by the ESO’s VLT ANTU telescope.

Hubble has imaged many similar star-forming regions, complete with their own pillars; for example NGC 602 (in the Small Magellanic Cloud; zooming in on this image is fun – can you spot some of the ‘stalactites of creation’?), NGC 6357 (in our own Milky Way, just a tad further away than M16), and a different pillar (“Stellar Spire”) in the Eagle Nebula. Who knows? Maybe, one day, the Horsehead Nebula may become a pillar of creation too!

Universe Today has many articles on these pillars, Shadows Helped Form the “Pillars of Creation”, The Eagle … Has Arrived, Chandra Gives Another Look at the Pillars of Creation, Spitzer’s Version of the Pillars of Creation, and Eagle Nebula’s Pillars Were Wiped Out Thousands of Years Ago.

The Pillars of Creation also feature in Astronomy Cast episodes Nebulae, Stellar Populations, and Stellar Nurseries.

Posted on by Jean Tate

Megaparsec

velocity vs distance, from Hubble's 1929 paper

[/caption]
A megaparsec is a million parsecs (mega- is a prefix meaning million; think of megabyte, or megapixel), and as there are about 3.3 light-years to a parsec, a megaparsec is rather a long way. The standard abbreviation is Mpc.

Why do astronomers need to have such a large unit? When discussing distances like the size of a galaxy cluster, or a supercluster, or a void, the megaparsec is handy … just as it’s handy to use the astronomical unit (au) for solar system distances (for single galaxies, 1,000 parsecs – a kiloparsec, kpc – is a more natural scale; for cosmological distances, a gigaparsec (Gpc) is sometimes used).

Reminder: a parsec (a parallax of one arc-second, or arcsec) is a natural distance unit (for astronomers at least) because the astronomical unit (the length of the semi-major axis of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, sorta) and arcsec are everyday units (again, for astronomers at least). Fun fact: even though the first stellar parallax distance was published in 1838, it wasn’t until 1913 that the word ‘parsec’ appeared in print!

As a parsec is approximately 3.09 x 1016 meters, a megaparsec is about 3.09 x 1022 meters.

You’ll most likely come across megaparsec first, and most often, in regard to the Hubble constant, which is the value of the slope of the straight line in a graph of the Hubble relationship (or Hubble’s Law) – redshift vs distance. As redshift is in units of kilometers per second (km/s), and as distance is in units of megaparsecs (for the sorts of distances used in the Hubble relationship), the Hubble constant is nearly always stated in units of km/s/Mpc (e.g. 72 +/- 8 km/s/Mpc, or 72 +/- 8 km s-1 Mpc-1 – that’s its estimated value from the Hubble Key Project).

John Huchra’s page on the Hubble constant is great for seeing megaparsecs in action.

Given the ubiquity of megaparsecs in extragalactic astronomy, hardly any Universe Today article on this topic is without its mention! Some examples: Chandra Confirms the Hubble Constant, Radio Astronomy Will Get a Boost With the Square Kilometer Array, and Astronomers Find New Way to Measure Cosmic Distances.

Questions Show #7, an Astronomy Cast episode, has megaparsecs in action, as does this other Questions Show.

Posted on by Jon Voisey

How Galaxies Lose Their Gas

Galaxy mergers, such as the Mice Galaxies will be part of Galaxy Zoo's newest project. Credit: Hubble Space Telescope
The Mice galaxies, merging. Credit: Hubble Space Telescope

As galaxies evolve, many lose their gas. But how they do this is a point of contention. One possibility is that it is used to form stars when the galaxies undergo intense periods of star formation known as starburst. Another is that when large galaxies collide, the stars pass through one another but the gas gets left behind. It’s also possible that the gas is pulled out in close passes to other galaxies through tidal forces. Yet another possibility involves a wind blowing the gas out as galaxies plunge through the thin intergalactic medium in clusters through a process known as ram pressure.

A new paper lends fresh evidence to one of these hypotheses. In this paper, astronomers from the University of Arizona were interested in galaxies that displayed long gas tails, much like a comet. Earlier studies had found such galaxies, but it was unclear whether or not this gas tail was pulled out from tidal forces, or pushed out from ram pressure.

To help determine the cause of this the team used new observations from Spitzer to look for subtle differences in the causes of a tail following the galaxy ESO 137-001. In cases where tails are known to be pulled out tidally (such as in the M81/M82 system), there “is no physical reason why the gas would be preferentially stripped over stars.” Stars from the galaxy are pulled out as well and often large amounts of new star formation are induced. Meanwhile, ram pressure tails should be largely free of stars although some new star formation may be expected if there is turbulence in the tail which causes regions of higher density (think like the wake of a boat).

Examining the tail spectroscopically, the team was unable to detect the presence of large numbers of stars suggesting tidal processes were not responsible. Furthermore, the disk of the galaxy seemed relatively undisturbed by gravitational interactions. To support this, the team calculated the relative strengths of the forces acting on the galaxy. They found that, between the tidal forces acting on the galaxy from its parent cluster, and its own centripetal forces, the internal forces where greater, which reaffirmed that tidal forces were an unlikely cause for the tail.

But to confirm that ram pressure was truly responsible, the astronomers looked at other parameters. First they estimated the gravitational force for the galaxy. In order to strip the gas, the force generated by the ram pressure would have to exceed the gravitational one. The energy imparted on the gas would then be measurable as a temperature in the gas tail which could be compared to the expected values. When this was observed, they found that the temperature was consistent with what would be necessary for ram stripping.

From this, they also set limits on how long gas could last in such a galaxy. They determined that in such circumstances, the gas would be entirely stripped from a galaxy in ~500 million to 1 billion years. However, because the density of the gas through which the galaxy would slowly become denser as it passed through the more central regions of the cluster, they suggest the timescale would be much simpler. While this timescale say seem long, it is still shorter than the time it takes such galaxies to make a full orbit in their cluster. As such, it is possible that even in one pass, a galaxy may lose its gas.

If the gas loss occurs on such short timescales, this would further predict that tails like the one observed for ESO 137-001 should be rare. The authors note that an “X-ray survey of 25 nearby hot clusters only discovered 2 galaxies with X-ray tails.”

Although this new study in no way rules out other methods of removing a galaxy’s gas, this is one of the first galaxies for which the ram stripping method is conclusively demonstrated.

Source:

A Warm Molecular Hydrogen Tail Due to Ram Pressure Stripping of a Cluster Galaxy

Posted on by Jean Tate

Exobiology

Exobiology (same thing as astrobiology) is about life in space (on other planets, and moons; in other solar systems): where it is, what it is, how it started, and how it evolved (all studied scientifically, of course). Because the origin of life right here on Earth, and its early evolution, is essentially unknown, and because of the distinct possibility of similiarities with the origin (and early evolution) of life elsewhere in the universe, exobiology includes research into abiogenesis (and early, and extreme, life on Earth).

Exobiology is very much a multi-disciplinary field, drawing on biology, chemistry, geology (and planetary science), physics, and astronomy.

Because we have a sample of just one – life on Earth – it is difficult to make anything but the most general decisions on what lines of exobiology research are likely to be productive (keep in mind that null results can, of course, be quite productive). Conservatively, looking for planets like Earth in orbit around stars like the Sun (in age as well as mass, metallicity, etc), and looking for clues for fossil life in planetary environments like those found today on Earth (e.g. early Mars) seem better options than investigating possible silicon-based life (to take just one example).

As the number of exosolar (or extrasolar) planetary systems known continues to grow, quickly, discovering the prevalence of Earth-mass planets, in goldilocks orbital zones, seems like a good idea … so today we have the Kepler mission and COROT.

As the early Mars becomes better understood – and the widespread distribution of liquid water then – so today we have plans for the Mars Science Laboratory and ExoMars (the discovery of methane in the Martian atmosphere certainly spurs such developments).

Less conservatively, the discovery of life around black smokers and sites like Lost City (not to mention entire ecosystems within crustal rocks … several km beneath the surface) sparked interest in the possibility of life in Europa, on Titan, even Enceladus (life – albeit rather simple life – we now know does not need to depend, ultimately, on the Sun’s (or another star’s) radiant energy … think chemolithoautotrophs).

Did you know that NASA has an exobiology branch? Check it out! Duke University’s Chemistry Department has an interesting Introduction to Exobiology you might find interesting too.

Universe Today stories on exobiology? Yep, lots; here’s a random selection: Martian Explorers Should Be Looking for Fossils, Did Life Arrive Before the Solar System Even Formed?, Extremophile Hunt Begins in Antarctica, Implications for Exobiologists , and New Targets to Search for Life on Europa.

Any Astronomy Cast episodes on exobiology? Yep … but it’s called Astrobiology.

Sources: NASA, ESA

Posted on by Jean Tate

Asterism

Kemble's Cascade (Credit: Walter MacDonald)

[/caption]
The Big Dipper is an asterism (well-known to those who live in the northern hemisphere), so is the False Cross (well-known to those who live in the southern hemisphere). Asterisms are easily recognized pattern of *s*t*a*r*s* (but not a constellation).

The sky is full of asterisms easily seen without a telescope or binoculars: Summer Triangle, Great Square of Pegasus, the W in Cassiopeia, Frying Pan, Orion’s Belt, … it’s a long list.

The Southern Cross is not an asterism, strictly speaking, because it’s a constellation (Crux).

An asterism can take in parts of more than one constellation; for example, the Square of Pegasus has three stars in Pegasus (the three brightest, alpha, beta, and gamma Peg), and one in Andromeda (alpha And).

Some well-known asterisms are visible only through a telescope or binoculars; for example the Coathanger, and Kemble’s Cascade.

A couple (at least) of open clusters are also asterisms – the Hyades and the Pleiades (also known as the Seven Sisters).

Some clear, fixed features in the night sky, with well-known names, are not asterisms or constellations … the Coalsack for example, is a dark cloud in the plane of the Milky Way which blocks its light, and the Magellanic Clouds are dwarf, satellite galaxies of our own.

As astronomy in many cultures developed independently of the West (ancient Greece, Rome, etc), many of the commonly recognized constellations in those cultures correspond to asterisms … see if you can recognize some of the Chinese ones!

A particularly interesting kind of constellation is the dark constellation; instead of joining up bright stars to make an easily recognized figure, some cultures linked various dark nebulae in the Milky Way; for example the Emu in the Sky of the Australian Aborigines (and no, these are not asterisms).

SEDS (Students for the Exploration and Development of Space) has a concise list of asterisms easily visible without binoculars, or a telescope (though you may have to go to the opposite hemisphere to see them all!).

Asterisms are mentioned in many of Universe Today’s Weekend SkyWatcher’s Forecasts (August 21-23, 2009, for example), in its articles on Constellations (e.g. Orion), and Kids Astronomy ones (e.g. Finding the Summer Triangle).

Posted on by Darnell Clayton

Mini Nuclear Reactors Could Power Space Colonies

Growing up on Star Trek, I was always told that space was the final frontier. What they never told me was that space is about as friendly to the human body as being microwaved alive in a frozen tundra–in essence, shelter is a necessity.

Like any Earthen home or building, an off world shelter on the Moon or Mars will need energy to keep its residents comfortable (not to mention alive), and power outages of any sort will not be tolerated–unless a person desires to be radiated and frozen (which is probably not a great way to “kick the bucket”).

While some may look towards solar power to help keep the lights on and the heat flowing, it may be wiser instead to look at an upcoming “fission battery” from Hyperion Power Generation to power future colonies on the Moon, Mars, and perhaps an plasma rocket powered starship as well.

Originally created by Dr. Otis Peterson while on staff at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Hyperion Power Generation (which I’ll call HPG for short) has licensed Dr. Peterson’s miniature nuclear reactor which are actually small enough to fit inside a decent sized hot tub.

Despite their small stature (being 1.5 meters by 2.5 meters), one of these mini-reactors could provide enough energy to power 20,000 average sized American homes (or 70 MW’s of thermal energy in geek speak) and can last up to ten years.

Since HPG is designing these mini-nuclear reactors to require little human assistance (the “little” having to do with burying the reactors underground), these “nuclear batteries” would enable NASA (or a wealthy space company) to power an outpost on the Moon or Mars without having to rely upon the Sun’s rays–at least as a primary source for power.

HPG’s mini-reactors could also help power future star ships heading towards Jupiter or Saturn (or even beyond), providing enough energy to not only keep the humans on board alive and comfortable, but provide enough thrust via plasma rockets as well.

Scheduled to be released in 2013, these mini-reactors are priced at around $50 million each, which probably puts it outside the price range of the average private space corporation.

Despite the cost, it may be wise for NASA, the European Space Agency, Japan, India and (if the US is in a really good trusting mood) China to consider installing one (or several) of these mini-reactors for their respective bases, as it could enable humanity to actually do what has been depicted in scifi films and television shows–seek out new homes on new worlds and spread ourselves throughout the universe.

Source: Hyperion Power Generation, Inc., Image Credit: NASA

Posted on by Fraser Cain

Blood Moon



A blood moon is the first full moon after a harvest moon, which is the full moon closest to the fall equinox. Another name for a blood moon is a hunter’s moon.

Before the advent of electricity, farmers used the light of the full moons to get work done. The harvest moon was a time they could dedicate to bringing in their fall harvest. And so a month later is the blood moon, or the hunter’s moon. This was a good time for hunters to shoot migrating birds in Europe, or track prey at night to stockpile food for Winter.

A full moon occurs every 29.5 days, so a blood moon occurs about a month after the harvest moon. A blood moon is just a regular full moon. It doesn’t appear any brighter or redder than any other full moon. The distance between the Earth and the Moon can change over the course of the month. When the moon is at its closest, a full moon can appear 10% larger and 30% brighter than when it’s further away from the Earth.

A blood moon will actually turn red when it matches up with a lunar eclipse. These occur about twice a year, so blood moons match up with lunar eclipses about every 6 years or so. At the time of this writing, the next blood moon lunar eclipse will be in 2015.

We’ve written many articles about the Moon for Universe Today. Here’s an article about the discovery of water on the Moon, and here’s an article about a lava tube on the Moon.

If you’d like more info on the Moon, check out NASA’s Solar System Exploration Guide on the Moon, and here’s a link to NASA’s Lunar and Planetary Science page.

We’ve also done several episodes of Astronomy Cast about the Moon. Here’s a good one, Episode 17: Where Does the Moon Come From?

Posted on by Nicholos Wethington

Cool – Literally – Extrasolar Planet Imaged

Yet another planet outside of our Solar System has been directly imaged, bumping the list up past ten. Given that the first visible light image of an extrasolar planet was taken a little more than a year ago, the list is growing pretty fast. The newest one, planet GJ 758 B is also the coolest directly imaged planet, measuring 600 degrees Kelvin, and it orbits a star that is much like our own Sun. GJ 758 B has a mass of between 10-40 times that of Jupiter, making it either a really big planet or a small brown dwarf.

Unlike many of the other directly imaged planets, GJ 758 B resides in a system remarkably like our own Solar System – the star at the center is Sun-like, and the orbit of the planet is at least the same distance from its star as Neptune is from our own. Current observations put the distance at 29 astronomical units.

“The discovery of GJ 758 B, an extrasolar planet or brown dwarf orbiting a star that is similar to our own sun, gives us an insight into the diversity of substellar objects that may form around Solar-type stars,” said Dr. Joseph Carson, from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy. “This in turn helps show how our own Solar system, and the environments that are conducive to life, are just one of many scenarios that may be the outcome of planet or brown dwarf formation around Sun-like stars.”

Another object, labeled “C?” in the image above, could potentially be another companion to the star. Further observations will be required to determine whether the object in fact orbits the star or is merely another star in the background of the image which is not part of the system.

The mass of the star still has yet to be exactly determined, thus the 10-40 Jupiter mass range. It is 600 degrees Kelvin, which corresponds to 326 Celsius and 620 Fahrenheit, about the hottest temperature that a conventional oven can reach. Though this may seem hot, it’s actually pretty cool for an extrasolar planet. Even though it is so far away from its Sun that, like Neptune, it receives very little warmth from the star it orbits, GJ 758 B is in a stage of formation where the contraction of the planet due to gravity is converted into heat.

A size comparison of the GJ 758 system and corresponding members of our own Solar System, with the Earth for reference. Image Credit: Credit: MPIA/C. Thalmann
A size comparison of the GJ 758 system and corresponding members of our own Solar System, with the Earth for reference. Image Credit: Credit: MPIA/C. Thalmann

Dr. Markus Janson from the University of Toronto, a co-author of the paper announcing the imaging, said, “This is also why the mass of the companion is not well known: The measured infrared brightness could come from a 700 million year old planet of 10 Jupiter masses just as well as from a 8700 million year old companion of 40 Jupiter masses.” The paper detailing the results will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, but is available here on Arxiv.

The planet was imaged using the Subaru Telescope’s new High Contrast Instrument for the Subaru next generation Adaptive Optics (HiCIAO) instrument, which utilizes the technology of adaptive optics to eliminate the interference of our atmosphere that blurs images in ground-based telescopes. The imaging of GJ 758 B is part of the commissioning run of the HiCIAO instrument, which plans to take a larger survey to detect extrasolar planets and circumstellar disks in the next five years.

Source: Max-Planck Institute for Astronomy

Posted on by Nicholos Wethington

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Spaceflight Safety

Witnesses give statements to the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics hearing on spaceflight safety yesterday. Image Credit: Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

[/caption]

The U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics held a hearing yesterday on the issue of how to ensure the future safety of human flight into space for both commercial and governmental agencies. The hearing was attended by a number of witnesses that represented NASA, one from the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, the CEO of a risk-analysis firm, and a former astronaut. The subcommittee was chaired by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

This hearing comes on the tails of the Augustine Commission final report, which examined the future of spaceflight in the U.S. and laid out a “flexible path” plan that includes utilizing private, commercial firms for human transport into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the International Space Station.

Yesterday’s hearing was meant to help inform members of Congress about the safety concerns presented to manned flights, and what future regulations will be needed if commercial companies start to have a larger role in human spaceflight. The hearing’s charter states as its purpose:

On December 2, 2009 the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will hold a hearing focused on issues related to ensuring the safety of future human space flight in government and non-government space transportation systems.  The hearing will examine (1) the steps needed to establish confidence in a space transportation system’s ability to transport U.S. and partner astronauts to low Earth orbit and return them to Earth in a safe manner, (2) the issues associated with implementing safety standards and establishing processes for certifying that a space transportation vehicle is safe for human transport, and (3) the roles that training and experience play in enhancing the safety of human space missions.

Witnesses at the hearing included Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance for NASA Bryan O’Connor, Constellation Program Manager Jeff Hanley, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Council Member John C. Marshall, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation Bretton Alexander, Vice President of Valador, Inc. Dr. Joseph R. Fragola, and former astronaut Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, USAF, who flew in some of the Apollo and Gemini missions.

Each witness gave statements to the panel, all of which is available in .pdf format on the committee’s site. After hearing the testimony of these witnesses, Rep. Giffords said:

“At the end of the day, I am left with the firm conviction that the U.S. government needs to ensure that it always has a safe way to get its astronauts to space and back. As I have said in the past, I welcome the growth of new commercial space capabilities in America and do not see them as competitors with, but rather complementary to the Constellation systems under development. Based on what we’ve heard today, I see no justification for a change in direction on safety-related grounds. Instead, I am very impressed with the steps that have been taken to infuse safety into the Constellation program, and want to encourage their continued efforts to make Ares and Orion as safe as possible.”

Part of the reason for the hearing was to compare the safety of commercial vehicles to the Constellation program for getting astronauts to the International Space Station after the Shuttle program is shut down. Constellation won’t be ready to go until 2015 at the earliest, so the gap of five years could potentially be filled by private contractors.

Of course, you might notice that only one of the members of the witness panel of six represents commercial interests, which has caused some critics – like the Orlando Sentinel – to call the safety hearing a “Pro-Constellation rally.” The Space Politics blog also pointed this lack of representation out.

Though commercial aerospace companies like SpaceX, Masten Space Systems and XCOR weren’t represented directly on the witness panel, they are members of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. Bretton Alexander stressed the importance of safety in his statement, and also pointed out that private space companies could take over the majority LEO launches here at home to allow NASA and its partners the resources to go to the Moon (and beyond).

Source: House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics press release