Herschel finds less dark matter but more stars

Feb 16, 2011
This set of images shows the distribution of the dark matter, obtained from a numerical simulation, at a redshift z~2, or when the Universe was about 3 billion years old. The left panel displays the continuous distribution of dark matter particles, showing the typical wispy structure of the cosmic web, with a network of sheets and filaments that developed out of tiny fluctuations in the early Universe. The central panel provides a simplified view of the complex network of dark matter structure according to the so-called halo model, a statistical approach used to describe the distribution of dark matter on both large and small scales. Within this framework, the dark matter distribution is viewed as an ensemble of discrete objects, the dark matter halos, corresponding to the densest knots of the cosmic web. The right panel highlights the dark matter halos (shown in yellow) that represent the most efficient cosmic sites for the formation of galaxies. Only halos with a mass above a certain threshold can trigger the ignition of intense bursts of star formation, thus creating a starburst galaxy. According to the latest measurements achieved with Herschel, the minimum mass needed by a halo for a starburst galaxy to form within it is 3 x 10^11 times that of the Sun. Credits: The Virgo Consortium/Alexandre Amblard/ESA

(PhysOrg.com) -- ESA's Herschel space observatory has discovered a population of dust-enshrouded galaxies that do not need as much dark matter as previously thought to collect gas and burst into star formation.

The galaxies are far away and each boasts some 300 billion times the mass of the Sun. The size challenges current theory that predicts a galaxy has to be more than ten times larger, 5000 billion solar masses, to be able form large numbers of stars.

The new result is published today in a paper by Alexandre Amblard, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.

Most of the mass of any galaxy is expected to be , a hypothetical substance that has yet to be detected but which astronomers believe must exist to provide sufficient gravity to prevent galaxies ripping themselves apart as they rotate.

Current models of the birth of galaxies start with the accumulation of large amounts of dark matter. Its drags in ordinary atoms. If enough atoms accumulate, a 'starburst' is ignited, in which stars form at rates 100-1000 times faster than in our own galaxy does today.

" is showing us that we don't need quite so much dark matter as we thought to trigger a starburst," says Asantha Cooray, University of California, Irvine, a co-author on today's paper.

This discovery was made by analysing taken by Herschel's SPIRE (Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver) instrument at wavelengths of 250, 350, and 500 microns. These are roughly 1000 times longer than the wavelengths visible to the human eye and reveal galaxies that are deeply enshrouded in dust.

"With its very high sensitivity to the far-infrared light emitted by these young, enshrouded starburst galaxies, Herschel allows us to peer deep into the Universe and to understand how galaxies form and evolve," says Göran Pilbratt, the ESA Herschel project scientist.

There are so many galaxies in Herschel's images that they overlap, creating a fog of infrared radiation known as the cosmic infrared background. The galaxies are not distributed randomly but follow the underlying pattern of dark matter in the Universe, and so the fog has a distinctive pattern of light and dark patches.

Analysis of the brightness of the patches in the SPIRE images has shown that the rate in the distant infrared galaxies is 3-5 times higher than previously inferred from visible-wavelength observations of similar, very young galaxies by the Hubble Space Telescope and other telescopes.

Further analysis and simulations have shown that this smaller mass for the galaxies is a sweet spot for star formation. Less massive galaxies find it hard to form more than a first generation of stars before fizzling out. At the other end of the scale, more massive galaxies struggle because their gas cools rather slowly, preventing it from collapsing down to the high densities needed to ignite star formation.

But at this newly identified 'just-right' mass of a few hundred billion solar masses, galaxies can make stars at prodigious rates and thus grow rapidly.

"This is the first direct observation of the preferred mass scale for igniting a starburst," says Dr Cooray.

Models of galaxy formation can now be adjusted to reflect these new results, and astronomers can take a step closer to understanding how – including our own –came into being.

Explore further: Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?

Related Stories

Herschel reveals the hidden side of star birth

May 06, 2010

The first scientific results from ESA's Herschel infrared space observatory are revealing previously hidden details of star formation. New images show thousands of distant galaxies furiously building stars ...

Survey Reveals Building Block Process For Biggest Galaxies

Apr 12, 2006

A new study of the universe's most massive galaxy clusters shows how mergers play a critical role in their evolution. Astronomers used the twin Gemini Observatory instruments in Hawaii and Chile, and the Hubble Space Telescope ...

Cosmologists 'see' the cosmic dawn

Feb 11, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The images, produced by scientists at Durham University's Institute for Computational Cosmology, show the "Cosmic Dawn" - the formation of the first big galaxies in the Universe.

Herschel's hidden talent: digging up magnified galaxies

Nov 04, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- It turns out the Herschel Space Observatory has a trick up its sleeve. The telescope, a European Space Agency mission with important NASA contributions, has proven to be excellent at finding ...

Recommended for you

Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?

Dec 24, 2014

Bright stars top Christmas trees in Christian homes around much of the world. The faithful sing about the Star of Wonder that guided the wise men to a manger in the little town of Bethlehem, where Jesus was ...

Hubbles spies the beautiful galaxy IC 335

Dec 24, 2014

This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the galaxy IC 335 in front of a backdrop of distant galaxies. IC 335 is part of a galaxy group containing three other galaxies, and located in the Fornax ...

Image: Multicoloured view of supernova remnant

Dec 22, 2014

Most celestial events unfold over thousands of years or more, making it impossible to follow their evolution on human timescales. Supernovas are notable exceptions, the powerful stellar explosions that make ...

Ultra-luminous X-ray sources in starburst galaxies

Dec 22, 2014

Ultra-luminous X-ray sources (ULXs) are point sources in the sky that are so bright in X-rays that each emits more radiation than a million suns emit at all wavelengths. ULXs are rare. Most galaxies (including ...

When a bright light fades

Dec 22, 2014

Astronomer Charles Telesco is primarily interested in the creation of planets and stars. So, when the University of Florida's giant telescope was pointed at a star undergoing a magnificent and explosive death, ...

User comments : 31

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

natetuvkok
not rated yet Feb 16, 2011
dark matter is god,lol jk i think am i
Tuxford
1 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2011
Galaxies rotate? Then why are all the nearby stars in our galaxy moving radially away from the center, decelerating as they go?
natetuvkok
not rated yet Feb 16, 2011
do they all rotate the same way?
iz dark matter left or right
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (19) Feb 16, 2011
ESA's Herschel space observatory has discovered a population of dust-enshrouded galaxies that do not need as much dark matter as previously thought to collect gas and burst into star formation.


As suspected over 50 years ago, [Huang, S.-S.: 1957, “A nuclear-accretion theory of star formation”, Astron. Soc. Pacific 69, 1957, pp. 427-430] stars do not form by gravitational collapse of an interstellar cloud.

They form on the collapsed cores of precursor stars - pulsars.

See: youtube.com/watch?v=AQZe_Qk-q7M

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Doom1974
5 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2011
And how do the precursor stars form Oh mighty omatumr? parthenogenesis ?
jsa09
1 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2011
The faster you move relative to the other buy the faster they appear to move. Which seems normal in slow everyday speeds but gets weird at really high speeds.

I only mention this because relativity has greater effect at higher speeds and when talking about orbiting stars in galaxies we are getting up there.
When you mix in orbital speeds with relativity effects then you get higher apparent orbital velocities than you would be gravity alone. This means that as orbital velocity increases you end up with appearance of more gravity at the center than really exists.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 16, 2011
Doom1974: The universe including the Milky Way is fragmenting - driven by neutron repulsion.

youtube.com/watch?v=sXNyLYSiPO0

See also "Neutrino Repulsion", in press, 2011, 19 pp.
arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

And references cited there.
Jaeherys
5 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2011
The faster you move relative to the other buy the faster they appear to move. Which seems normal in slow everyday speeds but gets weird at really high speeds.

I only mention this because relativity has greater effect at higher speeds and when talking about orbiting stars in galaxies we are getting up there.
When you mix in orbital speeds with relativity effects then you get higher apparent orbital velocities than you would be gravity alone. This means that as orbital velocity increases you end up with appearance of more gravity at the center than really exists.


Using an average orbital velocity of a star around galactic centre of about 220km/s, you get a relativistic factor of ~1.0000003. I don't think that would make up for the "extra" velocity noticed.

httpDELETE://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
httpDELETE://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm

Jake
71STARS
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2011
@omatur: As one who wrote a theory in 2008 (Sun Creation Theory) in which Suns birth/create/shed Suns, I am unaware of S. Huang of 1957: "They form on the collapsed cores of precursor stars-pulsars." Thank you for the info, and I will certainly look this up. If you have any other sites, please advise. However, my theory does not need stars to collapse or die; the simplicity is found in Suns creating Suns when they reach their maximum unsustainable size.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 17, 2011
. . . the simplicity is found in Suns creating Suns when they reach their maximum unsustainable size.


Intriguing! I understand that the Mayan Sun also had rebirths.

I am not an astronomer. But I am confident that our Sun formed on the collapsed core of the precursor Sun that exploded axially 5 Gyr ago and gave birth to the solar system.

I am also intrigued by the possibility that spirituality and science may have to merge to prevent participants of both camps from thinking that they alone have truth.

That was a theme of the video on neutron repulsion:

youtube.com/watch?v=sXNyLYSiPO0
soulman
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2011
As one who wrote a theory in 2008 (Sun Creation Theory) in which Suns birth/create/shed Suns

Intriguing! I understand that the Mayan Sun also had rebirths.

I am also intrigued by the possibility that spirituality and science may have to merge to prevent participants of both camps from thinking that they alone have truth.

ROTFLMAO! The meeting of the minds of two cranks! Calling QC, where art thou?
impZ
1.4 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2011
@soulman = "Knowledge is regarded by the fool as
ignorance,and the things that are profitable
are to him hurtful.
He liveth in death.
It is therefore his food."
think what you will but do not make fun of another's ideea , just because its over your understandings.
There WAS a time when science and religion WAS one , and people understood each other better than they do today.
Bob_Kob
5 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2011
The only caveat in your theory Oliver is that I can't find any reference to neutron repulsion other than those of your work - with all the work done in particle accelerators and nuclear physics why has nobody else glinted on this phenomenon?
Bob_Kob
Feb 17, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
soulman
5 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2011
@soulman = "Knowledge is regarded by the fool as
ignorance,and the things that are profitable
are to him hurtful.
He liveth in death.
It is therefore his food."

I have no idea what that drivel is supposed to mean.
think what you will

I always do.
but do not make fun of another's ideea , just because its over your understandings.

But it's not over my understandings [sic], it's pure bullshit. Just like your entire post. What can one expect from a self-confessed alchemist?
There WAS a time when science and religion WAS one

No, that was never the case, even if men of religious persuasion have practiced the scientific method, or parts there of, in years past.
and people understood each other better than they do today.

Yeah, history is full understanding between peoples of the world.
Doom1974
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2011
I find particularly interesting the understanding that the ancient tribes showed to each other, and the Romans, and the understanding of the Crusades, and especially the understanding between newcomer Europeans and the American Indians...
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 17, 2011
"Herschel is showing us that we don't need quite so much dark matter as we thought to trigger a starburst,"

It might well be that absolutely NONE is required!

@Doom1974:
I concur with you. Just look at all the misunderstanding that occurs when a woman wants to enjoy her sexual freedom and some other little live thing intrudes into her body. Total misunderstanding happens to the point where literally millions of these little things have to be forcibly expunged. Makes one wonder jsut what those things are - non-human aliens???
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2011
Dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionists, are identical twins hiding under different cloaks of respectability.

"Truthing" - seeking a better understanding through:

a.) Highly disciplined scientific experiments, and/or
b.) Highly disciplined mediation and prayers,

Are both processes of ego reduction - if we are honest with ourselves and admit that we never have the "whole truth".

Honest, disciplined "truthing" generates humility and reverence.

If we think we have "the whole truth" or "a complete understanding of God", then we have failed.

There is little or no difference between arrogant, dogmatic cosmologists and the religionists who tried to block the heliocentric findings of Copernicus and Galileo.

Bob Kob: Nuclear rest mass data reveal neutron repulsion in every nucleus with two or more neutrons:

1. See: youtube.com/watch?v=sXNyLYSiPO0

2. See also "Neutrino Repulsion", in press, 2011, 19 pp.
arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

vmircea
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2011
The dark matter does not exist, I m shure that the mass of the universe is composed by dust,hidden galaxys and virtual particles.
Tuxford
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2011
Let us pray to the alter of science....Save us science....
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2011
There WAS a time when science and religion WAS one
No, that was never the case, even if men of religious persuasion have practiced the scientific method, or parts there of, in years past.
Well, science is a cultural product which requires rational thinking without irrational admixtures. The separation of rational from irrational thinking is a historical achievement of the ancient Greeks.

Older cultures, like the Mesopotamian and the Egyptian, did have considerable knowledge about observables of the sky and the earth. But this knowledge was inseparably interwoven with religious and mythical thinking. High priests were the custodians of every kind of knowledge.

And even in later times, scientists of fame were not free of fancy superstitious ideas. Newton "wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics" and Kepler was a "skilled" astrologer. (Sources: Wikipedia)
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2011
These two quotes may help convey the message:

1. "To know that you do not know is best.
To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."

- Lao Tzu

2. "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

-Herbert Spencer
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2011
It might well be that absolutely NONE is required!


And you might some day tell us how long ago you think the Flood occured.

Which is about as likely as Oliver running the numbers on his hypothesis or checking the data from the stacks of iron for signs of neutron decay his idea requires.

No its more likely that you will answer. Religious fanatics are more likely to rejoin reality than Cranks are.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2011
2. "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

-Herbert Spencer
I read your stuff Oliver. Now when are YOU going to investigate those stacks of iron or even try to figure out just how often neutrons would have to decay in the stacks based on how often they must decay in the Sun to produce the heat. I will give you number to start with. Four tons of matter are converted to energy in the sun every second. It doesn't matter if its fission, fusion or your neutron decay. It is still 4 tons. So how many neutrons does that take?

Ethelred
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2011
Thanks for asking.

The answer is here and in peer-reviewed papers cited in the references:

"Neutrino Repulsion", in press, 2011, 19 pp.
arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

Where is your rebuttal published?
Bob_Kob
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2011
Where is your rebuttal published?


Haha Oliver 1, Ethelred 0.
DamienS
5 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2011
The answer is here and in peer-reviewed papers cited in the references:

"Neutrino Repulsion", in press, 2011, 19 pp.
arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

arXiv is not peer-reviewed. In which peer-reviewed journal has YOUR work been published?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2011
Haha Oliver 1, Ethelred 0.
That is just Oliver's standard attempt to bully.

The very beginning of the paper contains a lie.

Emeritus Professor, Nuclear and Space Studies
University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 65401


Oliver is NOT Emeritus there anymore. He isn't allowed on campus. Not a science matter though. He bullied people. SERIOUSLY bullied them.

Like in elementary school only worse and with a teacher doing the bullying.

NEVER try to bully me again Oliver. Next time I post the links.

The paper is 19 pages and it will take a while as this a new paper and I have read ALL the rest posts. So far I don't see anything he hasn't said before. Nothing that anyone ever cites except Oliver.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2011
It might well be that absolutely NONE is required!

Yes Kevin, you jsut need an unexplainable eternal sky fairy to do the work for you. Very similar to how plants can't grow without me there to tend to them.... /sarcasm
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2011
In which peer-reviewed journal has YOUR work been published?


Nature

Icarus

Science

Meteoritics

Physical Review

Yadernaya Fizika

Chemical Geology

Economic Geology

Journal of Fusion Energy

Physics of Atomic Nuclei

Comments on Astrophysics

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung

Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta

Journal of Geophysical Research

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

Proceedings of Asteroids, Comets, Meteors (ESA-SP- 500, editor: Barbara Warmbein), pp. 787-790 (2003)

Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Beyond Standard Model Physics - BEYOND 2002 (IOP, Bristol, editor: H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus) pp. 307-316 (2003)

Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology: The Present and the Future, 27 October-1 November 2002, Big Bear Lake, CA, U.S.A. (ESA SP-517, editor: Huguette Lacoste) pp. 345-348 (2003)

Etc.
BlankVellum
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2011
That's an impressive list omatumr. However, you've just stated the names of the journals. Could you give me a little more detail, such as the names of your articles and year published in each case, and whether or not said articles relate to your neutron star hypothesis?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2011
More to the point, how many science articles have cited Oliver's papers besides Oliver? Specifically the papers on neutron repulsion and the sun as supernova remnant with an iron layer just below the photosphere.

It is much like the paper on polonium halos that was a disguised creationist paper. No one cites it but it was published in a peer reviewed paper. Peer review is no guarantee that the science describes anything real. It increases the odds but without independent corroboration it simply is not going to replace models that are already in place.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2 AKA Marjon on the Somali pirates.
The pirates are charging tolls for ships to cross their waters.

This stays till the end of the month when there is room.

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.