Spitzer captures infrared rays from a sunflower

Mar 04, 2011 By Whitney Clavin
This image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows infrared light from the Sunflower galaxy, otherwise known as Messier 63. Spitzer's view highlights the galaxy's dusty spiral arms. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

(PhysOrg.com) -- The various spiral arm segments of the Sunflower galaxy, also known as Messier 63, show up vividly in this image taken in infrared light by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Infrared light is sensitive to the dust lanes in spiral galaxies, which appear dark in visible-light images. Spitzer's view reveals complex structures that trace the galaxy's spiral arm pattern.

Messier 63 lies 37 million-light years away -- not far from the well-known Whirlpool galaxy and the associated Messier 51 group of galaxies.

The dust, glowing red in this image, can be traced all the way down into the galaxy's nucleus, forming a ring around the densest region of stars at its center.

The short, diagonal line seen on the lower right side of the galaxy's disk is actually a much more distant galaxy, oriented with its edge facing toward us.

Blue shows with wavelengths of 3.6 microns, green represents 4.5-micron light, and red, 8.0-micron light. The contribution from starlight measured at 3.6 microns has been subtracted from the 8.0-micron image to enhance the visibility of the dust features.

Explore further: Toothpaste fluorine formed in stars

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The two-faced whirlpool galaxy

Jan 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- These images by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope show off two dramatically different face-on views of the spiral galaxy M51, dubbed the Whirlpool Galaxy.

Image: Seeing Red

Jan 18, 2011

This image by the Hubble Space Telescope shows a dramatic view of the spiral galaxy M51, dubbed the Whirlpool Galaxy.

The many galaxy 'flavors'

Dec 17, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- This collage of galaxies from NASA's Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, showcases the many "flavors" that galaxies come in, from star-studded spirals to bulging ellipticals to those ...

Spiral galaxies stripped bare

Oct 27, 2010

Six spectacular spiral galaxies are seen in a clear new light in images from ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) at the Paranal Observatory in Chile. The pictures were taken in infrared light, using the ...

Smoking galaxy revealed

Mar 17, 2006

Where there's smoke, there's fire - even in outer space. A new infrared image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows a burning hot galaxy whose fiery stars appear to be blowing out giant billows of smoky ...

Hiding Out Behind the Milky Way

Apr 07, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A leggy cosmic creature comes out of hiding in this new infrared view from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE.

Recommended for you

Toothpaste fluorine formed in stars

18 hours ago

The fluorine that is found in products such as toothpaste was likely formed billions of years ago in now dead stars of the same type as our sun. This has been shown by astronomers at Lund University in Sweden, ...

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

Aug 20, 2014

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

A spectacular landscape of star formation

Aug 20, 2014

This image, captured by the Wide Field Imager at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile, shows two dramatic star formation regions in the Milky Way. The first, on the left, is dominated by the star cluster NGC ...

Exoplanet measured with remarkable precision

Aug 19, 2014

Barely 30 years ago, the only planets astronomers had found were located right here in our own solar system. The Milky Way is chock-full of stars, millions of them similar to our own sun. Yet the tally ...

User comments : 20

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2011
Looks like a spinning firework that I used to enjoy as a kid. Core ejecting new matter preferentially along axes as it slowly turns? Matter moving radially away from the center, as it is in our Milky Way? Periodic explosive outbursts mixed in to consolidate and condense the ejected streams into clouds and stars, all moving radially away from the core? Newest material near the center like in M31? Certainly appears matter density is greatest near the core. But then, it must be the contrary, right?
kaasinees
5 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2011
Please, read an articles or two about galaxies...
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
Matter moving radially away from the center, as it is in our Milky Way?
As it ISN'T. Why do you keep repeating that ludicrous statement? Do you even know what the term RADIAL means? Straight bloody out from the bleeding center. Not a spiral that IS NOT moving away from from the center in any case.

Ethelred
Tuxford
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2011
http://www.physor...ays.html

"Rather than moving in circles around the center of the Milky Way, all the stars in our Galaxy are travelling along different paths, moving away from the Galactic center. "
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2011
Core ejecting new matter preferentially along axes as it slowly turns?

The 'core' is not ejecting anything.

Periodic explosive outbursts mixed in to consolidate and condense the ejected streams into clouds and stars, all moving radially away from the core?

Don't know where to begin with that unintelligible word salad.

Newest material near the center like in M31?

There is no NEW material.

Certainly appears matter density is greatest near the core.

Spiral galaxies do tend to be denser near their centers, at least in baryonic matter. That's about the only reasonable thing you've said, which is also hardly revelatory.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2011
The researchers were thus able to ascertain that the average speed of stars towards the exterior of the Galaxy increases with their distance from the Sun in the direction of the Galactic center, reaching 10 kilometers per second at a distance of 6,000 light years from us (in other words, 19,000 light years from the Galactic center)


Doesn't say diddly about the stars outside of us, that is those where we are closer to the center than they are. Systematically at a distance from US looks suspiciously like a systematic error.

Actual paper
http://arxiv.org/...92v1.pdf

limited to a distance of 2 kpc from the Sun and to |z|<1 kpc,
So they only looked about 6000 light years in towards the center and ignored stuff less than 3000 light years. And they ignored everything outside of us. They know nothing about the rest of the Galaxy and they do NOT claim the stars are moving radially. They claim the stars have radial COMPONENT.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2011
We note that the confirmed existence of such a net outward motion for stars, amounting to 10% of the circular speed,
In other words the stars are mostly moving AROUND the GC. The stars that are aligned with us to the inside could very easily be on the rising part of an elliptical orbit. Its a 50-50 shot for that.

We however also note that, in order to establish it more firmly, our result should imperatively be confirmed by further line-of-sight velocity measurements at lower latitudes with future spectroscopic surveys
They should also look outward as well as inward.

It is indeed very intriguing that a strong 21-cm absorption feature along the line-of-sight to the GC is compatible with a zero mean velocity relative to the LSR
Which means there may be a systematic error and that there is no radial component though there must be some such component unless the stars involved are at perihelion or aphelion in an elliptical orbit which is a bit low odds.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2011
And we do already have enough information on the orbits of stars at the GC to know they are in orbit around the BH there and not moving radially out from the GC.

Read the real thing, it does not make the claim you do. Barred galaxies are expected to have some stars moving away since they are still settling down from whatever encounter caused the bar.

Ethelred
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2011
It seems Tux is confusing radial velocities (of stars) with radial motion (away from the GC). The paper (and article) make no claim of stars moving radially away from the GC.

From the abstract: "...we report the detection of a velocity gradient of disc stars in the fourth quadrant, directed radially from the Galactic centre." NO mention of stars moving radially away from the GC.

As Ethelred correctly noted, barred spiral galaxies (like ours) are expected to exhibit a stellar component with these properties.

That paper was using data from the RAVE project (RAdial Velocity Experiment) that collected a large number of spectroscopic radial velocity measurements.

_______________________________

Tux reminds me of Zephyr in that he will find references that he says back up his claims when in reality his refs do no such thing (and sometimes directly contradict his claims!).
Tuxford
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2011
http://www.physor...ars.html

Why then are the younger stars found nearest the central plane, and located nearer the core in M31? I simply prefer simplicity in the explanation. But I am sure many will provide a complex theory instead.

Short-term flaring core in M31 but no accretion? Perhaps the BH physics is not understood. Perhaps new matter ejection is occurring? Perhaps new energy is entering our universe via this misunderstood mechanism. Perhaps?

http://www.physor...ter.html

http://www.physor...deo.html
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
"Why then are the younger stars found nearest the central plane, and located nearer the core in M31?"

Observations of many spiral galaxies reveal young, star forming nuclear rings near the nucleus. Here is a rather simple piece (no math & illustrated) describing the nuclear stellar rings: http://www.eso.or...0-42.pdf

Note the two images in the lower right of Fig 2[V(star) & V(Br-gamma)] show the measured velocity field in and around the ring. These observations tell astronomers these stars are orbiting the nucleus and are not moving radially away.

Keep in mind, these young nuclear rings are surrounded by a much more massive component of old stars ('bulge component'). Young stars in any galaxy are not preferentially found near the nucleus but are found throughout the disk.

A paper describing *observations* of stellar nuclear rings in 8 spirals: http://arxiv.org/...0707.065
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
Oops, that last link is bad, try:

http://arxiv.org/...51v1.pdf

To head off some of your usual comments I note:

1. You claim not to be a scientist.

2. You claim it's not your theory(notion)-it's LaViolette's.

3. By your own admission you do not have sufficient knowledge to rigorously defend this 'notion'.

This makes it all the more curious as to why you then rabbit on about it over several nonsensical posts (you even go back to old PhysOrg articles going back over a year to insert your views of LaViolette's 'theory'. Why is that?

These repeated posts give me reason to believe you may in fact be LaViolette.

Are you LaViolette?

Tuxford
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2011
No, again I am just control systems design engineer who worked in aerospace in S. Cal. for fifteen years. Thus, am familiar with the merits of various technical arguments. Though I did meet LaViolette once. I am sure he has no time for board.

Are you a military/intelligence disinformation officer? He is monitored, and has been interfered with when publicly discussing classified technology, I have no doubt. Why their interest if it is all non-sense?

(I'll review your reference when I get time.)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2011
Are you a military/intelligence disinformation officer? He is monitored, and has been interfered with when publicly discussing classified technology, I have no doubt. Why their interest if it is all non-sense?

As yes, the great government conspiracy line. This is so absolutely popular with the cranks of the world that I've seen it posted 4 times over today alone.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
And I know a Fellow of the Am. Physical Society who confirms space weapon disinformation he participated in early in his career. Doubt be naive in your certainty. Are you a Baptist preacher?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 05, 2011
And I know a Fellow of the Am. Physical Society who confirms space weapon disinformation he participated in early in his career. Doubt be naive in your certainty. Are you a Baptist preacher?
Have the satchel to produce a name and contact information, or is "you have to believe me because a nameless expert told me so" supposed to be sufficient?

There's hearsay, and then there's reality.
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
I was told this only recently. I talk to the guy several times a month. Believe what you want. But certainty will get you only deeper in the same hole. The sum of my experience has me questioning the rigid conclusions of science. Clearly something is amiss. You need only widen your perspective. Most won't. Understood.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2011
I was told this only recently. I talk to the guy several times a month. Believe what you want.
I'm not believing anything. I'm asking you some questions about what you are saying and you're refusing to answer.

Give me some contact info so we can talk to your source. Otherwise you could be lying, and a large claim that can't be verified is how people become pseudoscientists.
DamienS
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
The sum of my experience has me questioning the rigid conclusions of science.

Science is anything but rigid. In fact, it's totally flexible as when something new comes along that is DEMONSTRABLY better, it will be adopted into the mainstream. There are no sacred cows in science. So I don't see why you use the word rigid.

Clearly something is amiss.

Clearly? It isn't clear to me. What is amiss and why?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2011
And I know a Fellow of the Am. Physical Society who confirms space weapon disinformation
I think many of us are aware of that. At least the older of us. It isn't like it wasn't in magazines and newspapers or anything. The catch is they engaged in the disinformation after their weapons projects failed. Then they pretended they succeeded. The excuse was to make the Russians piss away money.

Funny thing is it actually worked. It isn't a secret.

ttp://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/18/us/lies-and-rigged-star-wars-test-fooled-the-kremlin-and-congress.html

The deception program was designed to feed the Kremlin half-truths and lies about the project, the former Administration officials said. It helped persuade the Soviets to spend tens of billions of dollars to counter the American effort to develop a space-based shield against nuclear attack proposed by former President Ronald Reagan in 1983, they said.


Ethelred