Galaxy NGC 4214: A star formation laboratory

May 12, 2011
Galaxy NGC 4214, pictured here in an image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope’s newest camera, is an ideal location to study star formation and evolution. Dominating much of the galaxy is a huge glowing cloud of hydrogen gas in which new stars are being born. A heart-shaped hollow — possibly galaxy NGC 4214’s most eye-catching feature — can be seen at the centre of this. Inside this cavity lies a large cluster of massive, young stars ranging in temperature from 10,000 to 50,000 degrees Celsius. Their strong stellar winds are responsible for the creation of this bubble. These features have the effect of stemming any further star formation due to the subsequent lack of gas. Credit: NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration. Acknowledgment: R. O’Connell (University of Virginia) and the WFC3 Scientific Oversight Committee

(PhysOrg.com) -- Hubble’s newest camera has taken an image of galaxy NGC 4214. This galaxy glows brightly with young stars and gas clouds, and is an ideal laboratory to research star formation and evolution.

Size isn't everything... in astronomy, at least. Dwarf galaxy NGC 4214 may be small, but what it lacks in size it makes up for in content. It is packed with everything an astronomer could ask for, from hot, young star-forming regions to old clusters with red supergiants.

The intricate patterns of glowing ionised hydrogen , cavities blown clear of gas by stellar wind, and bright stellar clusters of NGC 4214 can be seen in this optical and near-infrared image, taken using the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) instrument on the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope.

A huge heart-shaped cavity — possibly the galaxy's most eye-catching feature — can be seen at the centre of the image. Inside this hole lies a large cluster of massive, young ranging in temperature from 10 000 to 50 000 degrees Celsius. Their strong stellar winds are responsible for the creation of this hollow area. The resulting lack of gas prevents any further star formation from occurring in this region.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Credit: NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration. Acknowledgment: R. O’Connell (University of Virginia) and the WFC3 Scientific Oversight Committee

Located around 10 million light-years away in the constellation of Canes Venatici (The Hunting Dogs), the galaxy's relative close proximity to us, combined with the wide variety of evolutionary stages among the stars, makes it an ideal laboratory to research what triggers star formation and evolution. By chance, there is relatively little interstellar dust between us and NGC 4214, making our measurements of it more accurate.

NGC 4214 contains a large amount of gas, some of which can be seen glowing red in the image, providing abundant material for . The area with the most hydrogen gas, and consequently, the youngest clusters of stars (around two million years old), lies in the upper part of this image. Like most of the features in the image, this area is visible due to ionisation of the surrounding gas by the ultraviolet light of a young cluster of stars within.

Observations of this dwarf galaxy have also revealed clusters of much older red supergiant stars that we see at a late stage in their evolution. Additional older stars can be seen dotted all across the galaxy. While these are dominant in infrared emission they can only be seen shining faintly in this visible-light image. The variety of stars at different stages in their evolution, indicate that the recent and ongoing starburst periods are by no means the first, and the galaxy's numerous ionised hydrogen regions suggest they will not be the last.

Explore further: The hot blue stars of Messier 47

Related Stories

The rose-red glow of star formation

Mar 30, 2011

The vivid red cloud in this new image from ESO's Very Large Telescope is a region of glowing hydrogen surrounding the star cluster NGC 371. This stellar nursery lies in our neighboring galaxy, the Small Magellanic ...

Image: Starburst Cluster Shows Celestial Fireworks

Jul 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Like a July 4 fireworks display, a young, glittering collection of stars looks like an aerial burst. The cluster is surrounded by clouds of interstellar gas and dust—the raw material for ...

Happy sweet sixteen, Hubble Space Telescope

Apr 24, 2006

To celebrate the NASA-ESA Hubble Space Telescope’s 16 years of success, the two space agencies are releasing this mosaic image of the magnificent starburst galaxy, Messier 82 (M82). It is the sharpest wide-angle ...

Flocculent spiral NGC 2841

Feb 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The galaxy NGC 2841 - shown here in this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image, taken with the space observatory’s newest instrument, the Wide Field Camera 3 - currently has a relatively ...

Image: Where stars are born

Dec 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- This mosaic image is the sharpest wide-angle view ever obtained of the starburst galaxy, Messier 82 (M82). The galaxy is remarkable for its bright blue disk, webs of shredded clouds and fiery-looking ...

Recommended for you

The hot blue stars of Messier 47

20 hours ago

Messier 47 is located approximately 1600 light-years from Earth, in the constellation of Puppis (the poop deck of the mythological ship Argo). It was first noticed some time before 1654 by Italian astronomer ...

Why is space black?

Dec 16, 2014

Imagine you're in space. Just the floating part, not the peeing into a vacuum hose or eating that funky "ice cream" from foil bags part. If you looked at the Sun, it would be bright and your retinas would ...

User comments : 22

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1 / 5 (7) May 12, 2011
Thanks for the report.

We definitely need to improve our understanding of the formation, composition, and source of energy of stars.

If we continue to live with the illusion that we can control NATURE, instead of listening to messages (information) from NATURE, we will live in ignorance and the threat of destruction by unexpected events and surprising observations, e.g.,

1. "Scientists surprised by solar wind data . . ."

www.physorg.com/n...ion.html

2. Scientists surprised by explosions in the Crab Nebula . . .

Sometimes nature herself intervenes, like todays news reports of explosions in the remains of the Crab Nebula, the supernova that exploded in ~1054 AD.

www.physorg.com/n...ula.html

www.bbc.co.uk/new...13362958

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

omatumr
1 / 5 (7) May 12, 2011
Misinformation about the origin, composition, and operation of the Sun - Earth's heat source [1] tricked:

The US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, the UN's IPCC, world leaders (Al Gore & Associates), and government research agencies, leading research journals (Nature, Science, Proceedings of the US National Academy and the UK's Royal Society) and the news media (BBC, PBS, CBS, The New York Times, etc) into believing that

1.) Mankind can control NATURE, and

2.) We can ignore data and observations on NATURE.

The result: The USA is in decline. The misuse of science as a propaganda tool is dangerous.

[1] "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun", Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
Johannes414
2 / 5 (12) May 12, 2011
No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2011
So all these 'young' stars formed simultaneously in the same region, before just one or two could blow a bubble in the same region, shutting down the cloud condensation process? Is that what I am supposed to believe??? Tell me more....
that_guy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2011
No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.

You can believe anything you want. Without the benefit of a few million years to watch a cloud and collapse into a star, I would say that the current theory fits the evidence we have pretty well. A large portion of accepted theories are accepted because most intelligent people believe the theory makes the most sense out of the theories available.

Until you present evidence (FACTS) to the contrary, or provide a logical explanation that fits the facts better, you should stop complaining, and leave these deductions to the experts.. Do you find sherlock holmes novels to be utterly confusing as well?
71STARS
1.4 / 5 (10) May 12, 2011
@Johannes414: You are ABSOLUTELY right. The concept that stars form from "self-collapsing clouds" can never be explained in detail. If you read the attempted sequence of events, it simply is not possible, and of course it is because it doesn't happen that way! Instead, when Suns shed a portion of themselves, then all those gas clouds (nebulous clouds) are merely the "afterbirth" of such an event. Only when this is caught on tape will it be possible to do away with the accretion theory.

P.S. For those of you who believe in the accretion theory, have you ever wondered how these clouds decide who gets to be a Sun or a Planet or a Moon? (This should have been a clue as to how and why this theory is so erroneous.)
PaulieMac
4 / 5 (8) May 13, 2011
No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.


And your alternative theory? I'm sure you have one. Why not just say it?

Your 'argument' - if I may be so generous as to term it that - is very familiar; 'no one has ever personally observed x'. Usually, 'x' is replaced with 'evolution', or with 'abiogenesis', and the argument is one of the tired old horses ridden by the creationist gang.

Thus, I conjecture that your alternative 'theory' is: 'god did it'. Am I wrong?
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (6) May 13, 2011
No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.


Your 'argument' - if I may be so generous as to term it that - is very familiar; 'no one has ever personally observed x'. Usually, 'x' is replaced with 'evolution', or with 'abiogenesis', and the argument is one of the tired old horses ridden by the creationist gang.

Thus, I conjecture that your alternative 'theory' is: 'god did it'. Am I wrong?


Yes, it is wrong to think that you know what other people are thinking.
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2011
No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.


You are right.

Misinformation about the formation of the Sun - Earth's heat source - is at the core of the ill-advised efforts by Al Gore, the UN's IPCC, and an army of government paid climatologists to claim that they can stop climate change.

Continuous climate change is recorded in the geologic record of this planet and in the evolution of life itself on the Earth's skin (biosphere).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
PaulieMac
4.3 / 5 (6) May 13, 2011
Oliver - the day I take moral pointers from a man like you will never, ever come.

Regardless; I never claimed knowledge, I hypothesised. His 'argument' is typical of deniers of science.
Johannes414
1.9 / 5 (9) May 13, 2011
"A large portion of accepted theories are accepted because most intelligent people believe the theory makes the most sense out of the theories available."

So a theory is true because a controlled group of people believe in it? And you call yourself a critic of religion?
PaulieMac
4.2 / 5 (5) May 13, 2011
So a theory is true because a controlled group of people believe in it? And you call yourself a critic of religion?


Straw man. I didn't say what I believed. Nor did I call myself anything. You posted a well-worn 'argument' which is very often used by creationists. I asked you to clarify your position... You object to the standard scientific model of stellar formation; I don't have a problem with that. What do you propose as the alternative?
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) May 13, 2011
So a theory is true because a controlled group of people believe in it? And you call yourself a critic of religion?


Yes. That is how the herd instinct works in "wanna-be" scientists and a few not-too bright leaders of popular cosmology.

There is, in fact, no conflict between cosmology and spirituality [1]:

[1] "Is the Universe Expanding?"
The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

- Oliver

omatumr
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2011
I never claimed knowledge, I hypothesised. His 'argument' is typical of deniers of science.


And your hypothesis is typical of . . . (?)
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (5) May 13, 2011

And your hypothesis is typical of . . . (?)


My hypothesis that Johannes sports a creationist agenda? I don't know, Chester - you tell me. What is it typical of?
that_guy
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2011
"A large portion of accepted theories are accepted because most intelligent people believe the theory makes the most sense out of the theories available."

So a theory is true because a controlled group of people believe in it? And you call yourself a critic of religion?


...I didn't even bring up religion, much less call myself a critic. Please, practice critical reading skills!!!

My point is that in a case like star formation, the intelligent deductions are the most likely to be right out of our pool of knowledge. They're not always going to be right, but this is the way we got the theory that we are made of atoms, newtons laws of gravity, the earth being round and orbiting the sun. I'd say this one is in league with a fairly good track record.

I am a critic of non-process non-empirical spiritual thinking trying to argue with scientific thinking. They are seperate things. if you don't believe in science, then why are you on a science site?
that_guy
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2011

And your hypothesis is typical of . . . (?)


My hypothesis that Johannes sports a creationist agenda? I don't know, Chester - you tell me. What is it typical of?


Oliver, the day I take moral pointers from a man like you will never come


LOL

I'd like to ad a question for oliver on how his relationship with god affects his actions in his family and personal life. or does god only affect things in the scientific world for him and not the spiritual one?

@pauliemac - I think that critic of religion thing was aimed at me, because he was quoting my comment.

71STARS
3.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2011
It's a shame that intelligent people like all of you on this site cannot refrain from interposing a god into the formation of stars. I am sick and tired of trying to read perhaps some informative comments but instead, get bogged down in religious dogma. All of this garbage garble and not one ounce of "star formation" subject. It's time to stop it!
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2011
Without God there would be no intelligence at all, and knowledge would be impossible. Matter does not know about abstract laws of physics and the laws of logic and reasoning. It takes intelligence to form intelligent beings, not a random process.
Jonseer
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2011
Without God there would be no intelligence at all, and knowledge would be impossible. Matter does not know about abstract laws of physics and the laws of logic and reasoning. It takes intelligence to form intelligent beings, not a random process.


What's the explanation in your case? You have god on your side, but are definitely NOT intelligent. Is this proof that god makes mistakes! LOL

You're proof there is not god, because if there were one, he wouldn't have made a person so incredibly stupid he would go to science sites to preach religion.
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) May 15, 2011
Without God there would be no intelligence at all, and knowledge would be impossible. Matter does not know about abstract laws of physics and the laws of logic and reasoning. It takes intelligence to form intelligent beings, not a random process.


Please.

Science and spirituality do not conflict.
See: "Is the Universe Expanding?"
Journal of Cosmology 13 (2011) 4187-4190
http://journalofc...102.html

But dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionists generate conflict with almost everyone.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (1) May 17, 2011

@pauliemac - I think that critic of religion thing was aimed at me, because he was quoting my comment.



He he yeah, just spotted that... Momentary failure of reading comprehension on my part, apologies!

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.