A cosmic exclamation point

Aug 12, 2011
Credit: X-ray NASA/CXC/IfA/D.Sanders et al; Optical NASA/STScI/NRAO/A.Evans et al

(PhysOrg.com) -- VV 340, also known as Arp 302, provides a textbook example of colliding galaxies seen in the early stages of their interaction. The edge-on galaxy near the top of the image is VV 340 North and the face-on galaxy at the bottom of the image is VV 340 South. Millions of years later these two spirals will merge -- much like the Milky Way and Andromeda will likely do billions of years from now. Data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory (purple) are shown here along with optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope (red, green, blue). VV 340 is located about 450 million light years from Earth.

Because it is bright in infrared light, VV 340 is classified as a Luminous Infrared Galaxy (LIRG). These observations are part of the Great Observatories All-Sky LIRG Survey (GOALS) combining data from Chandra, Hubble, NASA's and (GALEX) and ground-based telescopes. The survey includes over two hundred LIRGs in the local Universe. A chief motivation of this study is to understand why LIRGs emit so much . These galaxies generate energy at a rate this is tens to hundreds of times larger than that emitted by a typical galaxy. An actively growing supermassive black hole or an intense burst of star formation is often invoked as the most likely source of the energy.

Work on the full GOALS survey is ongoing, but preliminary analysis of data for VV 340 provides a good demonstration of the power of observing with multiple observatories. The Chandra data show that the center of VV 340 North likely contains a rapidly growing supermassive black hole that is heavily obscured by dust and gas. The infared emission of the galaxy pair, as observed by Spitzer, is dominated by VV 340 North, and also provides evidence for a growing supermassive black hole. However, only a small fraction of the is generated by this black hole.

By contrast most of the ultraviolet and short wavelength in the galaxy pair -- as observed by GALEX and HST -- comes from VV 340 South. This shows that VV 340 South contains a much higher level of star formation. (The Spitzer and GALEX images are not shown here because they strongly overlap with the optical and X-ray images, but they are shown in a separate composite image.) VV 340 appears to be an excellent example of a pair of interacting galaxies evolving at different rates.

These results on VV 340 were published in the June 2009 issue of the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. The lead author was Lee Armus from the Spitzer Science Center in Pasadena, CA.

Explore further: Image: NGC 6872 in the constellation of Pavo

Related Stories

Galaxy Collision Switches on Black Hole

Dec 10, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- This composite image of data from three different telescopes shows an ongoing collision between two galaxies, NGC 6872 and IC 4970.

An Intriguing, Glowing Galaxy

May 14, 2009

A supermassive black hole may be responsible for the glowing appearance of galaxy 3C 305, located about 600 million light years away in the constellation Draco. Composite data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory ...

Image: The Early Cosmos

Jan 24, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Stars are forming in Henize 2-10, a dwarf starburst galaxy located about 30 million light years from Earth, at a prodigious rate, giving the star clusters in this galaxy their blue appearance.

Giant ring of black holes

Feb 09, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Just in time for Valentine's Day comes a new image of a ring -- not of jewels -- but of black holes.

Sky merger yields sparkling dividends

Oct 13, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Not surprisingly, interacting galaxies have a dramatic effect on each other. Studies have revealed that as galaxies approach one another massive amounts of gas are pulled from each galaxy ...

Recommended for you

Image: NGC 6872 in the constellation of Pavo

3 hours ago

This picture, taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2), shows a galaxy known as NGC 6872 in the constellation of Pavo (The Peacock). Its unusual shape is caused ...

Measuring the proper motion of a galaxy

4 hours ago

The motion of a star relative to us can be determined by measuring two quantities, radial motion and proper motion. Radial motion is the motion of a star along our line of sight. That is, motion directly ...

Gravitational waves according to Planck

21 hours ago

Scientists of the Planck collaboration, and in particular the Trieste team, have conducted a series of in-depth checks on the discovery recently publicized by the Antarctic Observatory, which announced last ...

Infant solar system shows signs of windy weather

21 hours ago

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have observed what may be the first-ever signs of windy weather around a T Tauri star, an infant analog of our own Sun. This may help ...

Finding hints of gravitational waves in the stars

Sep 22, 2014

Scientists have shown how gravitational waves—invisible ripples in the fabric of space and time that propagate through the universe—might be "seen" by looking at the stars. The new model proposes that ...

How gamma ray telescopes work

Sep 22, 2014

Yesterday I talked about the detection of gamma ray bursts, intense blasts of gamma rays that occasionally appear in distant galaxies. Gamma ray bursts were only detected when gamma ray satellites were put ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2011
Thanks for the interesting story.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
ChiefOfGxBxL
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2011
Awesome! The universe is full of unbelievable sights, such as God's hand or the butterfly. This almost looks surreal! <3 NASA & Hubble
Techno1
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2011
Seeing a how galaxies are only around 50k to 100k lY radius, this collision has already happened long, long ago.

If the galaxies have a relative velocity of 1000km/s, then they were co-located 420million years ago, just 30 million years after THIS light left the system.

They have likely made a complete blow-through of one another, and are headed back for a second collision by now.

So by now, you have two quasars which are merging to a binary quasar.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2011
Seeing a how galaxies are only around 50k to 100k lY radius, this collision has already happened long, long ago.

If the galaxies have a relative velocity of 1000km/s, then they were co-located 420million years ago, just 30 million years after THIS light left the system.

They have likely made a complete blow-through of one another, and are headed back for a second collision by now.

So by now, you have two quasars which are merging to a binary quasar.
Your brain is stew right now isn't it Quantum Conundrum? Thoughts racing a million miles a second, 'must_calculate_this_out', every thought important enough to post 30 or 40 of them a day here. Who let you off your meds? Do they know you're off your meds?

This is irresponsible of you isn't it? You're not driving are you?
Techno1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
Otto, what is your problem? Why do you feel a need to follow people around and harrass them?

This system is 450 million ly distance. That means the light is that old as well.

you're looking at the past.

I picked a number which is within reasonable velocities, but it could be more or less than that.

Regardless, the collision already happened a long time ago.

And so what if I did make multiple posts the past few days?

Most of my comments got 4 and 5 stars, often by multiple people.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2011
Looks like an earlier phase of similar galaxy development than this highly luminous exposed AGN, where the original host galaxy has been blown apart:

http://www.physor...ars.html

Given LaViolette's model, the older elliptical here is naturally the most luminous, containing the more massive (and hence, active) core mother star ejecting newly nucleated matter, which also formed the basis for the younger spiral's eventual development. The growing spiral has likely moved just beyond the range of gravitational influence such that the two may never collide (unlike the other example). Eventually the elliptical may self-destruct as in the other example.

The small less active spiral's core star would permit more stable conditions within the galaxy for the condensation of new matter into stars.

(Laws, are a social idea adopted by science for intellectual convenience. One should remain vigilant for the possibility of exceptions.)

Does this fit the model?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2011
where yyz clearly showed you didnt know what you were talking about tuxford. you seem to like to link to articles that hurt your point. NO, Observation does not fit laviolette's model.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2011
How? If you have a technical point to make, let's here it. Otherwise, I regard you either as a paid disinfo agent or an unwitting volunteer. Egomania is a world-wide disease. So is certainty.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2011
Most of my comments got 4 and 5 stars, often by multiple people.
They don't know your track record QC. Stating the painfully obvious and calculating it out to the nth degree is symptomatic.

You're a compulsive flooder. I suggest finding a treadmill (or a hamster wheel) and running yourself to exhaustion. It will help to calm your demons.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
as yyz said
"And I see on another thread you also reject relativity and BBT. Pretty much in science denial?

There are many others here that closely follow your prescription for finding the 'truth'. They advocate for neutron repulsion, AWT, plasma cosmology, anti-gravity matter etc. They all ignore mainstream astronomical conclusions. They apply a (very) little logic. And not so amazingly, they all claim that observations are supporting THEIR theory. They can't all be right.

So how to sort them out? You want to throw out all "mainstream astronomical conclusions" and replace them with what? Scores of poorly thought out, demonstrably wrong qualitative cosmological "notions"."
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2011
Attack the messenger? Defer to a higher authority? Is that your only means? Where is your technical counter-point?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2011
whats the point? you'll just deny it.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2011
Ref:VV 340/ Arp 302-450 M lY
Sub: Flow Sequence- Astromy to cosmology
The sequence flow drive is very clear. The interpretations seem to have drag psychology- not seeing the dimensional knowledge at tis distance scale. How can Science progress? Where lies the limiting function ?
Vidyardhi Nanduri[Cosmology Vedas Interlinks]
Pyle
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2011
They don't know your track record QC. Stating the painfully obvious and calculating it out to the nth degree is symptomatic.

You're a compulsive flooder. I suggest finding a treadmill (or a hamster wheel) and running yourself to exhaustion. It will help to calm your demons.
Otto. I do know his track record. Recognized him after the second or third post, and still gave him 5s. He has been very well spoken and should be encouraged to continue at a measured pace.

Bad Otto.
;)
PoppaJ
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2011
WOW I had a thought. Imagine the experience from the perspective of a potential intelligent life in either of the two galaxies. They would have evolved over some period of time and probably understood what was happening and there was no where to go. NO WHERE.
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (55) Aug 12, 2011
PoppaJ, I could be wrong, but I think odds are most habitable worlds would be spared in such a "collision". Galaxies aren't solid objects that smash into each other. It's more like two clouds passing through each other.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
"Attack the messenger? Defer to a higher authority?"

Tux, that's all you do here. Reject out of hand what current observations are telling us and defer to your hero LaViollette and his nonsense notions.

"Where is your technical counter-point?"

Echoing jsdarkdestruction's post "what's the point?". You've said before you don't have the background to defend his theory. Earlier instances of observations disagreeing with your theory go ignored or the scientists themselves impugned (consensus science, according to another crank here).

Want a technical question? Tell me how you figure the top galaxy in the picture is an *elliptical*? You do know it's gas rich, starbursting, has a substantial(edge-on) disk, and has a bar structure(it's a boxy bulge galaxy: http://www.spacet...eic0914/ ). All the sources I've seen call these a pair of spiral galaxies, not elliptical. Here's one: http://arxiv.org/...52v1.pdf

Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
One can spend of lot of energy in classification schemes, and then issue oneself congratulations. What a relief! Whatever the classification of the topmost galaxy, it seems self-evident from the photo that it has grown larger in mass than the lower, with an almost circular halo at this point. It seems on it's way toward growing more massive into an elliptical. Issue your classifications, and call yourself smart. Isn't that the accepted method?

Call the theory another crank, and avoid critical evaluation. That was easy. Sit back. Relax. Enjoy a margarita. Confusion is bliss.
Birthmark
not rated yet Aug 13, 2011
This is 450 million light years away, I'm sure they have collided already. It looks so amazing.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
"One can spend of lot of energy in classification schemes..."

Well, of course. That's a basic step crucial to understanding how galaxies assemble and evolve. Ever hear of Linnaeus or Mendeleev?

Why not simply stop using these terms(spiral, elliptical, etc) since you don't have a clue?

"Whatever the classification of the topmost galaxy, it seems self-evident from the photo that it has grown larger in mass than the lower, with an almost circular halo at this point"

You, like Oliver and many 'electric universe' people, like to look at images and then try to fit them into your theories, thinking appearance alone is enough to prove your point. Take a look at Figs 1b & 1c (UV images) in this multiwavelength study of Arp 302: http://arxiv.org/...98v2.pdf

If these same 2 pics were used to illustrate this article, would your "story" be the same?

"Relax. Enjoy a margarita. Confusion is bliss."

You, like Oliver, sound quite blissed already.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
Bad otto
;)
Sorry I respectfully decline to agree. I don't think it's a good idea to tolerate this sort of ... pathology.
Regardless, the collision already happened a long time ago.
Who but QC would think this thought was important enough to post and then to calculate it using absurd assumptions?
They have likely made a complete blow-through of one another, and are headed back for a second collision by now.

So by now, you have two quasars which are merging to a binary quasar.
-See what I mean? QC is like helen Keller running around the dinner table eating off other peoples plates.
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Doodling and babbling and dribbling are what napkins are for.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
The part of otto in the clip is played by the incomparable Ann Bancroft.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2011
The part of QC in the clip is played by Tom cruise.
http://www.youtub...a_player
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2011
You, like Oliver and many 'electric universe' people, like to look at images and then try to fit them into your theories, thinking appearance alone is enough to prove your point.

"Relax. Enjoy a margarita. Confusion is bliss."

You, like Oliver, sound quite blissed already.


Thanks for the comments.

The Great Reality that surrounds and sustains us (call it what you will):

Universe, God, Cosmos, Higher Power

Is powered neutron repulsion [1] and illustrated by resentments, anger and violence in the Hindu Goddess Kali [2] in the compressed material at the cores of atoms, stars and galaxies while the universe expands [3].

However, resentments, anger and violence seem to be destructive in the expanded form of atomic matter that comprises humans.

1. http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. www.exoticindiaar...kali.htm

3. http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2011
that is nonsense oliver, no one cares what you think about some hindu god. it has absolutely nothing to do with real science. same with your neutron repulsion nonsense.
Husky
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
well the hindus care
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2011
the hindus care what oliver thinks about their god? I doubt that.
Pete1983
4.5 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2011
Actually Hindus probably don't care. Hindu "gods" are more literally parables than they are in western religions. These "gods" are representations of nature and the human mind. While some hindus would consider the gods "real", many others would tell you that they are merely parables in and of themselves.

I've always loved the joke of jebus's second coming being in India.

Jesus says "I am the son of God".
The Hindu replies "Well done, you worked it out."
jsdarkdestruction
not rated yet Aug 15, 2011
Thanks for the theology lesson.
Pete1983
not rated yet Aug 15, 2011
I... I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. The conversation had already gone well off track earlier anyway, might as well just run with it.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Aug 22, 2011
While we're wildly off topic, Pete1983, I'm not sure whether it's true that Hindus take their gods only as parables, but what I do know is that at least the more traditional Hindus (like a Gujerati Brahmin I once knew), certainly believe in re-incarnation. She wanted to come back as a dog.
This kind of belief has some side-effects that are preferable to the monotheistic beliefs, because it tends to make them more caring of the environment. Of course, modern India is in the process of economic growth, and is becoming a major source of new GW gases, but that is due to a new generation of Indians. They may be almost as bad as Western Christians, whose beliefs taught them it was OK to "throw the Earth away".
jsdarkdestruction
not rated yet Aug 22, 2011
I... I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. The conversation had already gone well off track earlier anyway, might as well just run with it.

no, i wasnt. You informed me of something i wasnt aware of. the thanks was genuine. i just couldnt figure out a better way to say it. sorry if it came off as sarcastic.
Pete1983
not rated yet Aug 22, 2011
@DavidMcC - Yes many Hindus do believe in these gods as physical/real entities, it really depends on who you are speaking to.

Personally I'm a huge fan of buddhism and zen in particular, and I would consider these athiest "religions", which in a way makes them not a religion in the generally accepted sense of the word. I.e, no superstitious stuff.

Yet at the same time, there are many buddhists who do some really crazy stuff as they believe in all the superstitous junk. I.e... they take things literally, when zen is in a way trying to show you that you can't take anything literally! Madness!

Basically what I'm getting at is - there are idiots everywhere.
Shelgeyr
5 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2011
like Oliver and many 'electric universe' people...


Hey! I resemble that remark!
DavidMcC
not rated yet Aug 23, 2011
PoppaJ, I could be wrong, but I think odds are most habitable worlds would be spared in such a "collision". Galaxies aren't solid objects that smash into each other. It's more like two clouds passing through each other.

Frank, I think you probably ARE wrong! A habitable world's orbit is very delicate, and any disturbance from a nearby system could damage the system, and either eject the planet from its Goldilox zone, or lead to excessive bolide impacts (possibly by disturbance of the equivalent of the Oort cloud).
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
the point was that odds are those disturbances wouldnt happen though. sure if you end up being in the wrong place at the wrong time and those sorts of things happen its game over, but thats IF.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
The space between stars is really really big. I think modeling of galaxy mergers shows that there actually would be too many system to system interactions. It's more like throwing some air at some air.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2011
*would = wouldn't. There WOULDN'T be many system to system interactions. Damn fat fingers.
omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2011
Yes many Hindus do believe in these gods as physical/real entities, it really depends on who you are speaking to.


I am not Hindu, but . . .

The anger, resentments, and violence of the Hindu Goddess, Kali, is remarkably like the interactions between neutrons confined in compact objects.

www.youtube.com/w...yLYSiPO0

The two forms of the Hindu God, Krishna, are remarkably like the two forms of matter that comprise the visible universe and explain its expansion and contraction.

http://journalofc...102.html

What a strange coincidence!
Oliver
Pete1983
not rated yet Aug 23, 2011
@omatumr - actually that pops up a lot. Given the whole wave/particle duality of physics, and the whole external/internal nature of human level reality, these relationships pop up all the time in eastern philosophy.

I read "the Tao of physics", and to be honest it got pretty ridiculous. I'm still a big fan of using zen to interpret existence, and sometimes the thought patterns overlap quite well, but one must be careful not to read too much into these things.
omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2011
Yes.

Maybe coincidence.

If there are spiritual as well as physical qualities of the Great Reality, they may be experienced by meditation and contemplation as well as by experimentation and observation.

"To know that you don't know is best" - Lao Tzu

To know is Lysenkoism

www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2011
@Tuxford,

Above you posted:

"Whatever the classification of the topmost galaxy, it seems self-evident from the photo that it has grown larger in mass than the lower, with an almost circular halo at this point. It seems on it's way toward growing more massive into an elliptical."

Again I ask, take a look at Figs 1b & 1c (UV images) in this multiwavelength study of Arp 302: http://arxiv.org/...98v2.pdf

Still think the galaxy at the top has grown larger in mass than the lower? Based on what? And, is it still on its way to growing more massive into an "elliptical" (your words)? Based on what observations of Arp 302?

And in the original image, how do you know the galaxy at the top is more massive as you claim? Do you have any citations backing up any of your above claims wrt Arp 302 whatsoever or is it mere speculation?

There's 3 more "technical counter-points".....what say you?