Quasar may be embedded in unusually dusty galaxy

Oct 23, 2012
Quasar may be embedded in unusually dusty galaxy
This artist's impression of one of the most distant, oldest, brightest quasars ever seen is hidden behind dust. The quasar dates back to less than one billion years after the big bang. The dust is also hiding the view of the underlying galaxy of stars that the quasar is presumably embedded in. Credit: Credit: NASA/ESA/G.Bacon, STScI

Hubble astronomers have looked at one of the most distant and brightest quasars in the universe and are surprised by what they did not see: the underlying host galaxy of stars feeding the quasar. The best explanation is that the galaxy is shrouded in so much dust that the stars are completely hidden everywhere. Astronomers believe that the James Webb Space Telescope will reveal the galaxy.

All but the very first galaxies contain some dust—the early universe was dust-free until the first generation of stars started making dust through . As these stars aged and burned out, they filled with this dust as they lost their atmospheres. The quasar dates back to an early time in the universe's history—less than one billion years after the big bang—but was known to contain large amounts of dust from previous sub-millimeter observations. What surprised the researchers is how completely the dust is shrouding starlight within the galaxy—none of the starlight seems to be leaking out from around the quasar.

Quasars (short for quasi-stellar object) are the brilliant cores of galaxies where infalling material fuels a super-massive black hole. The black hole is so engorged that some of the energy escapes as powerful blasts of radiation from the surrounding disk of accreting material. This light can appear as a jet-like feature. If the beam shines in Earth's direction the "accretion disk" and jet surrounding the super- can appear as a quasar that can outshine its surrounding galaxy a hundred or a thousand times.

The team speculates that the black hole is devouring the equivalent mass of a few suns per year. It may have been eating at a more voracious rate earlier to bulk up to an estimated mass of three billion in just a few hundred million years.

"If you want to hide the stars with dust, you need to make lots of short-lived massive stars earlier on that lose their mass at the end of their lifetime. You need to do this very quickly, so supernovae and other stellar mass-loss channels can fill the environment with dust very quickly," said Rogier Windhorst of Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, Ariz. "You also have to be forming them throughout the galaxy to spread the dust throughout the galaxy," added Matt Mechtley, also of ASU.

Quasar may be embedded in unusually dusty galaxy
This is a Hubble Space Telescope view of one of the most distant and luminous quasars ever seen (circled in white) and dates to less than one billion years after the big bang. This near-infrared light image was taken with Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 in December 2010 and January 2011. Credit: Credit: NASA/ESA/M. Mechtley, R. Windhorst, Arizona State University

The quasar was first identified in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Only a handful of these very distant ultra-luminous were found by the SDSS in about one quarter of the whole sky. Follow-up observations at sub-millimeter wavelengths detected significant dust within the galaxy, but did not show how and where dust was distributed, and if or where star-clusters might be visible through the dust. Most nearby galaxies —- even if rather dusty —- still have some regions where stars or star-clusters poke through the dust.

Hubble was used to very carefully subtract light from the quasar image and look for the glow of surrounding stars. The team accomplished this by looking at the glow of a reference star in the sky near the quasar and using it as a template to remove the quasar light from the image. Once the quasar was removed, no significant underlying starlight was detected. The underlying galaxy's stars could have been easily detected, had they been present and relatively unobscured by dust in at least some locations.

"It is remarkable that Hubble didn't find any of the underlying galaxy," said Windhorst. "The underlying galaxy is everywhere much fainter than expected, and therefore must be in a very dusty environment throughout. It's one of the most rip-roaring forest fires in the universe. It's creating so much smoke that you're not seeing any starlight, anywhere. The forest fire is complete, not a tree is spared."

"Because we don't see the stars, we can rule out that the galaxy that hosts this quasar is a normal galaxy," said Mechtley. "It's among the dustiest galaxies in the universe, and the dust is so widely distributed that not even a single clump of stars is peeking through. We're very close to a plausible detection, in the sense that if we had gone a factor of two deeper we might have detected some light from its young stars, even in such a dusty galaxy."

This result was published in the Sept. 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters in a paper by M. Mechtley, R. Windhorst, and an international team of collaborators.

NASA's planned will pursue this object. "The Webb telescope is designed to make a definitive detection of this," said Windhorst. We will get solid detections of the stars with Webb's better sensitivity to longer wavelengths of light, which will better probe the dusty regions in these young galaxies.

The Webb telescope will also have the infrared sensitivity to peer all the way back to 200 million years after the big bang. If started forming stars at this early epoch, Webb is designed and being built to detect them.

The Hubble Space Telescope is a project of international cooperation between NASA and the European Space Agency. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the telescope. The Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, Md., conducts Hubble science operations and is the science and mission operations center for the James Webb . STScI is operated for NASA by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., in Washington, D.C.

Explore further: Thermonuclear X-ray bursts on neutron stars set speed record

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Most quasars live on snacks, not large meals

Jun 20, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Black holes in the early universe needed a few snacks rather than one giant meal to fuel their quasars and help them grow, according to observations from NASA's Spitzer and Hubble space telescopes.

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.

Spitzer sees spider web of stars

Jul 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Those aren't insects trapped in a spider's web -- they're stars in our own Milky Way galaxy, lying between us and another spiral galaxy called IC 342. NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope captured ...

Black hole caught zapping galaxy into existence?

Nov 30, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Which come first, the supermassive black holes that frantically devour matter or the enormous galaxies where they reside? A brand new scenario has emerged from a recent set of outstanding ...

Recommended for you

How can we find tiny particles in exoplanet atmospheres?

Aug 29, 2014

It may seem like magic, but astronomers have worked out a scheme that will allow them to detect and measure particles ten times smaller than the width of a human hair, even at many light-years distance.  ...

Spitzer telescope witnesses asteroid smashup

Aug 28, 2014

(Phys.org) —NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted an eruption of dust around a young star, possibly the result of a smashup between large asteroids. This type of collision can eventually lead to the ...

Witnessing the early growth of a giant

Aug 27, 2014

Astronomers have uncovered for the first time the earliest stages of a massive galaxy forming in the young Universe. The discovery was made possible through combining observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble ...

User comments : 28

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 23, 2012
"It is remarkable that Hubble didn't find any of the underlying galaxy," said Windhorst.

What's truly remarkable is that such a tremendously long line of presumptions can be made based upon an even longer line of assumptions.

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

One only needs to read Halton Arp's findings on quasars to see that many of the assumptions are flat out WRONG!

http://www.halton...articles
jsdarkdestruction
4.5 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2012
another appeal to authority.....wow cantdrive, you are so convincing.*rolls eyes* why dont you leave the science to the scientists? arp doesnt support your eu theory in any way, a2g showed you that.....
A2G
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2012
CD85 again showed us his problem with his own quote,

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

One more time all you EU proponents. You are always telling us how your theory is backed by experiments, and yet I have never seen even ONE experiment conducted by a EU propenent. Not ONE. I work with plasma in vacuum chamber every day and the stuff you think you know about plasma and electricity in the universe is so wrong. I am going to give this one last time as another physicist advised me to quite writing about your errors as it is obviously a waste of time. But the people who come to this site to read "science" articles have to hear from the Jehovah's Witnesses from the EU. For them I write. Do not believe the EU thoery it is wrong. Now I will show you what they write and how wrong they are. in my next comment.
A2G
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2012
They believe that the volcanoes on Io are CAUSED by electricity.The electricity on Io is the RESULT not the CAUSE.

IO atmosphere's is a cold very thin atmosphere. One billionth of the earth's atmospheric density. The molten material under the surface of Io is forced out through the volcanoes of Io just as it is here on Earth. But being as the atmosphere of Io is basically a very cold high vacuum chamber enviroment.The molten magma is freeze dried as soon as it exits the volcano which turns all the magma into extremely fine particles. The extreme turbulance of these particles CAUSES the generation of a lot of ELECTRICITY. Since Io has a "Vacuum Chamber" atmosphere we do not get lighting as we do around volcanoes erupting here on Earth. NO we would expect and we get PLASMA. Then the volcanoes of Io can move over time as they cut through the surface of IO.

So that explains all of what we see on Io without resorting to some "God of the Thunderbolts"
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2012
How in that One billionth of the atmospheric pressure can there be enough friction to cause a plasma discharge effect? Also, do you really propose that the birkeland currents connecting Io and Jupiter are being powered by friction from particles being ejected into this rarefied atmosphere? Is this the "electricity" that is created to cause Jupiter's aurora to fluctuate alone with Io's orbit? Here is a quote from NASA in regards to these Birkeland currents;
"As Io circles around Jupiter and through the plasma torus, an enormous electrical current flows between them. Approximately 2 trillion watts of power is generated. The current follows the magnetic field lines to Jupiter's surface where it creates lightning in the upper atmosphere."
You see, in an atmosphere, such as Jupiter's, we get lightning as you predicted. AT THE OTHER END of that current, where it meets a solid body such as Io, we get a different plasma discharge, the observed plasma focus discharge that Peratt discovered.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2012
You see, EU proponents care little the source of the info as long as it's valid, whether it be NASA, Arp, Alfven, or even Einstein if it exists. And that's a clever jab at the end there implying the the EU proponents in some way are trying to codify a theory to support their religious beliefs. If you were really "well informed" of EUT you would be well aware of the meaning behind the title "Thunderbolts of the Gods". You would know that it is an interdisciplinary approach to explain not only the environment of today but also the human experience, which does include a theory of the origin of myth and religious beliefs, that which is based upon plasma discharge experiments done by A. Peratt and historical artifacts. I wouldn't expect differently, that you disparage for the sake of doing so, but before making claims that friction is the cause of the electricity, at least educate yourself to what the NASA scientists postulate before making an ass of yourself.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2012
I work with plasma in vacuum chamber every day...


^ Firsthand experience...

...which is based upon plasma discharge experiments done by A. Peratt and historical artifacts.


^ ...trumps ardent zealotry.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2012
One more time all you EU proponents.

There's just one. He's posting under several names.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2012
I work with plasma in vacuum chamber every day...


^ Firsthand experience...

...which is based upon plasma discharge experiments done by A. Peratt and historical artifacts.


^ ...trumps ardent zealotry.


And science trumps denialism and psuedo-skepticism.

http://plasmauniv...rth.html

Tuxford
1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2012
Again, the core has likely grown so massive and active that stars cannot condense and form in the nearby core region, as here, in perhaps an earlier phase of galactic evolution. And thus the outwardly moving stars simply dissipated long ago.

http://phys.org/n...ars.html

http://phys.org/n...ays.html

Boy, the science disciples are up early today defending their religion. Dark, nice to see you back.

A2G
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2012
Cantdrive wrote, "How in that One billionth of the atmospheric pressure can there be enough friction to cause a plasma discharge effect"

You again reveal your basic understanding of electricity and physics. Each particle in the universe has a magnetic component to it. That's basic physics 8th grade level. You do not need ANY atmosphere for the particles of the Io volcano and their associated individual magnetic fields to interact and form electricity. Therefore the more turbulence the more electricity formed because of the interaction of the magnetic fields of the individual particles.

For instance an electrical generator here on earth functions the same in a vacuum or a pressurized environment.

You really need to stop writing and exposing your ignorance for all to see.
A2G
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2012
Then I want to know why the EU has not one qualified scientist on their team? Not one. You claim it is because they the qualified scientists are afraid to speak out in their support of the EU theory and therefore lose credibility with their peers.

But Halton Arp has proven that he is definitely willing to speak out against what most scientists accept as fact and thereby risk losing his credibility. For that I admire him, even though I may not agree with him on some things. He handles it much differently that the EU crew does.

So if Arp is willing to go against the tide, so to speak, why is it that Arp himself does not believe the EU theory?

Because it is wrong.
A2G
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
Tell me cd85, in the world of the EU where does the electricity come from? Is it just there?

Does electricity just exist or does it have to be generated by some means?

Answer. It is generated at points of turbulent flowing magnetic fields.

The electricity is NOT the cause, it is the effect, just like it is in every experiment we run here on earth. We first must generate the electricity or capture it from a source that is generating it.

Ask Ben Franklin about that one.

Electricity always appears where there is turbulent magnetic flows or if you have a large planet with a magnetic field spinning like a generator as Jupiter does. SO all the crap you wrote in defense of the EU idea of the Jupiter/Io connection is wrong.
A2G
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
BTW CD85, I receive not one penny of funding for my research, I fund it all from my own pocket. The money in my own pocket comes from designing and producing cutting edge electro-magnetic field generators. So exactly what are your qualifications other than being willing to look ignorant to anyone who will listen?

The EU started by insulting mainstream scientists. So I am giving them some of their own medicine. I really don't want to make them feel bad about themselves, but I just can't read what they write and then know others will read it and believe it..

I have met laymen that had fallen for the EU crap and I was able to show them how wrong it was and save them from embarrassing themselves later. CD85/Hannes are too stubborn and sure of their own intelligence for their own good.

The EU sites are filled with misleading statements that some of these leading scientists that they grab quotes from somehow support the EU idea.

But NOT ONE real scientist supports EU theory.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2012
Tell me cd85, in the world of the EU where does the electricity come from? Is it just there?

Does electricity just exist or does it have to be generated by some means?


Does an electron generate electricity, or is the charge inherent to the particle? What about an ion? Does the interaction of an ion and electron create a "turbulent" magnetic field?
I usually don't use Wiki as a reference, but here you go;
"A magnetic field may be represented by a mathematical description of the magnetic influence of electric currents and magnetic materials. The magnetic field is most commonly defined in terms of the Lorentz force it exerts on moving electric charges. Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin."

As it says, "magnetic fields are PRODUCED by MOVING electric charges", your claim of being a plasma researcher strains of credulity.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2012
It's not "turbulence" and "friction" that creates electric currents, it is an electrodynamic interaction between the particles. It is this electrodynamic interaction that causes the particles to self organize into filamentary and cellular structures, once the charged particles are moving (inherent due to spin) the current becomes self propagating due to the particles that comprise the current. So yes, the electricity is created by the electromotive action of the particles which are electrically charged. It feels to me as if were going in circles about the electricity, you're claiming hydrodynamical properties of friction whereas I'm claiming it is the electrodynamic properties of the charged particles within the plasma. Within a non homogeneous plasma (which is what space is), electric currents are naturally occurring and expected, according to plasma physicist Anthony Peratt.
A2G
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2012
CD 85. So you admit that your reference is Wiki. Great. Now we are getting somewhere. I am no longer wasting any time on you. You will see how stupid you are very soon and you will see I know more about plasma and electricity then you will ever dream of knowing.

In November all of what you just questioned me on will be answered and then some.

Go work with some plasma and show me how your stupid EU theory holds any water at all.

You are a stupid stubborn person for which I see no help for. You don't even recognize an expert when they are speaking directly to you and then you hold up fools as experts.

Good luck banging your head against the wall. I am moving my filter to 1.1 and that will eliminate 99% of your comments.
A2G
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2012
CD 85, Anthony Peratt Read all about him.

http://forums.ran...t=144610

He used computer sims. I work with real plasma. His ideas are wrong. You can read his fatal errors at the above link.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2012
You are a stupid stubborn person for which I see no help for. You don't even recognize an expert when they are speaking directly to you and then you hold up fools as experts.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I would recognize an expert, and I also can recognized you are not one. Any expert in plasma understands gravity has little effect on plasma, even on large scales. Clearly you are nothing more than a troll claiming to be an expert.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
CD 85, Anthony Peratt Read all about him.

http://forums.ran...t=144610

He used computer sims. I work with real plasma. His ideas are wrong. You can read his fatal errors at the above link.

ok cantdrive and hannes. there you have it, your heroes use simulation and models just like all the so called conspiracy based science that supposedly uses them instead of experiments like you like to go on about. you guys are the biggest hypocrites in the world. grow up and admit you were wrong and just standing on your soap box spewing what you read that sounded good to you. its not too late to reaize eu is garbage and that what you read to convince you its real is nonsense.
jsdarkdestruction
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2012
You are a stupid stubborn person for which I see no help for. You don't even recognize an expert when they are speaking directly to you and then you hold up fools as experts.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I would recognize an expert, and I also can recognized you are not one. Any expert in plasma understands gravity has little effect on plasma, even on large scales. Clearly you are nothing more than a troll claiming to be an expert.

i guess if you cant attack the science or statements made you can attack the character of the scientists....JUST LIKE YOU WHINE AND CLAIM MODERN SCIENCE DOES! again, you are such a hypocrite its sad and pathetic.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
This finding has absolutely nothing with electric or plasma currents. We know about dusty galaxies already and they do serve as an evidence of gravastar (dark energy star) mechanism of large galaxy formation from large clouds of dark matter. It's an analogy of large gaseous planet formation inside the protoplanetary disks. No electricity is involved there.
NOM
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2012
This finding has absolutely nothing with electric or plasma currents. We know about dusty galaxies already and they do serve as an evidence of gravastar (http://en.wikiped...gy_star) mechanism of large galaxy formation from large clouds of dark matter. It's an analogy of large gaseous planet formation inside the protoplanetary disks. No electricity is involved there.

Hey Zeph. You nearly made sense there, as you didn't mention your AWK rubbish at all.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2012
But this mechanism follows the general paradigm of AWT in which the galaxies are behaving like giant fluctuations of gas inside of steady-state but dynamic universe: they do evaporate into lightweight particles (photons and neutrinos), which condense somewhere else into new generation of galaxies. After then my post gives a full sense. The Big Bang model considers the formation of matter in form of lightweight elements first and it doesn't allow the formation of galaxies from dust. Such a dust must be formed inside of galaxies which are already existing and containing supernova stars of at least second generation.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2012
Caveat for lay readers of these comments:

Steady-state cosmology is fringe science (at best) mostly disproved by the observations (over the last hundred years) of the actual universe we occupy and the basic rules of physics which operate on it. Steady state cosmology is actually contrary to the most fundamental principles of modern physics

Plasma cosmology (or Electric universe theory) is fringe science (again, at best) that doesn't explain the actual the universe we occupy or the basic rules of physics which operate on it. They are still looking for a prediction to make, every time they find one, they end up having to cancel it and issue a newer one because there is no experimental test for it.

A few of the posters on this site read one or two items from one or two authors and quit reading there. Meaning they learned their physics from misguided sources and haven't done the work required to place their sources into the proper perspective or context.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
Steady state cosmology is actually contrary to the most fundamental principles of modern physics
Why? Steady state cosmology doesn't deny the red shift - it just explains it differently: with dispersion of light with vacuum fluctuations.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2012
Why? Steady state cosmology doesn't deny the red shift - it just explains it differently: with dispersion of light with vacuum fluctuations.


Steady state cosmology's red-shift explanations present two competing sets of physical rules. One for near-by phenomena and an alternate to describe the red-shift that invalidates the steady-state theory (theory is being generous). I'll stick with the theory that is based on the premise that the laws of physics are the same in one part of the universe as in any other part.

Hubble's idea of "tired light" has been shown countless times to be a non-starter. Even the great steady-statist Hoyle himself eventually came around and acknowledged that "tired light" couldn't be an avenue for investigation.

You must have read the term "gravitational red-shift" in some paper and have tried to incorporate it into your steady-state idea and neglected to notice that it is already included in the calculations for the expanding universe.
NOM
3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
So that explains cantthink85, who has skim-read the abstract of the crank Electric universe theory, and now claims it explains everything.