Red stars and big bulges: How black holes shape galaxies

Apr 22, 2014 by Robert Massey
Images of a small fraction of the galaxies analysed in the new study. The galaxies are ordered by total mass of stars (rising from bottom to top) and by ‘bulge to total stellar mass ratio’ (rising from left to right). Galaxies that appear redder have high values for both of these measurements, meaning that the mass of the bulge –and central black hole – determines their colour. Credit: A. Bluck.

(Phys.org) —The universe we can see is made up of billions of galaxies, each containing anywhere from hundreds of thousands to hundreds of billions of stars. Large numbers of galaxies are elliptical in shape, red and mostly made up of old stars. Another (more familiar) type is the spiral, where arms wind out in a blue thin disk from a central red bulge. On average stars in spiral galaxies tend to be much younger than those in ellipticals.

Now a group of astronomers led by Asa Bluck of the University of Victoria in Canada have found a (relatively) simple relationship between the colour of a galaxy and the size of its bulge – the more massive the bulge the redder the galaxy. The researchers publish their results in the Oxford University Press journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Asa and his team used data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to group together over half a million galaxies of all different colours, shapes, and masses. They then used pattern recognition software to measure the shape of each one, to see how the proportion of red in a galaxy varies with its other properties.

They found that the in the central bulge (regardless of how big the disk surrounding it may be) is the key to knowing the colour of the whole galaxy. Above a given bulge mass, galaxies are red and have no new young stars.

Almost all galaxies have at their centres. The mass of the bulge is closely related to the mass of the black hole; the more massive the black hole the more energy is released into the surrounding galaxy in the form of powerful jets and X-ray emission. This can blow away and heat up gas, stopping new stars from forming.

Asa comments: "A relatively simple result, that large galaxy bulges mean red , has profound consequences. Big bulges mean big black holes and these can put an end to star formation."

Explore further: Ellipticals and spirals comprise two different populations of "green" galaxies

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Inseparable galactic twins

Jul 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —Looking towards the constellation of Triangulum (The Triangle), in the northern sky, lies the galaxy pair MRK 1034. The two very similar galaxies, named PGC 9074 and PGC 9071, are close enough ...

Hubble spots a colorful lenticular galaxy

Nov 12, 2012

(Phys.org)—The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured a beautiful galaxy that, with its reddish and yellow central area, looks rather like an explosion from a Hollywood movie. The galaxy, called NGC ...

Recommended for you

Hubble sees 'ghost light' from dead galaxies

15 hours ago

(Phys.org) —NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has picked up the faint, ghostly glow of stars ejected from ancient galaxies that were gravitationally ripped apart several billion years ago. The mayhem happened ...

When did galaxies settle down?

21 hours ago

Astronomers have long sought to understand exactly how the universe evolved from its earliest history to the cosmos we see around us in the present day. In particular, the way that galaxies form and develop ...

Image: Hubble views the whirling disk of NGC 4526

22 hours ago

This neat little galaxy is known as NGC 4526. Its dark lanes of dust and bright diffuse glow make the galaxy appear to hang like a halo in the emptiness of space in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space ...

User comments : 25

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

no fate
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
"The universe we can see is made up of billions of galaxies, each containing anywhere from hundreds of thousands to hundreds of billions of stars" - Observation

"the more massive the bulge the redder the galaxy." - Observation

" Above a given bulge mass, galaxies are red and have no new young stars." - Observation via computation

"Almost all galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centres....to the end of the article" - SPECULATION based on a time variant X-ray flare

"So... you think, for no good reason whatsoever, that the material was pulled up by... some other thing that you must invent entirely to explain why the material was pulled up.... That's not how science works, sorry." Shavera

I may change my handle to Shaverafan for supplying what is bound to be the most accurate quote by a supporter of mainstream theoretical cosmology ever to grace this forum.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
"So... you think, for no good reason whatsoever, that the material was pulled up by... some other thing that you must invent entirely to explain why the material was pulled up.... That's not how science works, sorry."


Nope. You cannot state there is no good reason just because you ignore it. The observations of mass and luminosity alone put established objects out of the picture. Nothing known can be that massive and that dense, therefor something else is needed.

Black holes were theorised long before there were any observations to suggest them, they were not invented. SMBHs were a hypothesis to explain AGN in general. It was tested far beyond simple x-ray measurements inducing direct observations of orbiting stars, velocity profiles and orbiting masers. That's science, testing a hypothesis. That's all science is.
no fate
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014


Nope. You cannot state there is no good reason just because you ignore it. The observations of mass and luminosity alone put established objects out of the picture. Nothing known can be that massive and that dense, therefor something else is needed.


According to mainstream physics 75% of the mass required to explain stellar motion hasn't been observed (1), nor has a black hole (2). The mainstream has tried to infer mass from observation...and showed this doesn't work as per points 1 & 2. I can only speculate as to what is at the center of any galaxy. I can observe and record what happens and see what phenomena on an atomic scale produce the photons the we observe originating from that region. I have not yet required a BH to do this...ergo I don't need one to be there. A gravity based model needs to have one there, along with that 75%...that no one can find.

So yes there is something there, yes it is a source of energetic emissions.

Beyond that is speculation.

no fate
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014


Black holes were theorised long before there were any observations to suggest them, they were not invented. SMBHs were a hypothesis to explain AGN in general. It was tested far beyond simple x-ray measurements inducing direct observations of orbiting stars, velocity profiles and orbiting masers. That's science, testing a hypothesis. That's all science is.


They have not tested a hypothesis. They have attributed observations to an effect they say is generated by an object never observed. A black hole isn't the only answer for these emissions, given what materials sciences tell us, and quantum physics tell us, it is the least likely stucture to exist in the universe...except on paper. DM "particles" are a close second.

Today enough intelligent people know what is and isn't physically possible that statements of fact require actual physical proof as to their plausibility. They can tell when evidence supports a hypothesis, and when it is just "inferred" as support.


Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2014
it is the least likely stucture to exist in the universe...except on paper. DM "particles" are a close second
@no fate
I think you might be having a problem with DM because you dont understand what DM is... it is really simple.
DM = Dark Matter = simply a name placeholder for an observed phenomenon that we are not able to currently describe in detail. We DO know certain things: it has mass (observed & inferred) which is where the "matter" part of the name comes from. it does not interact with light like normal matter which is where the "dark" comes from. thus, Dark matter is simply matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects. http://www.space....ter.html

good video here: http://www.pbs.or...ter.html
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2014
showed this doesn't work as per points 1 & 2.


False. The model tells us the mass is there, you have nothing to show otherwise. That's just prejudice. We have a model which quantitatively explains these motions. We can test it, that's science.

They have attributed observations to an effect


That's all science is. You build a model and test it. They thought it was a black hole so they looked for orbiting objects, test and evidence. If you claim this does not apply to objects that have never been observed then nothing new could ever be observed.

A black hole isn't the only answer for these emissions

That's true of any scientific model. It explains more observations quantitatively than other models.

given what materials sciences tell us...

No, that's a shallow dismissal. If you want to talk about theory be specific, pointing to a vast field of physics and claiming "the evidence is in there" is not an argument.
no fate
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
Stump:"We DO know certain things: it has mass (observed & inferred) which is where the "matter" part of the name comes from."

Your first link:" and although no solid direct evidence of dark matter has been detected, there have been strong possibilities in recent years."

It's presence is 100% inferred, it is a "placeholder", but it isn't matter until it is proven to be. If it is matter, it shouldn't be as difficult to find as it is proving to be. It supposedly out numbers normal matter by a 3:1 ratio, but it is transparent to all EM frequencies/wavelengths. Other than lensing phenomenon and galactic stellar motion which can both be "inferred" to result from magnetic field interactions with alot more scientific confidence than gravitational interactions, DM has nothing other than support from a model that needs it to be present as matter for the model to maintain predictability.

Interacting magnetic fields behave exactly how DM is proposed to....and...they exist.



no fate
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
"The model tells us the mass is there" - The model was designed by man, not nature. So Man tells you the mass is there, Nature tells us otherwise. The model missed 75% of the universe according to the mainstream and needed a "massive" revision once the observations were in that contradicted it. The "now we have it right" rhetoric doesn't fly...just like the big bounce that was part of the model didn't fly, and was revised upon observation, just like sun being perfectly round doesn't fly...but the model doesn't know how to deal with this one yet.

"No, that's a shallow dismissal. If you want to talk about theory be specific, pointing to a vast field of physics and claiming "the evidence is in there" is not an argument."

Specifically the compressability of matter into what is claimed can be done by nature, start with Hydrogen...gravitationally compress to a star under it's own mass...not physically possible...helluva delusion though.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2014
it shouldn't be as difficult to find as it is proving to be.


Says who? The fact it's abundant doesn't mean it is easy to detect.

Nature tells us otherwise.


No it doesn't. What natural phenomenon tells us dark matter doesn't exist? None, that's pure bias. It's a model, we can test it. That's science right there.

The "now we have it right" rhetoric doesn't fly.


That's not scientific criticism. If models were thrown away at the first sight of conflicting data we would have nothing. Conservation of energy and momentum, abandoned. Classical electromagnetism, abandoned. No, that's not how science works. We know our models work well so far so how can we extend their usefulness and how can we test that extension?

gravitationally compress to a star under it's own mass...not physically possible


I asked you to be specific. Why isn't it physically possible?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Interacting magnetic fields behave exactly how DM is proposed to....and...they exist
@no fate
this is where you and I will differ.
interacting magnetic fields (IMF) do not have mass, nor do they allow for the observed lensing or (again observed) galactic stellar motion. There is no data to support IMF as a reliable substitute for the placeholder name of "dark matter".
according to what I have read thus far, dark matter is the only thing that covers it all with one simple object (albeit unknown and invisible currently to us).
Sure, we have inferred it, but the inference is due to observed phenomenon (as I stated above)

IMHO - I believe that this was addressed earlier on when the observations were first noticed, but there is no supporting empirical data that would show/allow for IMF to replace DM.

If you have anything to support your position, feel free to post it.

I would suggest sticking to reputable science sites and not anything like EU spam though.
no fate
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
"What natural phenomenon tells us dark matter doesn't exist?"
The same one telling you it does...man. You just disagree with ones that don't say what you want to hear.

"interacting magnetic fields (IMF) do not have mass, nor do they allow for the observed lensing or (again observed) galactic stellar motion."

Stump, here is one of many papers regarding manipulating light with a magnetic field.https://www.googl...aek5OpiE

Google it and there are dozens of examples of EXPERIMENTAL evidence of bending light (this is how lensing occurs).

Find one experiment where gravity does and post your evidence please.

IMF's do not require mass to effect motion of particles, this is why they are transparent and undetectable unless exerting force upon mass/energy.

no fate
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
I asked you to be specific. Why isn't it physically possible? IMP9

It isn't physically possible because the physical properties of Hydrogen will not allow it to self compress due to it's own mass, regardless of ANY math that says it can. (see wiki page on hydrogen). This is why we have to supercool storage tanks with a very high rentention PSI to maintain it in a liquid form, despite the "help" from the earths gravity.

The sun just being there is not evidence that how you propose it got there is correct.

Has any mainstream physicist in the history of the world been able to condense hydrogen outside of a storage device? That is the proof I require from you, that it actually can do it on it's own. That is what you expect the world to believe, based on math that says it's possible right? This one should be easy, because next is matter doing the same thing into a BH. Not the math, the actual physics that show what the math says IS possible.
no fate
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
In a vacuum chamber we can create the structures we see in space using plasma and magnets. It is a physical demonstration of what is required to form a structure using the same things that we have ALREADY established to comprise these structures in space. Real, tangible,observable.

Not fantasy math. Not grasping at cosmic straws, not adding undetectable matter or requiring objects that by physicists own admission are physically indescribable.

"We know our models work well so far so how can we extend their usefulness and how can we test that extension?" - IMP9

By applying the correct forces to the correct phenomena. You don't. What you say happens only works mathematically...and only to 25% accuracy until you add a variable to your equation, then claim that because the equation now works out the universe is 75% "heavier" but you just can't physically find it. When you are out by this much, it is the fundamental principle that is flawed, not the inability to observe.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
@ no-fate-Skippy, it looks like you mixing up what the Reg-Skippy and the cantdrive-Skippy are all the time writing about. Don't listen to them Cher they is both the wrong when it comes to the science stuff. Reg-Skippy is the one that says there is no gravity, but that is wrong Cher, you can google that. cantdrive-Skippy is the one that writes all the foolishment about the plasmas and magnets. You got them crossed up. Not one or the other of them knows about real science stuff so quit trying to use their stuffs to help you understand this stuff. Stick with the smart peoples like Captain-Skippy and Magnus-Skippy and the IMP-Skippy, they are the Skippys that know this stuff.
IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
The same one telling you it does...man. You just disagree with ones that don't say what you want to hear.


Where did I say the dynamics of the universe told us dark matter exists? I didn't, it doesn't. What the voices in your head are telling you is irreverent. It's a model, we can test it. Anything else isn't science.

Find one experiment where gravity does and post your evidence please.

Gravitational lensing round the Sun. From only the value of GM taken from observations general relativity predicted gravitational lensing as well as can be measured. What other model can claim that?

the physical properties of Hydrogen will not allow it to self compress due to it's own mass, regardless of ANY math that says it can.


Ok, so you can observe a few hundred littres of hydrogen, how do you predict what the "physical properties of hydrogen" will do in the presence of a solar mass of the stuff? Only math can tell you that. Ignoring mathematics is willful ignorance.

IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
Has any mainstream physicist in the history of the world been able to condense hydrogen outside of a storage device?

Has any crank scientists in the history of the world been able to accumulate a Jean's mass of hydrogen? No. I can heat an egg up to a few hundred degrees but I see no plasma. Does that mean plasma cannot exist because I did not observe it? No. The same goes for this stupid experiment of yours. Saying something hasn't been done doesn't mean it is impossible. Was manned heaver than air flight impossible before the 20th century? Of course not.

In a vacuum chamber we can create structures that look somewhat similar to what we see in space using plasma and magnets.

Just no. Even the most advanced plasma galaxy modes do not describe the most basic features. Scott's model (all math by the way) cannot explain the agreement between Hi regions and stars in rotation.

When you are out by this much, it is the fundamental principle that is flawed

Pure assumtion
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
here is one of many papers
@no fate
actually, this is just google results... but from one of those results found here http://van.physic...?id=2009
Nice try. Unfortunately, the path light takes is not affected by the presence of a magnetic field
&
even though a magnetic field won't do anything for the light, a gravitational field, sufficiently strong, will in fact bend light. This was observed early in the 20th century confirming Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which light from the planet Mercury was bent by a very tiny amount by the enormous gravitational field of the sun

also... about this comment
Google it and there are dozens of examples of EXPERIMENTAL evidence
just because there are Google results, doesn't mean that it is empirical experimental data, after all you can also find https://www.googl...ens+real
75 million results for that link
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Find one experiment where gravity does and post your evidence please
@no fate
1 experiment where gravity bends light? REALLY?
start here: http://archive.nc...est.html

then: http://en.wikiped...lativity where you will also find references to the Eddington study
Dyson, F. W.; Eddington, A. S., Davidson C. (1920). "A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of 29 May 1919". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 220A: 291–333.
https://www.googl...periment

I would recommend only using reputable science links when researching. otherwise you will get EU crap and get confused.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
In a vacuum chamber we can create the structures we see in space using plasma and magnets
@no fate
you will also notice that studies in cosmology take this into consideration when researching or writing papers. here are some sites to help you:
http://www.pppl.gov/

http://silas.psfc...oplasma/

your conjectures are reminiscent of EU speculations about modern cosmologists not knowing /considering plasma physics, which has been proven wrong time and again.
to IMF lensing
If your magnetic field is strong enough over a large enough distance, you can have enough energy stored in it to do gravitational lensing, and then refer to the above answer on gravitational lensing. This however is a very difficult way of getting a strong gravitational field. It is much easier just to collect a galaxy's worth of matter than to collect the equivalent energy in a magnetic field (neither is particularly easy, I admit!)


http://van.physic...?id=2009
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
@no fate
more from that Google link http://van.physic...?id=2009
there is a small expected deviation from linearity of electric and magnetic fields due to quantum mechanics and the ability of electrons to pop out and go away on microscopic time scales. This only becomes noticeable for very very high frequency light colliding with other very very high-frequency light (it wouldn't be noticeable and may even have exactly zero effect for a static magnetic field and visible light -- I haven't done any calculations). There are plans to make such a light-light collider, but it requires a many-mile electron accelerator to get the energy of the light high enough

so far, you have proven nothing as far as empirical data supporting your IMF Lensing theory, and requested that I Google for info myself.
without getting into known EU crank sites, I am not finding info (but not looking hard either). I would suggest you get the empirical data and present it yourself.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
@no fate
and again, refuting IMF's bending light
we have a beautifully accurate theory of electromagnetism, tested countless times here on earth. So we know that EM fields don't bend the paths of light, except to the negligible extent that their energy is itself a source of gravity, or that there's quantum-mechanical photon-photon scattering. Here on earth, you can shine two laser beams through each other or shine a beam through a big magnetic field, etc. to check that we're not missing something about electromagnetism. You may want to know how accurate our EM theory (quantum electrodynamics) actually is. In one case (the electron gyromagnetic ratio) it predicts a number to an accuracy of one part in one hundred billion

is there anything that you would care to add in support of your IMF lensing hypothesis?

so what we have I evidence against IMF lensing and nothing for it. you will have to provide some links for your support, otherwise we'll just spin in circles, ok?
no fate
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Ok, so you can observe a few hundred littres of hydrogen, how do you predict what the "physical properties of hydrogen" will do in the presence of a solar mass of the stuff? Only math can tell you that. Ignoring mathematics is willful ignorance.

Has any crank scientists in the history of the world been able to accumulate a Jean's mass of hydrogen?

LMAO!!! What possible delusion makes you think that physical properties of Hydrogen at a given temperature change due to how much of it there is? It's Hydrogen, the volume of space occupied is the variable that changes...not the density. Guess what, the volume increases along with the temperature.

This is either way too simple for you or somehow more complicated than I had imagined. Math doesn't make anything "real". I never ignore math, I am just using the relevant math for this discussion. You are using math you have been wrongfully taught is relevant. Jeans mass...
IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
What possible delusion makes you think that physical properties of Hydrogen at a given temperature change due to how much of it there is?


Can I liquidate gases with a compressor? Yes. So the physical properties of hydrogen depend on the pressure. So replace the compressor with a solar mass of hydrogen sitting on top. The physical properties of hydrogen at a given temperature depend on how much there is.

A Jeans mass is entirely relevant when we are discussing gravitational collapse.
Bob Osaka
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
Aren't you astounded by how much we don't know? Dark matter and dark energy are wonderful analogies for human ignorance and acting out of ignorance.

I think you might be having a problem with DM because you dont understand what DM is... it is really simple.
DM = Dark Matter = an observed phenomenon we are not able to describe in detail.... thus, Dark matter undetectable by emitted radiation, but can be inferred from gravitational effects. http://www.space....ter.html

The link above has a post boasting " DM detectable within 10 years." Good luck with that. You can be absolutely wrong but if enough people parrot your dogma, Nobel will give you a prize.

Our present position in the Universe on one of the spiral arms of the Milky way is not precisely known. We are between our SMBH and Andromeda's. The galactic current sheet is not known.
Could not the observed distortions including the acceleration of expansion be explained by two SMBH closing proximity?
yep
not rated yet Apr 30, 2014
Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observation.For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

I see the high priests of acceptable dogma are hard at work trying to discourage dissent. Going to get a lot harder to disparage EU theory with all the empirical evidence coming in.

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.