Black hole fireworks in nearby galaxy

Jul 03, 2014 by A Galaxy About 23 Million Light-Years Away Is The Site Of Impressive, Ongoing, Fireworks. Rather Than Paper, Powder, And Fire
A galaxy about 23 million light-years away is the site of impressive, ongoing, fireworks. Rather than paper, powder, and fire, this galactic light show involves a giant black hole, shock waves, and vast reservoirs of gas. Credit: NASA/CXC/JPL-Caltech/STScI/NSF/NRAO/VLA

(Phys.org) —Celebrants this Fourth of July will enjoy the dazzling lights and booming shock waves from the explosions of fireworks. A similarly styled event is taking place in the galaxy Messier 106, as seen by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Herschel Space Observatory. Herschel is a European Space Agency mission with important NASA contributions.

Energetic jets, which blast from Messier 106's central black hole, are heating up material in the galaxy and thus making it glow, like the ingredients in a firework. The jets also power shock waves that are driving gases out of the galaxy's interior.

Those gases constitute the fuel for churning out . A new study estimates the shock waves have already warmed and ejected two-thirds of the from the center of Messier 106. With a reduced ability to birth new stars, Messier 106 appears to be transitioning into a barren, so-called full of old, red stars. Lenticular galaxies are flat disks without prominent .

"Jets from the supermassive black hole at the center of Messier 106 are having a profound influence on the available gas for making stars in this galaxy," said Patrick Ogle, an astrophysicist at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and lead author of a new paper describing the results. "This process may eventually transform the spiral galaxy Messier 106 into a lenticular galaxy, depriving it of the raw material to form stars."

Many galaxies contain a central black hole that actively "feeds" upon nearby gas. Some of the material, as it draws toward the black hole, dramatically speeds up and violently spews out as twin jets near the black hole's poles. As one of the Milky Way's closest galactic neighbors, Messier 106 offers a great opportunity for investigating these high-powered jets. Messier 106—also known as NGC 4258—is 23.5 million light-years distant, and visible with binoculars in the constellation Canes Venatici.

For the new study, researchers used data obtained with the Spitzer infrared telescope before the observatory ran out of coolant in 2009, as planned. The data amount to a map of the infrared light emitted by heated-up hydrogen molecules in Messier 106. The warmed hydrogen is a signature of the jet from the central black hole energizing the surrounding disk of the galaxy.

Specifically, Spitzer saw warmed hydrogen in the two mysterious spiral arms for which Messier 106 is famous. These arms are not like the usual, star-filled spiral arms found in spiral galaxies, such as our Milky Way. In previous research with Spitzer and Chandra, researchers discovered that twin jets from the black hole spawned the anomalous arms, which contain gas heated to millions of degrees that shines in X-rays, detected by Chandra.

In the inner portions of the anomalous spiral arms, the Spitzer infrared images have revealed the equivalent of 10 million times the mass of the sun of heated to between about minus 20 and 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 28 and 760 degrees Celsius) by the shock waves. Without the shock waves, this gas would be colder, likely a few hundred degrees below zero, Fahrenheit.

From a direct comparison of the Chandra and Spitzer images, Ogle and colleagues saw that there is a close connection between the gas that is shocked to millions of degrees, seen by Chandra, and the bulk of denser hydrogen gas heated to hundreds of degrees, seen by Spitzer. The jet is surrounded by a cocoon of superhot gas, which drives into the surrounding molecular hydrogen gas, like a firework popping off. The molecular hydrogen then heats up, emits infrared light that Spitzer records, and is cast out of the galaxy's gas-strewn interior.

The Herschel observations, meanwhile, pinned down the heat radiating from dust grains that are mixed in with the galaxy's shock-heated gas. "A relatively large amount of molecular gas emission compared to dust emission confirms that shock-driven turbulence from the black hole jets is heating the molecular gas," said paper co-author Philip Appleton of the NASA Herschel Science Center at Caltech.

Spitzer and Herschel were also able to gauge the level of star-making activity in Messier 106's central region. The little gas left there supports a paltry star-formation rate of only 0.08 solar, or sun-equivalent, masses per year (a robust pace runs to about three solar masses per year). The star-formation rate in Messier 106's inner quarters will continue to decline until the jets have ejected all of the gas from the center of the galaxy, turning Messier 106 into an over-the-hill lenticular galaxy.

"Our results demonstrate that these black hole jets can have a significant impact on the evolution of their host galaxies, eventually sterilizing them and making them bereft of the gas needed to form new stars," said Ogle.

Explore further: NASA image: A hungry starburst galaxy

More information: These results were published in the June 20th, 2014 issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters and are available online: On Ararxiv.org/abs/1405.2040

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A spiral galaxy with a secret

Feb 05, 2013

(Phys.org)—The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope – with a little help from an amateur astronomer – has produced one of the best views yet of nearby spiral galaxy Messier 106. Located a little over 20 ...

NASA image: A hungry starburst galaxy

May 13, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new Hubble picture is the sharpest ever image of the core of spiral galaxy Messier 61. Taken using the High Resolution Channel of Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys, the central part ...

Chandra captures galaxy sparkling in X-rays

Jun 03, 2014

(Phys.org) —Nearly a million seconds of observing time with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has revealed a spiral galaxy similar to the Milky Way glittering with hundreds of X-ray points of light.

A galaxy with two hearts

Jan 09, 2014

This new Hubble image shows the spiral galaxy Messier 83, otherwise known as the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy. One of the largest and closest barred spirals to us, this galaxy is dramatic and mysterious; it has ...

Recommended for you

A colorful gathering of middle-aged stars

17 hours ago

NGC 3532 is a bright open cluster located some 1300 light-years away in the constellation of Carina(The Keel of the ship Argo). It is informally known as the Wishing Well Cluster, as it resembles scattered ...

User comments : 23

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vidyunmaya
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
ref:High-powered jets. Messier 106 - known as NGC 4258-at 23.5 million light-years Comments: The psychology of black-hole every where hides the truth. How can astronomy can catch-up with Cosmology Studies and Energy distribution?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Now we need to find one for the celebration of Bastille Day........heaven forbid that we leave the vaunted French out of this, after all they gave us the Statue of Liberty.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2014
The twisted interacting Birkeland currents are obvious in the image.

http://www.plasma...se.info/AtHomeIn.html]http://www.plasma...eIn.html[/url]

http://www.jpl.na...1200.jpg

From; http://www.plasma...se.info/
"two galaxies are observed, very nearly an end-on view of two interacting Birkeland currents curving nearly 30 degrees to the right. The galaxies pertain to two pinches along the current pair, an early time peculiar x-ray galaxy (front, blue) and a later-time spiral galaxy (rear, red) that has passed through an intense electromagnetic radiation burst into a more quiescent emission phase.

the galaxy colors very nearly match those shown in the simulation movie.

The 'forked' ends of the early time galaxy are typical of equivalent interacting plasmas recorded in the laboratory."

DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2014
This article made me laugh. Cantdrive85 nailed it though.
I keep reading these articles because of my 30 year passion as an amateur astronomer. Its kinda like looking at a horrible accident. We know it will br gross, but we all look anyway.

The way mainstream physics use outdated theories to describe modern cosmology is quiete childish. Observe with your eyes and quit writing fairytales. Nature takes the simplicity route.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2014
I've concluded that Galaxies are not gravitationally bound to one another.

I noticed that the Milky Way and Andromeda, if placed so that their centers were 200,000ly apart, would have virtually no gravitational acceleration on one another's centers.

At this distance, it would take 2100 years for them to exert a net acceleration on one another amounting to just 1 meter per second change in velocity.

In order to get to 1km per second in velocity would take 2,100,000 years.
A 1000km/second change in velocity would take 2.1 billion years.

This means they have never orbited nor passed one another in the history of the universe, since at their current distance they have even much less effect on one another, and there is not enough time to have slowed one another down previously.

Even closer galaxies, like the Magellanic Clouds, are not gravitationally bound to the Milky Way.

Multiplying by a factor of 5 for the fairy tale Dark Matter does not make a significant difference.
Returners
1 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2014
This is enough to change their relative positions by 3362 light years (both ways for a total of 6600ly) in 2.1 billion years, which is insignificant, assuming they were only 200,000ly apart. If they were accelerating at about that average rate for 14 billion years, their relative velocities would only be 7000km/s, and they'd only move 23,000ly closer each, totallying 46,000ly, to one another during that time, which is not enough to affect anything.

Currently they are 2.5 million light years distant, which means gravity affecting one another is 156 times weaker than if they were 200,000 ly apart.

They've only had enough time in the history of the UNIVERSE to accelerate one another by about 45km/s....which on cosmic scales is completely insignificant.

The remainder of their motion, literally all of it, originates from the creation event, and is not a result of attractive forces between them...
Returners
1 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2014
Double 45km/s since they each accelerate the other, to get 90km/s.

Calculate Hubble expansion at their distance: Hubble Expansion at the rate of ~72-78km/s/mparsec, which comes to 50km/s at their relative distance.

Which means there is virtually no gravitational reason for them to be moving towards one another, in cosmic terms, since they barely accelerate enough to overcome the alleged Hubble expansion.

In any case, their is no gravitational explanation for their present relative velocity which is allegedly going to result in a collision in 3.75 billion years.

They would have to be on this course from the beginning, since gravity could not have significantly altered their velocities in the history of the universe. Never mind anything anywhere else in the universe.

Do keep in mind that 90km/s worth of acceleration in 14.7 billion years (yeah, I padded it) is so insignificant compared to 2.5 million light years.

They'd only move 1/57th of that distance in that time.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2014
I've concluded that Galaxies are not gravitationally bound to one another.


Well I've concluded that Returnering-Skippy is not the astro-science-Skippy who admitted he got no use for the math until he gets the Ph & D from the college.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2014
Galaxies are not gravitationally bound to one another
Hmmm. What about clusters?
I noticed that the Milky Way and Andromeda, if placed so that their centers were 200,000ly apart, would have virtually no gravitational acceleration on one another's centers
Well perhaps there are forces and dynamics that, in your delusions of galactic proportions, you have failed to consider. Ask any cosmologist for details. I dare you.
At this distance, it would take 2100 years for them to exert a net acceleration on one another amounting to just 1 meter per second change in velocity
Your calcs must be in error because that is obviously not what is happening. Perhaps you need more calcs than only 3 posts can hold.
their is no gravitational explanation for their present relative velocity
Perhaps there is but you are not aware of it because your mania leaves you little patience for actually learning anything about a subject before you opine. Have you considered this Lrrkrrr?
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
Us skippies don't rely on silly computer simulations or outdated theories.
We are observer's.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014
Your calcs must be in error because that is obviously not what is happening. Perhaps you need more calcs than only 3 posts can hold.


The formula can be found in any encyclopedia or text on the subject, it's not hard, you know.

Inverse squared law, in meters, starts to produce some pretty huge denominators when you are measuring distance in millions of light years.

Here's your denominator for gravitational acceleration formula, @ 2.5 million light years:

r^2 = 5.5941e+44

Now take 400 billion solar masses, and multiply by "G", and divide by that.

N = 5.3069e+31 = numerator.

A = 9.4866e-14 m/s^2

Multiply by seconds, hours, days (365.25) and you get:

A = 2.99374e-6 m/yr

Take the reciprocal:

Yrs per m acceleration @ 2.5mly distance =334,029.9years...for 1 m/s of acceleration.

There are the calculations, if you want to see them.

If you don't give a damn, I don't care, but they do not agree with the "experts" even though it's the same formula.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Note the way "facts" are erroneously reported in Science. What is wrong with this article entry?

anyone?

Mass[edit]
Mass estimates for the Andromeda Galaxy's halo (including dark matter) give a value of approximately 1.23×1012 M☉[7] (or 1.2 trillion solar masses) compared to 1.9×1012 M☉ for the Milky Way. Thus M31 may be less massive than our own galaxy, although the error range is still too large to say for certain. Even so, the masses of the Milky Way and M31 are comparable, and M31's spheroid actually has a higher stellar density than that of the Milky Way.[39]


Anyone?

An unobserved, hypothetical value of "mass" is given based on the circular reasoning of the the Dark Matter hypothesis. Which is to say, they are not even using the KNOWN ordinary matter mass in the galaxies, but are using circular logic to assume DM theory is correct, even though no DM has ever been detected.

This is NOT how science should be.

A theory should not be circularly cited as a factual measure.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Observe:

Current measurements suggest the Andromeda Galaxy is approaching us at 100 to 140 kilometers per second. In 3 to 4 billion years, there may be an Andromeda–Milky Way collision, depending on the importance of unknown lateral components to the galaxies' relative motion


By taking the integral of the gravity formula from A(a) = 200,000ly, where the disks would hit one another, to A(b) = 2.5mly, where they are now, you get this.

I of A = 25,803,234,024 m^2/s^2

If you take the square root of this, you get change in velocity, which is actually delta-v, or net acceleration, in meters per second, which I have recorded as:

delta-v = 160,633m/s = 160.6km/s

If you take integral from r = 2.5mly to infinity, and take sqrt of that, you get:

The term at infinity approaches a limit of zero, so we can ignore it.

47,368 m/s, or 47.3kms

Thus less than 1/2 to less than 1/3rd of their relative approaching motion can be explained by gravity in the history of the universe.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Note that other objects in the local group pose a problem, since objects opposite one another actually serve to slow down any acceleration towards one another.

The above calculation works because we know their initial distance was less than or equal to infinity, and we know that if their distance of accelerating towards one another was less than infinity then there would have been less time to accelerate towards one another, which is obviously true since all real, local systems within the universe are less than infinite in size and age, else they wouldn't be "local".

So no friend, I'm not crazy or crackpot.

You can prove absolutely that gravity does not account for their motions.

Note also that because of the way inverse squared relationship works, most of the acceleration represented in that Delta-v of 160km/s occurs during the last 1/2 of their theoretical journey towards one another (in terms of distance), which you can show by comparing integrals of smaller sections. contin..
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
GA.....MW......M31.....GB

Galaxy A slows down MW much more than it affects M31, due to inverse squared relationship. Galaxy B slows down M31 much more than it affects MW, thus additional objects in the system (except the Magellanic Clouds) do not actually help accelerate them to one another. In fact they slow the process down if their distance is farther from the barycenter than the two objects in question.

So I think the biggest factor here is we can even show that gravity could not have accelerated their relative velocities to what they are, even in the history of the universe, even over an infinite distance.

Therefore gravity cannot explain their motion, using either side of the curve.

Evidence against DM (as presented) relies on the fact there is no evidence of ANY DM within a 1000ly radius sphere of the Earth....very conveniently. Attempts to detect it have shown stellar orbits and clusters behave as if there is no Dark Matter involved.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
The way mainstream physics use outdated theories to describe modern cosmology is quiete childish. Observe with your eyes and quit writing fairytales. Nature takes the simplicity route
@Delerious
well, then between you, CD and returner there should be a Nobel waiting for yall! by all means, please produce the "Simplicity" hypothesis for peer review and let the professionals have a whack at it rather than posting here for the laymen to read about it.

Given CD's overwhelming knowledge of plasma physics from 40 years ago, Returners speed reading and math skillz along with his ability to just know things like his conclusions here and your ability to simplify, then yall are a true shoe in, there is no doubt!

we await your publication with bated breath and tingling neurons as we tremble with excitement at the great things we just know you will share with the world...
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
So no friend, I'm not crazy or crackpot..


So yes Cher, you are bat doo doo crazy. And a crankpot too but the crazy part sort of camouflage that part. That's why I suggest for you to try to find one of the peoples there who take care of you to look over your postums before you put them up.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
you are bat doo doo crazy. And a crankpot too but the crazy part sort of camouflage that part. That's why I suggest for you to try to find one of the peoples there who take care of you to look over your postums before you put them up.


Integrate gravity from 2.5 million light years to infinity, using MIlky Way REAL OBJECT MASS which is about 400 billion Suns, and take the square root to get back to delta V.

That's what I did.

Andromeda is moving several times faster than gravity could have ever accelerated it. The rest of the universe is assumed to be roughly flat, since the other Local Group objects are farther away than the Milky Way and Andromeda are from one another.

"Dark Matter" would be used to explain this discrepancy, and is, however, there is NO EVIDENCE for Dark Matter (whatever it may be or supposedly is, withing a 1000ly radius sphere. It's supposed to be heavily concentrated in the spiral bands and in a sphere near spiral bands, but there is NONE HERE.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
Why are you defending a paradigm which proposes an invisible substance permeating galaxies in a spherical shell through the spiral bands, when local observations of the Milky Way show NO SUCH SUBSTANCE EXISTS?

You are the crackpot, because you defend a paradigm which not only has no evidence, but it has been shown that the material hypothesized to exist (DM) actually does not exist in the region of space exactly where it would be required to exist in order to serve it's function in the existing paradigm.

Get over it man. Dark Matter halos are a hypotheical patch which does not work.
1, Local observations prove they don't exist.
2, If they did exist, they'd collapse to disks (due to black holes and the concentration of ordinary matter,) and would be too dense and would not produce the effect they are alleged to produce (stellar orbital velocity observation).
3, I proved without a doubt that the stellar orbital velocity is exactly what it would be if no DM existed...
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014
I proved without a doubt that the stellar orbital velocity is exactly what it would be if no DM existed...


Is that what you did Cher? Sounds like to me that a lot Skippys still doubting you even if you don't. What they call this condition you have that makes so much smarter than everybody else in the world who have the science school training?

That is why you are the big crankpot because you think you figure everything out from just reading the physorg and adding in your imaginations is everything you need for to call your self the great science mind.

Anyway, what I really want to know is why you aren't out there telling the important peoples about your big barge idea on how to cool down the ocean water? Hooyeei, and I thought I pushed the big barge raft, 6 barge wide by the 7 barge long.

But that ain't nothing compared to your raft of 1,000,000 barge wide by 5,000,000 barge long, Hooyeei Cher, I tell you that is the biggest foolishment I never did hear of me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
The formula can be found in any encyclopedia or text on the subject, it's not hard, you know
There are many many such formulae which you need to know to be able to do this kind of work. And YOU simply dont know them. Many people here have told you this,
Thus less than 1/2 to less than 1/3rd of their relative approaching motion can be explained by gravity in the history of the universe
Well thinking offhand (like you do all the time) I can think of one problem with your calcs. You assume that these 2 objects were originally at rest with respect to each other and began accelerating on a collision course sometime in the past.
There are the calculations, if you want to see them.
No those ARENT the calcs. The calcs occupy a lot more space than a couple of POSTS.
If you don't give a damn, I don't care
I know you dont care. You have no respect for scientists and engineers, or anyone who knows more about a subject than you. You resent them. This is why you always fail.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014
If they did exist, they'd collapse to disks (due to black holes and the concentration of ordinary matter,)
Perhaps you should be wondering why elliptical galaxies and globular clusters do not collapse to disks. Every bright elliptical galaxy is believed to contain a supermassive black hole at its center did you know it? Why is the oort cloud not collapsing?

Perhaps the answers to some of the questions you never ask can be found here.

"Einasto's model has been used to describe many types of system, including galaxies and dark matter halos."
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2014
"I've concluded that Galaxies are not gravitationally bound to one another."

Very good conclusion. In LaViolette's SubQuantum Kinectics, gravity abates to within the background influence at a distance perhaps of 10,000 LYrs.

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.