VISTA discovers new component of Milky Way

October 28, 2015
Astronomers using the VISTA telescope at ESO's Paranal Observatory have discovered a previously unknown component of the Milky Way. By mapping out the locations of a class of stars that vary in brightness called Cepheids, a disc of young stars buried behind thick dust clouds in the central bulge has been found.This diagram shows the locations of the newly discovered Cepheids in an artist's rendering of the Milky Way. The yellow star indicates the position of the Sun. Credit: ESO/Microsoft Worldwide Telescope

Astronomers using the VISTA telescope at ESO's Paranal Observatory have discovered a previously unknown component of the Milky Way. By mapping out the locations of a class of stars that vary in brightness called Cepheids, a disc of young stars buried behind thick dust clouds in the central bulge has been found.

The Vista Variables in the Vía Láctea Survey (VVV) ESO public survey is using the VISTA telescope at the Paranal Observatory to take multiple images at different times of the central parts of the galaxy at . It is discovering huge numbers of new objects, including variable , clusters and exploding stars.

A team of astronomers, led by Istvan Dékány of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, has now used data from this survey, taken between 2010 and 2014, to make a remarkable discovery—a previously unknown component of our home galaxy, the Milky Way.

"The central bulge of the Milky Way is thought to consist of vast numbers of old stars. But the VISTA data has revealed something new—and very young by astronomical standards!" says Istvan Dékány, lead author of the new study.

Analysing data from the survey, the astronomers found 655 candidate of a type called Cepheids. These stars expand and contract periodically, taking anything from a few days to months to complete a cycle and changing significantly in brightness as they do so.

The time taken for a Cepheid to brighten and fade again is longer for those that are brighter and shorter for the dimmer ones. This remarkably precise relationship, which was discovered in 1908 by American astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt, makes the study of Cepheids one of the most effective ways to measure the distances to, and map the positions of, distant objects in the Milky Way and beyond.

But there is a catch—Cepheids are not all the same—theycome in two main classes, one much younger than the other. Out of their sample of 655 the team identified 35 stars as belonging to a sub-group called classical Cepheids—young bright stars, very different from the usual, much more elderly, residents of the central bulge of the Milky Way.

The team gathered information on the brightness, pulsation period, and deduced the distances of these 35 classical Cepheids. Their pulsation periods, which are closely linked to their age, revealed their surprising youth.

"All of the 35 classical Cepheids discovered are less than 100 million years old. The youngest Cepheid may even be only around 25 million years old, although we cannot exclude the possible presence of even younger and brighter Cepheids," explains the study's second author Dante Minniti, of the Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile.

The ages of these classical Cepheids provide solid evidence that there has been a previously unconfirmed, continuous supply of newly formed stars into the central region of the Milky Way over the last 100 million years. But, this wasn't to be the only remarkable discovery from the survey's dataset.

Mapping the Cepheids that they discovered, the team traced an entirely new feature in the Milky Way—a thin disc of young stars across the galactic bulge. This new component to our home galaxy had remained unknown and invisible to previous surveys as it was buried behind thick clouds of dust. Its discovery demonstrates the unique power of VISTA, which was designed to study the Milky Way's deep structures by wide-field, high-resolution imaging at infrared wavelengths.

"This study is a powerful demonstration of the unmatched capabilities of the VISTA telescope for probing extremely obscured galactic regions that cannot be reached by any other current or planned surveys," remarksDékány.

"This part of the galaxy was completely unknown until our VVV survey found it!" adds Minniti.

Further investigations are now needed to assess whether these Cepheids were born close to where they are now, or whether they originate from further out. Understanding their fundamental properties, interactions, and evolution is key in the quest to understand the evolution of the Milky Way, and the process of galaxy evolution as a whole.

This research was presented in a paper entitled "The VVV Survey reveals classical Cepheids tracing a young and thin stellar disk across the Galaxy's bulge", by I. Dékány et al., in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Explore further: VISTA finds new globular star clusters

More information: "The VVV Survey reveals classical Cepheids tracing a young and thin stellar disk across the Galaxy's bulge, (PDF) www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1542/eso1542a.pdf

Related Stories

VISTA finds new globular star clusters

October 19, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two newly discovered globular clusters have been added to the total of just 158 known globular clusters in our Milky Way. They were found in new images from ESO’s VISTA survey telescope as part of the ...

Sweeping the dust from a cosmic lobster

February 20, 2013

(Phys.org)—A new image from ESO's VISTA telescope captures a celestial landscape of glowing clouds of gas and tendrils of dust surrounding hot young stars. This infrared view reveals the stellar nursery known as NGC 6357 ...

The peanut at the heart of our galaxy

September 12, 2013

Two groups of astronomers have used data from ESO telescopes to make the best three-dimensional map yet of the central parts of the Milky Way. They have found that the inner regions take on a peanut-like, or X-shaped, appearance ...

VISTA stares right through the Milky Way

February 4, 2015

A new image taken with ESO's VISTA survey telescope reveals the Trifid Nebula in a new light. By observing in infrared light, astronomers can see right through the central parts of the Milky Way and spot many previously hidden ...

Starry surprise in the bulge: encounter of a halo passerby

July 22, 2015

A team led by Andrea Kunder from the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP) measured the velocity of a sample of 100 old RR Lyrae stars thought to reside in the Galactic bulge, the central group of stars found in ...

Recommended for you

The rise and fall of galaxy formation

August 30, 2016

An international team of astronomers, including Carnegie's Eric Persson, has charted the rise and fall of galaxies over 90 percent of cosmic history. Their work, which includes some of the most sensitive astronomical measurements ...

29 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
2.5 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2015
a disc of young stars buried behind thick dust clouds in the central bulge has been found.


This could mark a stability point between the SMBH winds and the inflowing matter from farther out, both within the galaxy and outside the galaxy.

Further investigations are now needed to assess whether these Cepheids were born close to where they are now, or whether they originate from further out.


Orbital velocity and metallicity should tell you that, provided you can model 1st and second generation dust/gas movements in and around the galaxy properly.

As a general rule "objects" falling in from outside would be unlikely to have a velocity capable of producing a stable orbit. The portion of supernova remnants which is prograde with respect to galactic rotation could become entrained in gas/dust formations and compress them, while the portion retrograde could be captured by the black hole, depending on angle of trajectory.
Returners
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2015
Core collapse supernovas require around 100 times more energy than is available through ordinary nuclear fusion of the entire mass of the Star.

Why?

Because the actual explosion happens later in the process of collapse than what the prevailing theory believed, and because of this, the "Gravitational Binding Energy" is much higher; as radius decreases the GBE goes up. This is not energy available to do work, it is a measure of the energy needed to do work.

In order for the star to produce new energy processes it must collapse more, but the more it collapses the more energy is required to escape the gravity.

For example, if a 10M Star (Proposed Crab Progenitor Mass) collapses to about 100km radius, the gravitational binding energy is approximately equal to the mass-energy of the Sun. Stellar fusion of the entire mass of the Star will only produce about 1% of this.

The best SN model I've seen so far does not even include the particle interaction needed to explode the star.
Returners
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2015
a thin disc of young stars across the galactic bulge. This new component to our home galaxy had remained unknown and invisible to previous surveys as it was buried behind thick clouds of dust.


"This part of the galaxy was completely unknown until our VVV survey found it!" adds Minniti.


Without this discovery It would have been declared a newly discovered source of gravity if they had not initially figured out what was really behind those dust lanes.

This discovery precludes their conjuring up yet another unexplained gravity zone as a repository for hidden Dark Matter. Just think what we would be reading about if they had not been able to peer behind all those dust lanes. These guys need to stop discovering things like this, it's detracts from the DM cosmic fairy dust narrative as more galactic halos, cepheids, etc are detected beyond anything previously imagined.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
* See Synchotron radiation as well as the Gamma and X-Ray radiation which continues to come from the Crab, the brightest such source in the sky. Some of this may be coming from free neutron decay and further collapse, some from angular momenta being lost, and some is from left-over heat waste which has been bouncing around inside the star for 961 years.

Fortunately for us, most of this energy was intially converted to kinetic energy and localized heat via radiation pressure...the gamma, x-ray, and visible light which reached earth Gradually was released over days, months, approximately 2 years. Had the explosion been shaped differently larger amounts of energy might have been released in our direction over less time periods.

This is why Betelgeuse is no joke.

It is not a complete life wiper, but it is literally on the boundary of what Earth surface life and ocean life can survive, if it follows the same basic physics when it dies...
Returners
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2015
Benni:

The Dark Matter conjecture has already been totally disproven for the Milky Way to within 95% certainty, and ironically the team which proved it isn't consciously aware of it yet.

The Milky Way's total mass is comparable to what ti should be given the estimated number of stars and nebulas, and there is no need whatsoever for the 5x bloated DM nonsense reported in text books and the wikipedia article. The total mass of the Milky Way is around 200 billion Suns, not the 1 trillion or so claimed in texts and encyclopedias.

As my Supernova discussion above shows, the majority of he astrophysicists do not even understand their own theories, so it is no wonder they have to conjure up stuff like DM and DE to explain observations which are relatively simple to a person who can visualize systems in 4th dimensional motion (3 space and time).

Visualizing it is easier than putting it in equations, but visualization is key to "Eureka" moment.
Returners
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2015
In the case of Betelgeuse, due to it's ten times closer proximity, we should hope to God for Earth life's sake, and any other life within about 700ly of the star, that the star explodes in stages, and somehow sheds about 5 solar masses ahead of time before the actual "Supernova" happens, because my calculations have shown that given the same physics as the Crab Nebula event, the radiation from Betelgeuse will be 150 times more powerful than the Crab explosion: a factor of 1.5 comes from the greater mass, and a factor of 100 comes from the closer proximity via the inverse squared law.

Being very generous and not fear-mongering, if you spread this energy out over the radius to the Earth in space, and spread it out over 2 years in time (comparable to the Crab) the flux on Earth comes to 19.5Watts/m^2 for the cross-sectional area of the Earth...enough to temporarily ionize he ozone layer and raise surface temperatures by about 4.5 degreesC.*
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2015
*Granted, if we were lucky, some of this would be absorbed by the deep ocean via ~900m penetration of the visible component of the light, but this would be brighter than the full moon for a period of about 2 years, and would noticeably affect both over-night low temperatures (when the star is on the night side of the planet) and daytime highs, especially on land, when the star is in the day side of the planet.

The scientific consensus on this event claims it is no threat to Earth, but they are operating on the wrong (faulty reasoning) assumption of the "GPE rebound" model which violates conservation laws and explodes the stars at a 100x lower energy level than what is actually needed. They think Betelgeuse will deliver something like 0.19watts/m^2.

The real explosion parameters seen in the Crab, an approximately similar star, suggests Betelgeuse will deliver an average of 19.5watts/m^2 to Earth...and there will be spikes far above and below this depending on symmetry.
Returners
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
The reason the light from the Crab was spread out so much over time is a combination of two things:

Gravitational slowing of the cloud...Momentum vs Kinetic Energy. The cloud remains above escape velocity (and has actually accelerated in recent centuries due to the Synchotron radiation,) but it has AVERAGED 1500km/s velocity since the explosion. During the first 2 seconds this velocity was much, much higher...in fact Relativistic during the first second...

Conservation of momentum and conservation of "energy" work a bit differently. As gravity slows down the expanding cloud, momentum slows approximately linearly (actually inverse squared with distance,) but for every liner amount of momentum change there is a quadratic amount of energy release as heat waste, which we continue to see as visible and gamma radiation, though the radiation from the original event has mostly all gone away. It bounced around in the expanding cloud for about 2 years or so.
Returners
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2015
Docile:

It's about supernovas. Gas builds up in a stability point, and then when a supernova happens it gets compressed and collapses intoa star.

Perhaps "seeds" such as asteroid and planet-sized chunks of metal ejecta from SN help serve to provide a new core for stars, not to mention Oxygen, a common ejected component from SN, reacting with hydrogen in the nebula it collides with as temperatures cool enough from convection and radiation to temporarily allow ordinary chemistry to occur.

Water plus metallic (iron, carbon, nitrogen, silicon, sulphur, sodium, magnesium, etc, all of which react with oxygen and hydrogen as well,) as ejecta "seeds" plus dust equals electrostatic attraction and hydrogen bonds, which help pull and hold matter together much more than gravity alone, thereby producing bound objects which collapse surrounding gas/dust clouds.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2015
Benni:

The Dark Matter conjecture has already been totally disproven for the Milky Way to within 95% certainty, and ironically the team which proved it isn't consciously aware of it yet.

The Milky Way's total mass is comparable to what ti should be given the estimated number of stars and nebulas, and there is no need whatsoever for the 5x bloated DM nonsense reported in text books and the wikipedia article.


Returners, you need to be more careful with bringing SCIENCE to a site like this. If you keep it up, Axemaster will implore his vulgar foul mouthed & name calling hordes to descend on you & get you censored off the site just so he can keep the name calling foul mouthed hordes to himself as his extended captive audience.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
The computer model does not produce a supernova, because it is not coded to produce anti-matter synthesis reactions, even though some of the reactions are known.

More research will be needed to discover the exact reactions needed to produce anti-protons, but once anti-protons are produced, they can annihilate with Protons, or they can collide with Neutrons to produce anti-neutrons, which in turn annihilate neutrons.

Positron synthesis, which sometimes happens in some ordinary fusion reactions, could produce about at most 1/1800th of the amount of energy needed to produce the crab nebula explosion.

Electron capture (another alternate theory) produces a similar amount of energy at maximum, and is nowhere near enough to explain the formation.
Bigbangcon
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
With each little positive knowledge and new findings, a "black hole" appears in the banner of the Big Bang theory and General Relativity. But official physics continues to uphold the tattered flag of cosmology; but how long will this drama continue?

Is our historical base-line and knowledge good enough to accept a dialectical view of the universe that, what we see around even few million light years through our telescope, is the same everywhere in the infinite and eternal universe? That it has no beginning or end, is dynamic (matter in eternal motion) and renews itself through matter particles "coming into being and passing out of existence" at micro level as quantum leaps! That mathematical idealism as a new theology of genesis has brought modern cosmology to a dead end.

And most of all, this particular study shows that a single sun with its life harbouring planet and a single Milky Way galaxy with its local groups forms the essential basis to understand the universe!
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
Anyway, regarding the "young" Cepheid stars, I don't think any new physics explanations are required at all. I've already offered plenty evidence that SN plus residual dust/gas trapped in a stability point is all you need. This is not all that different than say the formation of a gas giant planet near a star, except scaled up a thousand times or so.

Statistical averages and generalizations "lie" when we interpret them the wrong way. Real-word events are not "averages" and they produce different acute results than what would be predicted by the average alone, particularly in the case of stellar catastrophism and the formation of additional massive objects.

Outliers are important, because they do things that the "average" cannot accomplish.
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
Bigbangcon:

Math in and of itself is not the problem. Interpretation is the problem.

"Gravitational Waves" is a perfect example.

The lack of any observable Gravitional Waves proves at least one of two things:

1) Either they do not exist

or

2) The interpretation of what they are and/or how they propagate is wrong.

The formula correctly predicts the decay of massive objects' orbits, apparently, but the interpretation that this energy/momenta is carried away, as gravitational waves across the universe, is apparently flawed.

I have offered an explanation which may (or may not) solve the problem, by the hypothesis that the background media of the universe would experience "internal friction" if a wave were in fact passing through it, and therefore the energy of the wave would be converted to EM, most likely infrared. Therefore the scientists looking for Gravitational Waves are mostly using the wrong types of detectors.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
Must remember that a system of mathematical equations, while useful and potentially correct within the scope of which it is concerned, it is not reality itself. It is a description of reality as we observe it.

"We know in part..."

Incompleteness Theorem suggests we can never "prove"* everything that is true within the system, even if we had all the correct equations.

*According to the scientific method (metaphysical naturalism) notion of proof.

Moreover, failing to disprove something doesn't necessarily make it true, but I actually saw one scientist suggesting that there should be an "inclusion principle" in addition the "exclusion principle"; So that if no law forbids it then it probably happens some time, some where.

However, some of these events may be impossible to prove mathematically, but could/would be "observable" if you were in the area when it happens.

Thus the Incompleteness Theorem actually supports Creation.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
I proved the need for a creative source, the "Logos", through set theory, without using equations.
Incompleteness Theory was concerned with sets of (presumably) related equations.

Set Theory can do things that equations alone cannot, such as prove whether something is or is not logically consistent, regardless of numerical relationships.

Ordinarily mathematicians use Set Theory to relate numbers and solutions, etc.

I used Set Theory to relate concepts and reality.

"Nothing" can be related to an empty set:

Nothing{} => Empty Set

It has no properties folks. "From nothing comes nothing"

Even if there were a process whch can create "something" from "nothing" it would need to be outside the set "nothing" because "nothing" can't contain a "something".

P = process or origin. (Logos)

Nothing{P} is inconsistent, because "nothing" must be an empty set.

P must be outside of "Nothing", therefore the eternal Logos did not come from "absolute nothing"...
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2015
The ages of these classical Cepheids provide solid evidence that there has been a previously unconfirmed, continuous supply of newly formed stars into the central region of the Milky Way over the last 100 million years.


Just more support for LaViolette's Continuous Creation model. New matter ejected from the core provides is the source for much of this new star formation. Likely, periodic eruptions occur occasionally ejecting massive amounts of concentrated new gas that more easily comes together to form a new star in this otherwise disruptive region of space, where massive outflows of gas generally is present.

So, LaViolette's model again conforms to new expected observations, despite the denials that are sure to follow. Merger maniacs stand up and fight! On guard!
Bigbangcon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2015
@ Returners

There is a fundamental conceptual (philosophical world outlook) difference between Set Theory, Mathematics, Natural Science, Classical Materialism, Idealism and Rationalism etc. (which G.W.F. Hegel termed collectively as the "View of Understanding") and Dialectics. In fact Dialectics is the opposite of the former!

"View of Understanding" is based on monism: Identity of Identity (A = A), "Nothing comes out of Nothing" etc. It views everything as "pure" and created "perfect in itself"; "Being" and "Nothing" are separate & independent of each other, and one cannot contain the other etc.

For dialectics (like quantum dynamics) it is the "Identity of Identity and non-identity", the "unity of the opposites". Nothing can exist alone, without its opposite as a part of it. "Being" and "Nothing" must contain each other as a contradiction, so there is no independent "Being" or "Nothing! : http://www.amazon...40414445

my2cts
5 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2015

Set Theory can do things that equations alone cannot, such as prove whether something is or is not logically consistent, regardless of numerical relationships.

Ordinarily mathematicians use Set Theory to relate numbers and solutions, etc.

Set theory is axiomatic to mathematics, so that is quite an understatement.
"Equations" specifically are constructed on the basis of set theory, thus consistent with it.

I used Set Theory to relate concepts and reality.

Mathematics can not deliver that, if you mean by reality that what we experience.
Bigbangcon
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2015
@ Returners
The fundamental problem of modern idealized (Platonic) mathematics based official theoretical science and cosmology set forth by Albert Einstein in his general theory of relativity; is that it is seeded with some invariable presuppositions and axioms (like in Euclid's geometry) that limit its enquiry and epistemology. Because, axioms are unproved "self-evident truths" and must be self-consistent in that, the conclusion must be contained in the premise - like in tautology! The earth going around the sun was such a "self-evident truth" before!
The most important presuppositions are 1) that the universe must be finite, 2) a "continuous field" (space-time) forms the objective reality, 3) matter particle can only arise where the (space-time) field strength is particularly high and 4) motion cannot have an important role in physics. The whole edifice of "New Physics" and cosmology is built within the constrain of these premises and to which any enquiry has to conform.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2015

I used Set Theory to relate concepts and reality.

"Nothing" can be related to an empty set:

Nothing{} => Empty Set

It has no properties folks. "From nothing comes nothing"

Even if there were a process whch can create "something" from "nothing" it would need to be outside the set "nothing" because "nothing" can't contain a "something".

If you make it a set it becomes "something", therefore "nothing" cannot even be it's own set.
However the set of "everything" HAS to contain nothing as one of its constituent members...

Funny how that works...
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2015
supports Creation.
@wade
NOT
https://www.youtu...kg4hMRjs

Bigbangcon
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2015
"If you make it a set it becomes "something", therefore "nothing" cannot even be it's own set.
However the set of "everything" HAS to contain nothing as one of its constituent members...
Funny how that works..."

Very well said. It is dialectics! The opposites has unity and opposition (wave/particle nature of a photon) at the same time in a contradiction! A resolution of this contradiction leads to motion, change, development, evolution etc. to new and evolving contradictions and so on - as the manifestation of the universe! So, no "first impulse" for motion or a creator is necessary!

For Hegel "being - nothing" is the primary contradiction and a resolution of this is a "becoming". The "becoming" contains its own contradictions which leads to further becoming and so on. Any material "existence" is a contradiction and hence subject to change!

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.