Astronomers discover colossal 'super spiral' galaxies

March 18, 2016 by Adam Hadhazy
In archived NASA data, researchers have discovered "super spiral" galaxies that dwarf our own spiral galaxy, the Milky Way, and compete in size and brightness with the largest galaxies in the universe. The unprecedented galaxies have long hidden in plain sight by mimicking the appearance of typical spirals. Three examples of super spirals are presented here in images taken by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Credit: SDSS

A strange new kind of galactic beast has been spotted in the cosmic wilderness. Dubbed "super spirals," these unprecedented galaxies dwarf our own spiral galaxy, the Milky Way, and compete in size and brightness with the largest galaxies in the universe.

Super spirals have long hidden in plain sight by mimicking the appearance of typical spiral galaxies. A new study using archived NASA data reveals these seemingly nearby objects are in fact distant, behemoth versions of everyday spirals. Rare, super spiral galaxies present researchers with the major mystery of how such giants could have arisen.

"We have found a previously unrecognized class of spiral galaxies that are as luminous and massive as the biggest, brightest galaxies we know of," said Patrick Ogle, an astrophysicist at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC) at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and lead author of a new paper on the findings published in the Astrophysical Journal. "It's as if we have just discovered a new land animal stomping around that is the size of an elephant but had shockingly gone unnoticed by zoologists."

Ogle and colleagues chanced upon super spirals as they searched for extremely luminous, massive galaxies in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), an online repository containing information on over 100 million galaxies. NED brings together a wealth of data from many different projects, including ultraviolet light observations from the Galaxy Evolution Explorer, visible light from Sloan Digital Sky Survey, infrared light from the Two Micron All-Sky Survey, and links to data from other missions such as Spitzer and the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE.

2MASX J08542169+0449308 contains two galactic nuclei, instead of just the usual one, and thus looks like two eggs frying in a pan. Credit: SDSS

"Remarkably, the finding of super spiral galaxies came out of purely analyzing the contents of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, thus reaping the benefits of the careful, systematic merging of data from many sources on the same galaxies," said George Helou, a study co-author and the executive director of IPAC. "NED is surely holding many more such nuggets of information, and it is up to us scientists to ask the right questions to bring them out."

Ogle, Helou and their colleagues expected that humongous, mature galaxies called ellipticals—so named for their football-like shapes—would dominate their search within NED for the most . But a tremendous surprise lay in store for the scientists.

In a sample of approximately 800,000 galaxies no more than 3.5 billion light-years from Earth, 53 of the brightest galaxies intriguingly had a spiral, rather than elliptical, shape. The researchers double-checked the distances to the spiral galaxies and saw that none were nearby—even the closest lay some 1.2 billion light-years away. With the correct distance estimates in hand, the stunning properties of this newfound batch of whirlpool-shaped galaxies came to light.

A super spiral designated 2MASX J16014061+2718161 also contains the double nuclei. Credit: SDSS

Super spirals can shine with anywhere from eight to 14 times the brightness of the Milky Way. They possess as much as 10 times our galaxy's mass. Their gleaming, starry disks stretch from twice to even four times the width of the Milky Way galaxy's approximately 100,000 light-year-wide disk, with the largest super spiral spanning a whopping 440,000 light-years. Super spirals also give off copious ultraviolet and mid-infrared light, signifying a breakneck pace of churning out new stars. Their star formation rate is as high as 30 times that of our own run-of-the-mill galaxy.

According to established astrophysical theory, spiral galaxies should not be able to attain any of these feats because their size and star-making potential are limited. As spiral galaxies grow by gravitationally attracting fresh, cool gas from intergalactic space, their masses reach a tipping point in which any newly captured gas rushes in too rapidly. This headlong gas heats up and prevents subsequent star formation in a process known as "quenching." Bucking this conventional wisdom, though, super spirals remain unquenched.

A vital hint about the potential origin of super spirals is that four out of the 53 seen by Ogle and colleagues clearly contain two galactic nuclei, instead of just one as usual. Double nuclei, which look like two egg yolks frying in a pan, are a telltale sign of two galaxies having just merged together. Conventionally, mergers of spiral galaxies are destined to become bloated, elliptical galaxies. Yet Ogle and colleagues speculate that a special merger involving two, gas-rich spiral could see their pooled gases settle down into a new, larger stellar disk—presto, a super spiral.

"Super spirals could fundamentally change our understanding of the formation and evolution of the most ," said Ogle. "We have much to learn from these newly identified, galactic leviathans."

A huge galaxy with the moniker SDSS J094700.08+254045.7 stands as one of the biggest and brightest super spirals. The mega-galaxy's starry disk and spiral arms stretch about 320,000 light years across, or more than three times the breadth of the Milky Way. Credit: SDSS

Explore further: Hubble finds misbehaving spiral

Related Stories

Hubble finds misbehaving spiral

February 1, 2016

Despite its unassuming appearance, the edge-on spiral galaxy captured in the left half of this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image is actually quite remarkable.

Hubble views a young elliptical galaxy

November 23, 2015

At the center of this amazing Hubble image is the elliptical galaxy NGC 3610. Surrounding the galaxy are a wealth of other galaxies of all shapes. There are spiral galaxies, galaxies with a bar in their central regions, distorted ...

Image: Hubble eyes galactic refurbishment

May 4, 2015

The smudge of stars at the center of this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image is a galaxy known as UGC 5797. UGC 5797 is an emission line galaxy, meaning that it is currently undergoing active star formation. The result ...

Hubbles spies the beautiful galaxy IC 335

December 24, 2014

This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the galaxy IC 335 in front of a backdrop of distant galaxies. IC 335 is part of a galaxy group containing three other galaxies, and located in the Fornax Galaxy Cluster ...

Image: Hubble peers into the heart of a galactic maelstrom

September 7, 2015

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows Messier 96, a spiral galaxy just over 35 million light-years away in the constellation of Leo (The Lion). It is of about the same mass and size as the Milky Way. It was first ...

Recommended for you

Fast radio bursts may be firing off every second

September 21, 2017

When fast radio bursts, or FRBs, were first detected in 2001, astronomers had never seen anything like them before. Since then, astronomers have found a couple of dozen FRBs, but they still don't know what causes these rapid ...

71 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wizardo
1.4 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2016
"...four out of the 53..."
That is more than enough "proof" for merger scientists.
compose
Mar 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2016
This "discovery" is fraught with interpretation. It's more likely the galaxies are nearby and "normal".
Moebius
2 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2016
And then there's the fact that we have a hard time explaining a spiral formation of normal size without invoking some form of voodoo like dark matter.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.8 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2016
Wizardo,
Are you running a political add?f
"Four out of the 53 seen by Ogle and colleagues clearly contain two galactic nuclei"
That doesn't mean the others don't have two as well, it just means that aren't readily apparent with the data analyzed.
Plus that's approximately 7%, which is very statistically significant, not every galaxy is at the same point in the merger process at the time we viewed them.

I don't understand where all this opposition to galaxy mergers comes from. I mean we see galaxies merging all the time at every point in history, seems like a perfectly natural process that must have real implications for how things look today.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2016
I don't understand where all this opposition to galaxy mergers comes from. I mean we see galaxies merging all the time at every point in history, seems like a perfectly natural process that must have real implications for how things look today.
............maybe it's because he doesn't like galactic mergers because he's a Bigo Bango Theorist, in which case there must always be a continually increasing distance due to forces of expansion as a result of the after effects of the explosion.

viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2016
The mesuring the large cosmic distances is very problematic for scientists. They do not have solid reliable reference points for accurate measurements. It can be said without worry that the distances that cosmologist obtaine by their usual methods are in the sphere of the fantastic genre. Аll their methodology is built on bold assumptions, so it can not be taken seriously from the scientific perspective.
Tuxford
2 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2016
Conventionally, mergers of spiral galaxies are destined to become bloated, elliptical galaxies. Yet Ogle and colleagues speculate that a special merger involving two, gas-rich spiral galaxies could see their pooled gases settle down into a new, larger stellar disk—presto, a super spiral.

PATCH!
Just a really active core star that has grown so large and then explosively divided into two core stars, forming the basis for a the galaxy to divide. These giants are perhaps the origin of a galaxy cluster forming eventually. The internal growth and division process repeats over time.

The merger maniacs are stuck within the bounds provided to them by the fanciful math fairies. It will take a relatively new science, General Systems Science, to begin to comprehend how this is possible. Some specialized EE's with a strong controls systems background may also clue in. Others will simply be lost forever.

http://phys.org/n...ars.html
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2016
They do not have solid reliable reference points for accurate measurements
@vikoTROLL
LMFAO
you mean like standard candles? http://universe-r...ndle.htm

LMFAO

so... instead you want us to take the word of your holy comic, which has proven to be not only historically inaccurate but also mis-authored, they plagiarized other myths and then they can't get facts correct

worse still, it advocates for the suppression of knowledge, prejudice, slavery, discrimination, sexism and more

and to top it all off, you guys can't agree on an interpretation AND you're all hypocrites who ignore the foundation commandments while judging others and denigrating them for the same actions you make?

... and you think that is a better way to live?
REALLLY?

LMFAO
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2016
This thread is lik ea nuts convention: 8 cranks on a row.
Hey Tuxford, this looks like a clear case of a merger merger merger to me!
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2016
"Conventionally, mergers of spiral galaxies are destined to become bloated, elliptical galaxies. Yet Ogle and colleagues speculate that a special merger involving two, gas-rich spiral galaxies could see their pooled gases settle down into a new, larger stellar disk—presto, a super spiral."
The above phrase re their speculation makes perfect sense. It would best coincide with the theory that "from Chaos comes Order", which that Order would be best represented in the form of a Spiral.
Elliptical galaxies may be perceived as "egg-shaped", only due to the ANGLE in which the elliptical galaxies present themselves, and are perceived as an ellipse by the optical instruments that are pointed at the object. IF it were possible to go around to the other side, the perception would then change to that of a spiral. (cont'd)
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2016
(cont'd)
This would be similar to looking at a saucer edge-on, then slowly moving the saucer up or down to the point where it resembles a spiral, or in the case of the saucer, a flat surface; then moving it upward or downward about halfway until it is egg-shaped aka elliptical.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2016

PATCH!
Just a really active core star that has grown so large and then explosively divided into two core stars, forming the basis for a the galaxy to divide. These giants are perhaps the origin of a galaxy cluster forming eventually. The internal growth and division process repeats over time.

The merger maniacs are stuck within the bounds provided to them by the fanciful math fairies....

http://phys.org/n...ars.html
- Tuxford
From your link, "The collision of two spiral galaxies has triggered this explosion, which is cloaked by dust that renders its stars nearly invisible in other wavelengths of light.
The starburst newly revealed by Spitzer stands as the most luminous ever seen taking place away from the centers, or..."
The "collision of two spiral galaxies" means that the 2 collided AND merged together. It's not that hard to comprehend OR accept, Tuxford...and it makes perfect sense. e pluribus unum
obama_socks
2 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2016
And then there's the fact that we have a hard time explaining a spiral formation of normal size without invoking some form of voodoo like dark matter.
- Moebius
There are many examples of "spiral formations" in Nature. Spiral galaxies are but one example. Another is the whirlpool found in some waters of Earth. Another is the spiral formed as water drains into a pipe. Then there are hurricanes and tornados. And there is Fibonacci numbers. It's simple geometry.
Dark matter is still yet to be discovered, whether baryonic or non-baryonic. It has to exist because normal matter/energy that we can see is only a small part of what is out there that we can see/detect.
I have learned to not discount anything in science, but also to be skeptical until ALL evidences are in and without a doubt.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2016

"you mean like standard candles?"

There is no such thing as standart candles. Or may be you have observed the white dwarf supernovas derectly from the near visinity? In fact these are nonstandard candles.
Are there ever white dwarfs or these are only unreasonable hypothesis like other fictional objects black holes and neutron stars? Do we know what physical processes that occurs in the cores of stars or we can only speculate? Do we know what physical processes and settings of the physical environment make the stars supernovae or only can quessing? The real science does not rely on speculation but on 100% authentic facts.
Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2016

...and it makes perfect sense. e pluribus unum


At least Pres. Obama can think. You better stick to what you are told.
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2016
SN-1a aren't the only things used as standard candles. Cepheids are the best example, they have been calibrated directly with parallax.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2016
SN-1a aren't the only things used as standard candles. Cepheids are the best example, they have been calibrated directly with parallax.


My bad, should have been a "5".
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2016
A vital hint about the potential origin of super spirals is that four out of the 53 seen ... clearly contain two galactic nuclei, instead of just one as usual. Double nuclei … are a telltale sign of two galaxies having just merged together. Conventionally, mergers of spiral galaxies are destined to become bloated, elliptical galaxies... a special merger involving two, gas-rich spiral galaxies could see their pooled gases settle down into a new, larger stellar disk—presto, a super spiral.
By "special," I'm guessing both spirals need to be in the same plane of rotation to avoid becoming an elliptical. What would be interesting to find out is what happens when both have the same rotation vs. opposite rotation in the same plane – another guess: rotation direction doesn't matter, but the relative radial velocity needs to be substantial. Cont'd >
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2016
Cont'd >
The Milky Way and Andromeda are not in the same plane – here's a very cool simulation of what's likely to happen in about 4 billion years from now: https://www.youtu...k6dKcdoU
TehDog
5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2016
"My bad, should have been a "5". "
I helped make up for it (get well, we need folks like you :)

Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2016
"My bad, should have been a "5". "
I helped make up for it (get well, we need folks like you :)


Thanks.

The oncologist told me that with chemo I've got 2-3 good years, that's more than fine for me.
fireicework
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2016
The more you think you know, the more you find out you don't know....
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2016
There is no such thing as standart [sic] candles
@viko
LMFAO - gotcha.
so at least now we know that you're not ignoring evidence, you just can't read it!

.

The oncologist told me that with chemo I've got 2-3 good years,
@Vietvet
good to hear... if they said 2-3 years, that may well mean you will be around for quite a while.
They game my wife's mom 6 months tops ... told her that every 3 months for about 5 or 6 years ...
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016
What evidence? Do you know well the meaning of the word evidence?

We can not find evidence when are watching the universe. And we vcan only intepretate observed physical phenomenas in it, based on our modest and uncertain knowledge about the physical world in which we are living.
compose
Mar 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Mar 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2016
The more you think you know, the more you find out you don't know....

Except for the following posters:

untouchable perverts: o…_socks antigoracle (aka chucky)
outcast: bschott
psychos: Benni philstacy9 ichisan rodkeh
delusionists: viko_mx DavidW BartV FredJose LifeBasedLogic BEGINNING
trolls: promile plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime kaiserderden Seeker2 swordsman bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 Reg Mundy vidyunmaya Osiris1 mememine69 betterexists SHREEKANT RealityCheck
This list is updated continuously.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
SN-1a aren't the only things used as standard candles. Cepheids are the best example, they have been calibrated directly with parallax.
Here is a relevant wiki:

https://en.wikipe...Parallax

You can see that Parallax is ok for distances WITHIN our own Milky Way (ie, Tens-of-THOUSAND Light Years) only; not beyond. So Cepheid distances using Parallax is only for estimating distances to nearby objects. And note that, even then, many Cepheids have been found to 'vary' due to local circumstances/dynamics involving material and force factors which may differ between Cepheids. Hence not so 'standard' as once assumed.

Object Millions/Billions of light years depend on other means; eg: Type Ia Supernovae 'standard candles'. However, these too found to 'vary' due to local material/dynamics etc differences.

Upshot: Prior 'standard' assumptions/estimates no longer as 'reliable' as once thought. Careful. :)
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
SN-1a aren't the only things used as standard candles. Cepheids are the best example, they have been calibrated directly with parallax.
Here is a relevant wiki:

https://en.wikipe...Parallax

You can see that Parallax is ok for distances WITHIN our own Milky Way (ie, Tens-of-THOUSAND Light Years) only; not beyond. So Cepheid distances using Parallax is only for estimating distances to nearby objects.

The trick is you assume that cepheids are the same everywhere. Then you correlate the luminosity of cepheids that do have a measurable parallax with their distance and infer the distance of cepheids that are further away.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
SN-1a aren't the only things used as standard candles. Cepheids are the best example, they have been calibrated directly with parallax.
Here is a relevant wiki:

https://en.wikipe...Parallax

You can see that Parallax is ok for distances WITHIN our own Milky Way (ie, Tens-of-THOUSAND Light Years) only; not beyond. So Cepheid distances using Parallax is only for estimating distances to nearby objects.

Improved.
The trick is that cepheids have a good correlation between luminosity and distance from parallax measurements. From this you infer the distance of cepheids that are further away.
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
Are we looking at some of the Supra-Universe's earliest fusion products where, on that size's time-frame, with C a constant, in the first few seconds or minutes after it's fractile equivalence of 'The Big Bang'.

IF there was a Big Bang, there would be full fractal versions, each at it's own time-frame and scale with matter still equaling energy, in all of it's glorious possible combinations, with C a constant. This would mean that what we see at quark and sub-atomic and sub-quark/gluon levels had it's "Big Bang", still scaled to light speed in a vacuum, was trillions upon stacks and stacks of Trillions to the Trillionths 'Years' on it's scale. How many trillions of comparative years do we live per second at that tiny scale's view? How fast does a globular cluster spin? Would that be similar to the spin of an electron? Will these fusing galaxies let loose a Gamma Ray, or are such things visible to us, perhaps looking like AGN Jets? One Way Jets? Seen those in an article recently.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
The oncologist told me that with chemo I've got 2-3 good years, that's more than fine for me.

Hey. Hope you last longer than that. I just finished 25 days of radiation with 5 days of chemo interspersed. Food taste went totally out. Everything is like mud and cardboard. For a few days even water tasted bad.

So much for tumor suppressor gene TP53 doing it's job as "the guardian of the genome". Elephants have 40 copies of TP53, humans only 2 copies. And one of my copies just had to go flip some base-pairs and break itself. Poor-design.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
Perhaps the quenching material in standard spiral growth is too fast and hot to form stars in itself but could its "impact" with the interstellar medium cause star formation? Doesn't seem too far fetched to me since we see vigorous star formation in many mergers. My fool's analogy would be like chucking a stone into a still pond. The stone has no chance of becoming a wave but the water will.
Ultron
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
By "special," I'm guessing both spirals need to be in the same plane of rotation to avoid becoming an elliptical. What would be interesting to find out is what happens when both have the same rotation vs. opposite rotation in the same plane – another guess: rotation direction doesn't matter, but the relative radial velocity needs to be substantial.


Would be interesting to try to confirm this hypothesis by statistics of elliptical vs superspirals vs probability of merger of two spiral galaxies with the same plane and rotation.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2016
Would be interesting to try to confirm this hypothesis by statistics of elliptical vs superspirals vs probability of merger of two spiral galaxies with the same plane and rotation.


In a big bang universe these galaxies would never collide, this is not the way energy is distributed when there is an explosion. Next time at night while watching fireworks, note that the bursting forces of the explosion drives the byproducts away from one another, not into one another.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
Are we looking at some of the Supra-Universe's earliest fusion products
Nope. These are within a few billion light years and the universe is 13.6 billion years old.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
Benni,
The cosmological constant only effects the even larger structure of the universe than you are referring too..
If you look at this map (it's a huge file sorry):
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth%27s_Location_in_the_Universe_%28JPEG%29.jpg

It's not until you get to the scale of the Virgo Supercluster that expansion even becomes a thing, and even then it's a marginal force. As you can see, there are plenty of galaxies that are able to collide and interact.
The universe is just so immensely big that it's okay for expansion to only start taking place over groups of a thousand galaxies, a few thousands has nothing on the hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.
It's the huge voids in between the nuclei and filaments of superclusters that really drive the expansion, which makes sense, gravity gets weaker with distance.
It's better to view it as a bunch of soap bubbles with the interior volume of the bubbles increasing; separating walls
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
Steve, just FYI Lenni is one of the EU nutjobs. If you're just amusing yourself go ahead, but by no means take it seriously.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
The trick is that cepheids have a good correlation between luminosity and distance from parallax measurements. From this you infer the distance of cepheids that are further away
Please read the relevant sub-sections of the wiki on 'Cosmic Distance Ladder':

https://en.wikipe..._candles

https://en.wikipe...Problems

https://en.wikipe...Cepheids

As I've been informing everyone lately, recent discoveries re 'variability' of local conditions (as to material/dynamics etc) undermined earlier 'confidence' in 'standard candle' status/trick for both Cepheid and Supernovae Ia distance-estimating assumptions. Previous distance-estimate ladder/values 'tricks' now under serious debate/review because unreliable (since they were based on now-shaky 'standard' assumptions. :)
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
The trick is that cepheids have a good correlation between luminosity and distance from parallax measurements. From this you infer the distance of cepheids that are further away
Please read ...

I studied this 35 years back before wikipedia existed. The astrophysicists are constantly checking their methods to reduce uncertainties. The extremely well-known example of the cepheids, which are very good candles after the correction in 1942, has been a lesson. Their results are discussed a.o. in PO articles here. Include these references so that anyone can directly check which part of your statements if any is backed up by actual research.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2016
Hi Steve 200mph Cruiz. :)

Careful, mate. Up to date astronomical observations using X-ray/IR/microwave wavelengths have found a lot of galaxies etc in previously assumed 'empty' voids. Your assumption for counter argument to Benni's argument is now no longer valid, since gravitational force is alive and well in those previously assumed 'empty voids'. There is something else going on; and it's becoming increasingly obvious from recent astronomical discoveries of a LOT of ORDINARY, previously undetected/unsuspected (dark baryonic etc) matter that BB etc 'inflation/expansion' assumptions/arguments need some serious rethinking.

Again I stress: If one is to argue against Benni et al, one needs seriously to keep up-to-date and not default to previous, now old and increasingly 'shaky' assumptions/arguments/hypotheses/theory. Good luck in your discussions, Steve, Benni, everyone. :)
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2016
Hi Steve 200mph Cruiz. :)

Careful, mate. Up to date astronomical observations using X-ray/IR/microwave wavelengths have found a lot of galaxies etc in previously assumed 'empty' voids. Your assumption for counter argument to Benni's argument is now no longer valid, since gravitational force is alive and well in those previously assumed 'empty voids'.

You keep making these false claims.
Nothing has been reported in the literature that plays the role of DM.
What has been reported is a lot of baryonic mass that was _already included_ in the hypothetical 5% baryonic matter. It just had not been observed yet. It does not impact the viability and the pertinence of the DM hypothesis.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
Just a sidelight on the Cepheid question; the correction was found to be in Cepheids that had a different metallicity than the ones near our Solar System, and this has actually resulted in a reclassification that affected not only Cepheids but all other stars as well. We now speak of "Population I" stars that have metallicity similar to that of our Sun, and "Population II" stars that have a lower amount of metals than stars near us have because they were formed in a wave of star formation that happened long ago when there had been less preceding supernovae, where metals are formed. This is one of the reasons that we know the lifetime of the universe is limited; there wouldn't be different populations of stars divided by metallicity if the universe were in a steady state.

[contd]
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2016
... We now speak of "Population I" stars that have metallicity similar to that of our Sun, and "Population II" stars that have a lower amount of metals than stars near us have because they were formed in a wave of star formation that happened long ago when there had been less preceding supernovae, where metals are formed. This is one of the reasons that we know the lifetime of the universe is limited; there wouldn't be different populations of stars divided by metallicity if the universe were in a steady state.
[contd]

Steady state models can not account for this.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
It turns out that this difference in metallicity affects the light curves of Cepheids; the light curves of Population I and Population II Cepheids are different, and this actually led to astronomers estimating the size of the Andromeda galaxy (AKA M31, the closest large galaxy to our own Milky Way) as twice that of ours. Once the difference between Population I and Population II Cepheids was understood, however, the estimates were corrected and the sizes of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies were found to be quite close to one another and the sizes of other nearby galaxies showed that our galaxy is a middle-of-the-road galaxy, normal in size and mass and similar to the most common galaxies we see around us.

Lately, advanced instruments have been able to confirm this estimate by parallax, so we have confirmed our understanding of the two types of Cepheids, giving us a measuring stick that extends out to several tens of millions of light years.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2016
Once we have a measuring stick we can use to cover the thousands of galaxies within tens of millions of light years of us, we can use another measuring stick that is visible over far greater distances: the light curves of supernovae. Thus we can use a short stick to validate a longer one, and that is indeed what we have done, just as we used the parallax measuring stick to validate the Cepheid measuring stick.

It turns out that there is a particular type of supernova, Type Ia, which has a characteristic light curve. We have been able to calibrate this light curve using Cepheid variables and have a measuring stick that extends out to billions of light years from our galaxy. We have used this measuring stick to see out into the universe 13 billion light years, nearly to the formation of the universe.

So when you wonder how we know how far away things are, the trail goes from parallax, to Cepheid variables, to Type 1a supernovae. That's how we know.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2016
Hi Steve 200mph Cruiz, Da Schneib, Everyone. :)

For the serious problems/debates associated with the 'cosmic distance ladder' method/steps, and the use of Cepheids and Supernovae as 'standard candles' and 'calibration steps', please see the LINKS in my previous post to Phys1 above. Thanks. :)

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Nothing has been reported in the literature that plays the role of DM.
What has been reported is a lot of baryonic mass that was _already included_ in the hypothetical 5% baryonic matter. It just had not been observed yet. It does not impact the viability and the pertinence of the DM hypothesis.
Consider where many BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of years of galaxies JET material has gone. And in what form. The material in those jets is deconstructed to elementary particles. They reform in deep space as 'new/pristine' hydrogen/helium. They form 'new/young' looking galaxies/clusters.

And old estimates of baryonic matter content/proportion was based on old observations which did not even suspect let alone assume any more baryonic matter would be found which was previously undetectable (dark). The ORIGINAL hypothesis FOR DM was for ORDINARY dark matter. So it's not surprising we HAVE BEEN finding MORE ordinary DM, LOTS of it; while no 'exotic' DM found. Links soon. :)
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
@RC
The material in those jets is deconstructed to elementary particles.

Interesting idea but where is the evidence ?
Where is your guesstimate on how much material has been ejected so far?
What the original DM hypothesis was is irrelevant now.
So it's not surprising we HAVE BEEN finding MORE ordinary DM, LOTS of it; while no 'exotic' DM found. Links soon.

No we have not.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
Hi Steve 200mph Cruiz, Da Schneib, Everyone. :)

For the serious problems/debates associated with the 'cosmic distance ladder' method/steps, and the use of Cepheids and Supernovae as 'standard candles' and 'calibration steps', please see the LINKS in my previous post to Phys1 above. Thanks. :)

Make a point and back it up. That is the stuff discussion is made of in my opinion.
A list of links by itself does not mean a thing. Handing out home work here could be seen as arrogant.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
Would be interesting to try to confirm this hypothesis by statistics of elliptical vs superspirals vs probability of merger of two spiral galaxies with the same plane and rotation.
A simulation of the case for when the planes of rotation of the merging spirals are nearly orthogonal matches quite a few different observations amazingly well – see Galaxy Collisions: Simulations vs Observations from the Hubble Space Telescope YouTube channel.
Steelwolf
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2016
DaSneib, you must have missed the part about Time Scaled for it's size, and in such a case, still using C as a constant, if it is only 14B years of Our time since the Big Bang, then it would be on the order of less than a tenth of a second for the Supra-Cosmic Scale, where a light bean crossing what may be an electron takes tens of our years, at least, and possibly the time is even longer on that scale, so that we are catching the first few milliseconds in that 14 Billion years. So many people have problems changing their thinking to be able to look at such huge disparities in size, when Physicists do it all the time. More and clearer information comes out all the time, and I take that which works against my theories to refine them, and those that do work I am suspicious of until I get confirmation from third sources. Yet I am a successful Synthesist and had my scientific theories validated in multiple fields.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2016
Interestingly how can scientist be sure that the speed of light is constant for the whole universe , and the physical setings of the structure of the cosmic vacuum are the same in every place in the universe, when watching it from the Earth?
The modern cosmology is based on bold unreasonable assumtions and rely on shamanic practices. The base reson is denial of Creator and creation event.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2016
Interestingly how can scientist be sure that the speed of light is constant for the whole universe , and the physical setings of the structure of the cosmic vacuum are the same in every place in the universe, when watching it from the Earth?
Because when we look at the sky, in all directions, it looks pretty much the same – galaxies everywhere as far as the eye can see.
The modern cosmology is based on bold unreasonable assumtions and rely on shamanic practices. The base reson is denial of Creator and creation event.
That's patently untrue. Modern cosmology, as with all of science, continues to advance farther, faster, deeper, more accurately and with greater precision with every passing moment. And exactly who do you think you are to judge your "Creator's" creation? Get yourself a blog to pronounce your judgments. And I'd pray for mercy if I were you, because logic is not your strong suit, and this is a science site.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2016
Interestingly how can scientist be sure that the speed of light is constant for the whole universe
Because when we look at the sky, in all directions, it looks pretty much the same.
I'll illuminate this answer-- sorry for the pun-- even further.

We have observed the sequential activation of clouds of dust and gas by events they surround, watching them light up as the light and other energy of the events reaches them, allowing us to see that the events, and the clouds, in distant galaxies are the same size, relative to the speed of light, as such events and clouds are nearby. Thus, if there were a change in the speed of light over distance, then there would have to be a change in the sizes of these clouds and the galaxies that contain them that exactly matched this change in the speed of light; a most improbable fine tuning of two completely unrelated variables.

Tell me, viko, do you think God lies?
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2016
viko created an almighty god in his own image, who made the world especially for him and his friends. In his logic anything not conceived by viko (or his god, same thing) is to be rejected. He can do that or else his almighty sock puppet can.
This is a very profound delusion.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2016
But viko,
The "vacuum" doesn't have the same properties at every point in time.
Light couldn't travel through the universe until 400,000 years old.
The cosmic light radiation, there's also a cosmic neutrino background from even earlier, and a cosmic gravitational background from the very first moments.
Not only has the inherent properties of free space have changed, the force expanding everything constantly gets stronger over time as well.

Chinese and Japanese people never followed the abrahamic traditions, but they still do the exact same science. Theres a lot of different people in this world, it might be hard for you to imagine, but plenty of people go their whole lives without taking anything in the bible into consideration. Why should they? They have their own complicated superstitions, it's kind of a lot to expect them to dedicate themselves to understanding western and middle eastern history and society just so they can even understand what the bible is even talking about
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Interesting idea but where is the evidence Where is your guesstimate on how much material has been ejected so far?
It's all known science. One recent article:

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

Also, accelerations/collisions involved in Jets formation/impacts exceed LHC energies manyfold; so deconstruction to 'quark gluon' plasma and its reformation into elementary particles occurs.

Just connect the known science dots.
So it's not surprising we HAVE BEEN finding MORE ordinary DM, LOTS of it; while no 'exotic' DM found. Links soon.
No we have not.
Still compiling the links. Even longer list than I remembered!
For the serious problems/debates associated with the 'cosmic distance ladder' method/steps, and the use of Cepheids and Supernovae as 'standard candles' and 'calibration steps', please see the LINKS..
Handing out home work..
Not 'homework'. I already mentioned problems; link merely confirms. :)
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2016
@RC
The PO article states that perhaps 20% of baryonic matter resides in the voids.
In this location it can not contribute to the phenomena explained by DM.
Rather, filling the gaps with matter would decrease the effects requiring DM.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

That was just an example of the process of ordinary deconstructed material re-distribution via jets. These processes have been going on at all scales for many billions of years, all over the universe. The results/reformations depend on the local environment where material ends up. It may form single stars. clusters of stars. dwarf galaxies. Clouds in deep space. All sorts; at all stages of evolution from such deconstructed (now once again 'pristine' like) hydrogen/helium). Which is why we are finding seemingly 'old' objects/features/galaxies etc which are 'interpreted as being from early in BBang scenario, but are in fact relatively RECENTLY formed LOW metallicity objects. Get the idea? :)

Did you get the point re accelerations/collisions associated with jets being many orders of magnitude more energetic than LHC?

If LHC can deconstruct matter into quark gluon plasma which reconstitutes into elementary particles, then so can the jets.

See? KNOWN science.: )

Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2016
@RC
What is your statement?
Jets are not what I would call known science. There is a lot still to discover:
"The mechanics behind both the creation of the jets and the composition of the jets are still a matter of much debate in the scientific community. Jet composition might vary; some studies favour a model in which the jets are composed of an electrically neutral mixture of nuclei, electrons, and positrons, while others are consistent with a jet primarily of positron-electron plasma."
https://en.wikipe...ical_jet
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
What is your statement?
Jets are not what I would call known science. There is a lot still to discover:
"The mechanics behind both the creation of the jets and the composition of the jets are still a matter of much debate in the scientific community. Jet composition might vary; some studies favour a model in which the jets are composed of an electrically neutral mixture of nuclei, electrons, and positrons, while others are consistent with a jet primarily of positron-electron plasma."
https://en.wikipe...ical_jet
The known science is that the accelerations/collisions between material in jet systems (irrespective of how they form etc) are of much higher energy than in LHC. Did you know that known science? And that the quark gluon plasma (like in LHC collisions) reforms into elementary particles. Did you know that known science?

If you did know both those things, then you get the point re deconstruction/redistribution of matter? Yes? :)
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2016
@RC
Of course elementary particles come out of the beam collisions at LHC but a lot of bigger chunks of matter as well. To say therefore that the physics of these jet is "known" is incorrect. Astrophysicists don't know precisely how they form and what they consist of.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2016
"Because when we look at the sky, in all directions, it looks pretty much the same – galaxies everywhere as far as the eye can see."

Is this prove anything? The difference in the settings of the structure of the vacuum of space in different zones of the universe are not necessarily to be visible to our limited senses especially at the large distances.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2016
`"Light couldn't travel through the universe until 400,000 years old."

How did you know this? Is this light speed is confirmed fact for the whole universe or only for the solar system?

"...gravitational background from the very first moments."

I want confirmed scientific facts. Not unconfirmed hypotesis and bold assumptions.
But I know very well that the universe is unknowable to as from the Earth you can not give me confirmed facts that apply for the whole universe.
Science is 100 % confirmed facts. I'm interested in science. Not in divination and shamanism.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Of course elementary particles come out of the beam collisions at LHC...
So you now understand my point re deconstructed matter being sent to deep space at all scales, and therein reforming 'pristine' like Hydrogen/Helium which later reform into stars etc which look 'old' because of low metallicity but are relatively recent made from jets ejecta?
...but a lot of bigger chunks of matter as well.
What sort of "bigger chunks of matter" reforms from LHC quark-gluon plasma?
To say therefore that the physics of these jet is "known" is incorrect. Astrophysicists don't know precisely how they form and what they consist of.
Scientists have many laboratory clues and guides. Look up "Plasma Focus Device" physics/dynamics. Also LHC itself shows energetic collisions produce quark gluon plasma jets. Astronomers observe much higher energetic processes producing telltale gamma etc radiation/other elementary energy forms in speedy jets over long times/distances. :)
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
Any big chunks. LHC does produce clean quark-gluon plasma events. It forms a lot of other stuff in parallel.
And stop telling me what to google for. Do your own home work.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
@RC
I can see how hydrogen could result from the jets, but I can't see how a mixture of 90% H2 and 10% He could result without any other atoms or molecules.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2016
@RC
Of course heavier atoms could freeze out by forming molecules and by condensing.
But this is nothing but guesswork.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

No 'big chunks' produced in LHC if colliding particles are 'head-on at present energies; Quark Gluon plasma 'jets' are produced. The 'glancing' collision 'extras' produced are not part of the main collision/energy dynamics.

Anyway, the galactic/stellar/BH jets are HUGE and the event energy/density of particles/plasma is also huge/extensive; so innumerably more 'head on' collisions are involved than in 'sparse' LHC 'colliding beams' scenarios.

IF Big Bang hypothesis correct, energy levels produced initial quark-gluon (or whatever fundamental 'subatomic') plasma from which elementary particles formed. Similarly, galactic etc jets involve energies/densities much closer to BBang than in 'puny' LHC. So Big Bang argument can apply closely to what comes out of galactic etc collisions/jets scenarios.

Hydrogen-Helium proportions variable depending on the profile/conditions during the jets formation/progression/termination in quantum vacuum epochs/localities. :)

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.