'Wasteful' galaxies launch heavy elements into surrounding halos and deep space

June 6, 2016, University of Colorado at Boulder
Spiral galaxies like the Milky Way are shown in the center, surrounded by the circumgalactic medium, which appears as black to our eyes. However, the circumgalactic medium contains very hot gas, shown in red, orange, and white that outweighs the central galaxies. The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph on the Hubble Space Telescope is an ultra-violet spectrograph that can probe these gaseous filaments and clumps. Credit: Adrien Thob, LJMU

Galaxies "waste" large amounts of heavy elements generated by star formation by ejecting them up to a million light years away into their surrounding halos and deep space, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.

The research, which was recently published online in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, shows that more oxygen, carbon and exist in the sprawling, gaseous halos outside of galaxies than exist within the galaxies themselves, leaving the galaxies deprived of needed to build stars and planets.

"Previously, we thought that these heavier elements would be recycled in to of stars and contribute to building ," said Benjamin Oppenheimer, a research associate in the Center for Astrophysics & Space Astronomy (CASA) at CU-Boulder and lead author of the study. "As it turns out, galaxies aren't very good at recycling."

The near-invisible reservoir of gas that surrounds a galaxy, known as the circumgalactic medium (CGM), is thought to play a central role in cycling elements in and out of the galaxy, but the exact mechanisms of this relationship remain elusive. A typical galaxy ranges in size from 30,000 to 100,000 light years while the CGM can span up to a million light years.

The researchers used data from the Cosmic Origin Spectrograph (COS), a $70 million instrument designed at CU-Boulder and built by Boulder, Colorado-based Ball Aerospace Technology Corp., to study the composition of the CGM.

COS is installed on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and uses ultraviolet spectroscopy to study the evolution of the universe.

Spiral galaxies like the Milky Way actively form stars and have a blueish color while elliptical galaxies have little star formation and appear red. Both types of galaxies contain tens to hundreds of billions of stars that create heavy elements.

After running a series of simulations, the researchers found that the CGMs in both types of galaxies contained more than half of a galaxy's , suggesting that galaxies are not as efficient at retaining their raw materials as previously thought.

"The remarkable similarity of the galaxies in our simulations to those targeted by the COS team enables us to interpret the observations with greater confidence," said Robert Crain, a Royal Society University Research Fellow at Liverpool John Moores University and a co-author of the study.

The new simulations also explain the puzzling COS observation that there appears to be less oxygen around elliptical than spiral galaxies.

"The CGM of the elliptical galaxies is hotter," said Joop Schaye, a professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands and a co-author of the study. "The high temperatures, topping over one million degrees Kelvin, reduce the fraction of the oxygen that is five times ionized, which is the ion observed by COS."

By contrast, the temperature of the CGM gas in spiral is 300,000 degrees Kelvin, or around fifty times hotter than the surface of the Sun.

"It takes massive amounts of energy from exploding supernovae and supermassive black holes to launch all these into the CGM," said Oppenheimer. "This is a violent and long-lasting process that can take over 10 billion years, which means that in a galaxy like the Milky Way, this highly ionized oxygen we're observing has been there since before the Sun was born."

Explore further: Hubble peers at a distinctly disorganized dwarf galaxy

More information: "Bimodality of low-redshift circumgalactic O VI in non-equilibrium EAGLE zoom simulations" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2016.

Related Stories

Hubble peers at a distinctly disorganized dwarf galaxy

April 4, 2016

Despite being less famous than their elliptical and spiral galactic cousins, irregular dwarf galaxies, such as the one captured in this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image, are actually one of the most common types of galaxy ...

Image: Hubble spies a spiral snowflake

May 16, 2016

Together with irregular galaxies, spiral galaxies make up approximately 60 percent of the galaxies in the local universe. However, despite their prevalence, each spiral galaxy is unique—like snowflakes, no two are alike. ...

Hubble spies a spiral snowflake

May 13, 2016

Together with irregular galaxies, spiral galaxies make up approximately 60 percent of the galaxies in the local universe. However, despite their prevalence, each spiral galaxy is unique—like snowflakes, no two are alike. ...

Hubble sees galaxy hiding in the night sky

May 2, 2016

This striking NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image captures the galaxy UGC 477, located just over 110 million light-years away in the constellation of Pisces (The Fish).

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 ...

Recommended for you

Sprawling galaxy cluster found hiding in plain sight

August 16, 2018

MIT scientists have uncovered a sprawling new galaxy cluster hiding in plain sight. The cluster, which sits a mere 2.4 billion light years from Earth, is made up of hundreds of individual galaxies and surrounds an extremely ...

Unusual doughnut-shaped jet observed in the galaxy NGC 6109

August 15, 2018

Astronomers from the University of Bristol, U.K., have uncovered an unusual doughnut-shaped jet in the radio galaxy NGC 6109. It is the first time that such a jet morphology has been observed in a low-power radio galaxy. ...

Iron and titanium in the atmosphere of an exoplanet

August 15, 2018

Exoplanets, planets in other solar systems, can orbit very close to their host stars. When the host star is much hotter than the sun, the exoplanet becomes as hot as a star. The hottest "ultra-hot" planet was discovered last ...

Unraveling the stellar content of young clusters

August 14, 2018

About twenty-five percent of young stars in our galaxy form in clustered environments, and stars in a cluster are often close enough to each other to affect the way they accrete gas and grow. Astronomers trying to understand ...

16 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2016
I suppose no matter how many times I re-iterate that there has been ZERO observational support up to date for the idea that stars "form" today, there is no one as deaf as those who do not want to hear.

It's just physically impossible [for various basic reasons of physics] for any star to assemble and then ignite its material for fuel all by its lonesome self without any outside help. And no, exploding stars are not able to help whatsoever since there is no observational evidence to support that idea either.

The text books simply gloss over the tiny little details of just how the supposed clump of gas is supposed to self-ignite. Go read it all for yourself if you disagree.

So whatever this article says about the waste of gas, it's only the observations themselves that are to be trusted. All the rhetoric about galaxies "forming" or not "forming" stars is just so much,....well....dust.
AGreatWhopper
3.8 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2016
FredJose1 /5 (1) 6 minutes ago
I suppose no matter how many times I re-iterate that there has been ZERO observational support up to date for the idea that stars "form" today, there is no one as deaf as those who do not want to hear.


Yeah, there is. Those that know you're a self aggrandizing loser of an idiot. Your theories are a) not yours, b) not supported by observation, c) unnecessary, and d) something that would only make sense to someone working backward from an a priori conclusion like that IDIOTIC EU hoax.

But you're soooo much more open minded. Tell ya what, FreddieJoe, I'll send you a box of my crap and I expect you to taste it before you say you don't like it. That's not one iota different than saying we have to study your brain damaged spew to know it's not useful.

STFU or go away. You contribute nothing to any of the threads you comment on.
Steelwolf
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2016
That is a very cute set of P-Type Orbitals delineated in the hot gas there. Fascinating, Very Fascinating, with them Just Talking about Electrons having to be thought of finer graded material, something like a cloud, that can pass through one another, and this is also, on a super-fast timescale, thought to be the way an electron evaporates from one Orbital formation spot, and into a higher or lower energy one, seemingly, at our speeds, to do it with no time spent, but, when one really fines down the time gradient in precise enough figures, one starts to see an evaporative and a coalescent phase in the new orbital. So funny that it looks like Cosmology in a tiny bottle, or, perhaps Our 'Cosmology is someone else's little bottle
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
I suppose no matter how many times I re-iterate that there has been ZERO observational support up to date for the idea that stars "form" today

You mean aside from all the observations that have been actually published (just google "observation new star")?

Yeah. If you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala" at the top of your voice then you could possibly come to the conclusions that no such observations exist.

[for various basic reasons of physics]

Name on. Just one. WITH the math to back it up.

The text books simply gloss over the tiny little details of just how the supposed clump of gas is supposed to self-ignite.

Just like in the lab: Density and temperature. The only difference is that for stars the driving force is gravity (can't really craete gravity in the lab so we substitue magnetic confinement and/or accelerators)
Tuxford
1 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2016
"Previously, we thought that these heavier elements would be recycled in to future generations of stars and contribute to building planetary systems

Utt OH. Pretty damning for current models.
The near-invisible reservoir of gas that surrounds a galaxy, known as the circumgalactic medium (CGM), is thought to play a central role in cycling elements in and out of the galaxy, but the exact mechanisms of this relationship remain elusive.

Central role? LoL! It is a consequence of the new matter ejected largely from the core. The egg formed first.
The CGM of the elliptical galaxies is hotter

Duh. Since ellipticals are the final phase of evolution, with larger hotter cores.

Relax Fred. Merger maniacs are incurable. They are followers, not thinkers.
neiorah
5 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2016
OK children stop the fighting. You are both fairly young I can tell by the way you refer to each other. I am positive that when you gain some years and wisdom, that your discussions will become more cerebral and less hormonal.
grezeszakb
5 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
It's just physically impossible [for various basic reasons of physics] for any star to assemble and then ignite its material for fuel all by its lonesome self without any outside help. And no, exploding stars are not able to help whatsoever since there is no observational evidence to support that idea either.


@FredJose - ...this would seem to indicate you believe that a star "burns" like a candle or a piece of wood. Why else would other exploding stars have something to do with their "ignition"?

You need to take basic look at how stars function. The processes within them are nuclear and have to do with extreme pressure (something that enough mass in one place creates easily). They have nothing to do with "fire" like you're talking about.
ursiny33
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2016
First of all atoms in a gas could are made up of a dominant positive charge in its total quantum mass, like a hydrogen atom, a proton with an electron, the photon has a positive dominant mass in magnetics an iron atom has a nucleus of 26 neutrons and 24 or 26 protons and several orbital shells of negatively charged electrons that has a dominant negative charge in its quantum mass, that negative charge will attract hydrogen atoms positive dominant charge that builds mass clusters where hydrogen atoms build a positive hydrogen atom shell around the heavy negatively charged dominant atoms of heavier elements , and these magnetically constructed clusters join other clusters in magnetic attraction connections in initial magnetic mass production in gas clouds until enough are gather in magnetic attraction compression to collapse by weight that's the beginning of building stars
ursiny33
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2016
Galaxies are not very good at recycling, ha it depends on your model of creation in galaxy expansion this would be quite helpful , in a multi point creation model where the central core mass is a product of taking neutrons and protons apart in high velocity kinetic collisions to turn them back into their magnetic building. Blocks to be collected by the quantum particle mass at its central core to be one day in the future when it cools off to be inducted back into neutrons to be the mechanical catalyst for galaxy expansion
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
Given the postulated amount of heavy elements in the CGM, is it then possible to reassess the dark matter values currently in use?
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2016
Good Question W. Gyre, that is what I have been wondering myself. Because, either we have enough mass and energy and current flow throughout space, over such scales that it balances out (some areas may be contracting locally while we are obviously expanding locally) and so there is very little to no 'dark matter or energy' (undetectable, when we have been detecting a LOT of new things out there) and so perhaps Science, with the Cap, needs to come to terms with what is so often termed 'The Spirit World', but looked at from the Tibetan Lamaistic Monk's view, not so much religion, as a way of life, and it admits to and teaches Telepathy, Out of Body Experience, Clairvoyance (now used by our Military as Remote Viewing) and Clairaudience (hearing over a distance) and these things have been known about for thousands of years. Perhaps 'dark' (unseen) energy is all about us, we just have to relearn how to see it.

Could be more than enough matter, short on energy still though.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2016
But somehow I see little distinction, especially at the quantum levels, between 'Dark Matter and Energy (undetected possibly undetectable mass and energy). Metaphysics (beyond the physical, which we have simply with Radio if we went with strict definitions) and there has been both anecdotal and written evidence, sometimes unforged pictures as well, showing things that 'modern scientists' cannot explain. I could go into Church Dogmas and how 'Demons' are a term for 'Extra Dimensionals' and how Angels are either guardians or karmic Jailers, take yer book and takes yer chances. But there are so many different Ancient Vedas and Books of The Dead, in different languages, but they are alike enough they could almost be used as Rosetta Stones. Between the evidence of past high civilization here in the past and what science is finding and matching them up to in these old works are astounding, so there is clearly a LOT more to learn out there and arguing does not make it learning, just loud.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2016
Given the postulated amount of heavy elements in the CGM, is it then possible to reassess the dark matter values currently in use?


The abundance of dark matter does not come from counting any matter in the modern universe so this won't change that. Where it comes from is cosmological tests. The CMB powerspectrum for example is independently sensitive to both the baryonic density and the total matter density. The Baryon Acoustic Osclation peak in the modern universe is also sensitive in a similar way. Standard cosmology actually predicts more baryons than are currently known (~40% missing), most of this is believed to be in the Warm-Hot Inter Galactic Medium.
ChiefFartingDog
Jun 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2016
Given the postulated amount of heavy elements in the CGM, is it then possible to reassess the dark matter values currently in use?

Heavy elements are still only a tiny amount compared to the abundance (and combined mass) of hydrogen and helium. even a substantial increase in heavy elements would not change the dark matter assessment.

And note that they don't say there are more heavy elements. Just that some of it isn't distributed the way they thought they were.
Garrote
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2016
Tuxturds 1 /5 (7) Jun 06, 2016

Utt OH.


Back under your mother's apron, nasty troll!

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.