Under construction: Distant galaxy churning out stars at remarkable rate

December 8, 2016 by Megan Watzke, Chandra X-ray Center
This graphic shows a frame from a computer simulation (main image) and astronomical data (inset) of a distant galaxy undergoing an extraordinary construction boom of star formation, as described in our press release. The galaxy, known as SPT0346-52, is 12.7 billion light years from Earth. This means that astronomers are observing it at a critical stage in the evolution of galaxies, about a billion years after the Big Bang. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ of Florida/J.Ma et al; Optical: NASA/STScI; Infrared: NASA/JPL-Caltech; Radio: ESO/NAOJ/NRAO/ALMA; Simulation: Simons Fdn./Moore Fdn./Flatiron Inst./Caltech/C. Hayward & P. Hopkins

Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes to show that a recently-discovered galaxy is undergoing an extraordinary boom of stellar construction. The galaxy is 12.7 billion light years from Earth, seen at a critical stage in the evolution of galaxies about a billion years after the Big Bang.

After astronomers discovered the galaxy, known as SPT 0346-52, with the National Science Foundation's South Pole Telescope (SPT), they observed it with several space and other ground-based telescopes. Data from the international Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) previously revealed extremely bright , suggesting that the galaxy is undergoing a tremendous burst of star birth.

However, an alternative explanation remained: Was much of the infrared emission instead caused by a rapidly growing supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center? Gas falling towards the black hole would become much hotter and brighter, causing surrounding dust and gas to glow in . To explore this possibility, researchers used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and CSIRO's Australia Telescope Compact Array, a radio telescope.

No X-rays or radio waves were detected, so astronomers were able to rule out a black hole being responsible for most of the bright infrared light.

"We now know that this galaxy doesn't have a gorging black hole, but instead is shining brightly with the light from newborn stars," said Jingzhe Ma of the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, who led the new study. "This gives us information about how galaxies and the stars within them evolve during some of the earliest times in the Universe."

Stars are forming at a rate of about 4,500 times the mass of the Sun every year in SPT0346-52, one of the highest rates seen in a galaxy. This is in contrast to a galaxy like the Milky Way that only forms about one solar mass of new stars per year.

Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ of Florida/J.Ma et al; Optical: NASA/STScI; Infrared: NASA/JPL-Caltech; Radio: ESO/NAOJ/NRAO/ALMA; Simulation: Simons Fdn./Moore Fdn./Flatiron Inst./Caltech/C. Hayward & P. Hopkins

"Astronomers call galaxies with lots of star formation 'starburst' galaxies," said co-author Anthony Gonzalez, also of the University of Florida. "That term doesn't seem to do this galaxy justice, so we are calling it a 'hyper-starburst' galaxy."

The high rate of star formation implies that a large reservoir of cool gas in the galaxy is being converted into stars with unusually high efficiency.

Astronomers hope that by studying more galaxies like SPT0346-52 they will learn more about the formation and growth of massive galaxies and the at their centers.

"For decades, astronomers have known that supermassive and the stars in their host galaxies grow together," said co-author Joaquin Vieira of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "Exactly why they do this is still a mystery. SPT0346-52 is interesting because we have observed an incredible burst of stars forming, and yet found no evidence for a growing supermassive black hole. We would really like to study this galaxy in greater detail and understand what triggered the and how that affects the growth of the black hole."

SPT0346-52 is part of a population of strong gravitationally-lensed discovered with the SPT. SPT0346-52 appears about six times brighter than it would without gravitational lensing, which enables to see more details than would otherwise be possible.

A paper describing these results appears in a recent issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

Explore further: X-ray point source discovered at the center of a distant dwarf galaxy Henize 2-10

More information: Jingzhe Ma et al. SPT0346-52: NEGLIGIBLE AGN ACTIVITY IN A COMPACT, HYPER-STARBURST GALAXY AT= 5.7, The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/114 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.08553

Related Stories

Image: Computer simulation of a supermassive black hole

April 7, 2016

This computer-simulated image shows a supermassive black hole at the core of a galaxy. The black region in the center represents the black hole's event horizon, where no light can escape the massive object's gravitational ...

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

Black hole is 30 times expected size

September 24, 2015

The central supermassive black hole of a recently discovered galaxy is far larger than should be possible, according to current theories of galactic evolution. New work, carried out by astronomers at Keele University and ...

Chandra finds supermassive black hole burping nearby

January 5, 2016

Evidence for powerful blasts produced by a giant black hole has been discovered using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. This is one of the nearest supermassive black holes to Earth that is currently undergoing such violent ...

Recommended for you

Brown dwarf detected in the CoRoT-20 system

July 16, 2018

An international group of astronomers has discovered a new substellar object in the planetary system CoRoT-20. The newly identified object was classified as a brown dwarf due to its mass, which is greater than that of the ...

'X'-ploring the Eagle Nebula and 'Pillars of Creation'

July 13, 2018

The Eagle Nebula, also known as Messier 16, contains the young star cluster NGC 6611. It also the site of the spectacular star-forming region known as the Pillars of Creation, which is located in the southern portion of the ...

South Africa unveils super radio telescope

July 13, 2018

South Africa on Friday unveiled a super radio telescope, a first phase of what will be the world's largest telescope in a project to try to unravel the secrets of the universe.

20 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
Dec 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
5 / 5 (11) Dec 09, 2016
@Chris_Reeve
We are ignoring the possibility that there is no lensing at all, because we refuse to acknowledge that redshift can have any other inherent components other than our analogy to the Doppler effect -- even though an inherent redshift component could potentially explain why the galaxy is so bright -- because it's not actually as far away as the redshift implies.


The paper is ignoring the possibility that there is no lensing because it is obvious from the three images of the same galaxy that there is. What is more, we can safely assume that the lensed galaxy is substantially further away than the lensing galaxy itself. Finally, to suggest that a galaxy at a redshift >5 can have a significant "inherent redshift component" shows a lack appreciation of the scale of the numbers involved.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2016
The paper is ignoring the possibility that there is no lensing because it is obvious from the three images of the same galaxy that there is.

Proof by assumption, astrophysics in a nutshell.
RNP
5 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2016
@cantdrive85
We have 3 images with the same spectra. This is visible in the image as the same colour, but of course the spectra contain WAY more data, including the same redshifts. The three images also form part of something close to an Einstein ring and are the same shape after correction for minor lensing distortion. So how would you, in your infinite wisdom, otherwise interpret this image?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2016
@idiot eu cult proselytizers
Proof by assumption
so, when you go to a carnival and you enter the house of mirrors, you're saying that you are immediately cloned and there are multiple exact copies of you walking around?

you can't tell the difference between a visual projection of you and the actual you?

do you ever attack the mirror when you shave? or have you even hit puberty yet? (the latter would explain a lot about why you refuse to accept evidence over your cult conspiracy crap)

interesting that you would publicly admit these things to the world...
Chris_Reeve
Dec 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2016
@chris/hannes and the rest of the eu cult
Well, of course, it would depend upon whatever model is being proposed for the inherent redshift, no?
no
it depends upon the evidence and the testability, predictability and repeatability of the model and theory used

this means, by definition, that you're argument from the "eu" model is simply argument from pseudoscience
(actually, technically it's simply a claim that has no evidenciary value because there is no model for the eu and they don't abide by the constraints of the scientific method)
as plasmas tend to do in the laboratory
and let me reiterate: astrophysicists learn plasma physics, whereas electric engineers do NOT learn the requisite forces or physics that apply in astrophysics

this has already been proven

so if you want to infer that [x] = [y] because eu says so, then do what real scientists do and present a peer reviewed paper that is directly refuting the above study

thanks
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2016
@eu cult continued
I think the thing to pay attention to here is that the assumption is adopted by the community without much attention paid to what is being argued by critics
1- with rare exception (like AA_P), the posters here are typically not research scientists

2- the posters here who are scientifically literate simply read and look for evidence

3- just because it's posted in an article doesn't mean it's true - the evidence lies in the study, not the claims of an author publishing their interpretation of said study

4- there is only one way to do science - adhere to the scientific method
If you want to argue or refute the science in the study, you *absolutely must* accept this criteria and also present equivalent or better evidence (colloquially stated as - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)

end of story
Chris_Reeve
Dec 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2016
@chris/hannes and the rest of the eu cult
Captain, you do understand that Halton Arp was Edwin Hubble's assistant, right?
are you learning disabled, or do you have some special needs that limit your reading and comprehension?

it's not asked rhetorically... i really want to know
Mostly because i thought the above was clear, concise and very specific

i know you aren't going to argue that because person A says it then it must be true... because that would be argument from authority, and that is absolutely *not* how science works...

even a random idiot journalist with religious delusions should know that one...

RNP
5 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2016
@Chris_Reeve
Re: "to suggest that a galaxy at a redshift >5 can have a significant "inherent redshift component" shows a lack appreciation of the scale of the numbers involved."


Well, of course, it would depend upon whatever model is being proposed for the inherent redshift, no?


No. The difference in recession velocities implied by a redshift of 1.1 (0.65c) for the central galaxy, and 5.6 (0.96c) would imply the all three objects are moving away from us at a substantial fraction of the speed of light faster than the central galaxy.

Therefore, your suggestion that:

....these objects have been ejected from the core of this very active galaxy -- a very typical scenario discussed by advocates of inherent redshift.


is ridiculous. It would require some mechanism to simultaneously accelerate 3 WHOLE GALAXIES away from us at a significant fraction of c. This what I meant when I said you do not seem to understand the scale of the numbers involved.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2016

is ridiculous. It would require some mechanism to simultaneously accelerate 3 WHOLE GALAXIES away from us at a significant fraction of c. This what I meant when I said you do not seem to understand the scale of the numbers involved

What's ridiculous is your inability to see this problem beyond your own preconceived beliefs. Your "scale of the numbers" argument is completely irrelevant to inherent redshift.
RNP
5 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2016
@cantdrive85
OK. So present a coherent explanation for the observations above using your idea of "inherent redshift". I am betting that you can not. Prove me wrong!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2016
First you need to have just an inkling of a clue as to the observationally/experimentally confirmed facts of matter at hand;

http://electric-c.../arp.htm

And plasma redshift;

https://www.plasm...redshift

So now that we can see that redshift is not only recessional velocity, the obvious conclusion as Arp pointed out is you have a parent galaxy and a couple of its offspring which were ejected along the axis of the parent galaxy.
RNP
5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2016
@cantdrive85
... you need to have just an inkling of a clue as to the observationally/experimentally confirmed facts...

The pseudoscience site you link is LITTERED with (often easily refuted) nonsense. Pertinent to our discussion, it describes "inherent redshift" as "a property of the matter in the object". What does THAT mean? What physical property could cause such redshifts (recall the value 5.6 for the objects in question)?

It also says "... inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized". This has been refuted so many times now, I should not have to do it again.

The "evidence" supplied are garbled misinterpretations. For instance, the quasar marked in the image of NGC7319 is BEHIND the galaxy, not in front. I.e. It is shining through it, is this difficult to understand?

The other site is equally nonsensical and provides NOTHING but unsupported and unphysical claims.

Your response therefore does NOT provide the coherent argument requested.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2016
The pseudoscience site you link is LITTERED with (often easily refuted)

Yet, all you provide is an example of Cap'n Capslock and some hand wavey stuff.
What does THAT mean?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
For instance, the quasar marked in the image of NGC7319 is BEHIND the galaxy, not in front

Dr Scott described your selective blindness in the blog, it's obvious to you that the QSO is "BEHIND" the galaxy due to the apparent redshift and for no other reasonable explanation. And the "other" site just explains lab supported facts, something theoreticians are oblivious.
RNP
5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2016
@cantdrive
And the "other" site just explains lab supported facts, something theoreticians are oblivious


No it does not. It just lists a series of unsupported claims. If you want to prove me wrong, give us at least one link to somewhere showing "lab support" for this plasma redshift idea. (And I mean something other than one of Ari Brynjolfsson's papers where he CLAIMS observational support, but fails to give ANY references).
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2016
@eu nazi sympathizer cult
some hand wavey stuff
all that is required to refute a claim is merely to state the opposite

you're site provides no science to validate it's claim, so it comes down to evidence

a quick look at your claim provides a clue as to why eu cult is ignored

astrophysics redshift:
there was hypothesis
then experimentation and observation
which lead to observation and evidence
which was then validated
which in turn lead to a modern scientific Theory that is still tested and validated
[See Feynman, Leighton and Sands (1989) or any introductory undergraduate (and many high school) physics textbooks. See Taylor (1992) for a relativistic discussion]
OR
[Binney and Merrifeld (1998), Carroll and Ostlie (1996), Kutner (2003) etc]

eu cult explanation:
because you said so

there is no source material you presented, nor a valid Theory, nor is there evidence... just a link to a pseudoscience site

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.