Tangled threads weave through cosmic oddity

December 1, 2016
Credit: NASA, ESA, Andy Fabian

New observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have revealed the intricate structure of the galaxy NGC 4696 in greater detail than ever before. The elliptical galaxy is a beautiful cosmic oddity with a bright core wrapped in system of dark, swirling, thread-like filaments.

NGC 4696 is a member of the Centaurus galaxy cluster, a swarm of hundreds of all sitting together, bound together by gravity, about 150 million light-years from Earth and located in the constellation of Centaurus.

Despite the cluster's size, NGC 4696 still manages to stand out from its companions—it is the cluster's brightest member, known for obvious reasons as the Brightest Cluster Galaxy. This puts it in the same category as some of the biggest and brightest galaxies known in the Universe.

Even if NGC 4696 keeps impressive company, it has a further distinction: the galaxy's unique structure. Previous observations have revealed curling filaments that stretch out from its main body and carve out a cosmic question mark in the sky, the dark tendrils encircling a brightly glowing centre.

An international team of scientists, led by astronomers from the University of Cambridge, UK, have now used new observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to explore this thread-like structure in more detail. They found that each of the dusty filaments has a width of about 200 light-years, and a density some 10 times greater than the surrounding gas. These filaments knit together and spiral inwards towards the centre of NGC 4696, connecting the galaxy's constituent gas to its core.

In fact, it seems that the galaxy's core is actually responsible for the shape and positioning of the filaments themselves. At the centre of NGC 4696 lurks an active . This floods the galaxy's inner regions with energy, heating the gas there and sending streams of heated material outwards.

It appears that these hot streams of gas bubble outwards, dragging the filamentary material with them as they go. The galaxy's magnetic field is also swept out with this bubbling motion, constraining and sculpting the material within the filaments.

At the very centre of the galaxy, the loop and curl inwards in an intriguing spiral shape, swirling around the supermassive black hole at such a distance that they are dragged into and eventually consumed by the black hole itself.

Understanding more about filamentary galaxies such as NGC 4696 may help us to better understand why so many massive galaxies near to us in the Universe appear to be dead; rather than forming newborn stars from their vast reserves of gas and dust, they instead sit quietly, and are mostly populated with old and aging stars. This is the case with NGC 4696. It may be that the magnetic structure flowing throughout the galaxy stops the gas from creating new stars.

Explore further: NGC 4696: A cosmic question mark

Related Stories

NGC 4696: A cosmic question mark

August 12, 2010

This picture, taken by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys, is not just a beautiful snapshot of NGC 4696, the largest galaxy in the Centaurus Cluster (galaxy cluster Abell 3526). It is also an illustration of the rich variety ...

Image: Hubble steals a look at NGC 1222

November 11, 2016

NGC 1222, seen in this image taken with the Wide Field Camera 3 on board the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope is a galaxy with a rather eventful story to tell. NGC 1222 has been described as a peculiar example of a type ...

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 ...

Hubble sees magnetic monster in erupting galaxy

August 20, 2008

NGC 1275 is one of the closest giant elliptical galaxies and lies at the centre of the Perseus Cluster of galaxies. It is an active galaxy, hosting a supermassive black hole at its core, which blows bubbles of radio-wave ...

Image: Hubble captures NGC 4111

April 25, 2016

The elegant simplicity of NGC 4111, seen here in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, hides a more violent history than you might think. NGC 4111 is a lenticular, or lens-shaped, galaxy about 50 million light-years ...

Hubble views a lonely galaxy

November 16, 2015

Only three local stars appear in this image, quartered by right-angled diffraction spikes. Everything besides them is a galaxy; floating like a swarm of microbes in a drop of water, and brought into view here not by a microscope, ...

Recommended for you

Orbital mayhem around a red dwarf

December 18, 2017

In the collective imagination, planets of a solar system all circle in the equatorial plane of their star. The star also spins, and its spin axis is aligned with the spin axes of the planetary orbits, giving the impression ...

Mars and Earth may not have been early neighbors

December 18, 2017

A study published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters posits that Mars formed in what today is the Asteroid Belt, roughly one and a half times as far from the sun as its current position, before migrating to ...

46 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2016
We need RNP here to tell us how to find the rest of the writeup,
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 01, 2016
It appears that these hot streams of gas bubble outwards, dragging the filamentary material with them as they go. The galaxy's magnetic field is also swept out with this bubbling motion, constraining and sculpting the material within the filaments.

Whoever penned this nonsense has the equivalent understanding of a 3-year old autistic crack baby, with a case of the Cap'n Stoopid disease. This explanation is so far from real plasma physics it's deplorable it was even uttered. The state of astrophysics is laughable!
Benni
Dec 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2016
The paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...36v1.pdf

@cantdrive85
OK. Now you have access to the paper. Point out where in the paper they go wrong if you can.

Phys1
Dec 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2016
@cantdrive85
OK. Now you have access to the paper. Point out where in the paper they go wrong if you can.

LOL, how about right in the abstract;
"Optical morphology and velocity measurements indicate that the filaments
are dragged out by the bubbling action of the radio source as part of the AGN feedback cycle."
That is utter pseudoscience, maybe one of the electric engineers that peruse these threads can explain how "bubbling action" fits into circuit theory that is used to describe electric circuits in plasmas? Additionally, there is no "gas" present, it's plasma and as such their gas dynamics/physics they rely upon are meaningless in describing the plasmas they're observing.
On top of that, they also rely on the pseudoscientific magnetic reconnection to explain energy transfer in the filaments, they use all the pseudoscientific tools in their toolbox.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2016
We need RNP here to tell us how to find the rest of the writeup,


........or Phys1, same person.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2016
Jeepers Rguy, when you realize you can't get your profanity laced foul mouthed digs in as Phys1
Phys1 6 hours ago
This comment has been removed by a moderator
you use the RNP fallback to make yourself feel relevant, but you're still never relevant in spite of trying to change your tone.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2016
@Benni
Your claim the Phys1 and I are the same person is clearly ridiculous. A glance at our writing styles and/or activity records make this obvious to anyone with any sense. I, for one, will spend no more time responding to this childish nonsense from you.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2016
Yep, I would agree RNP and Fails1 are different people with different writing styles. Whether or not they reside outside of the same body is questionable.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2016
@cantdrive85
...the bubbling action of the radio source as part of the AGN feedback cycle."... is utter pseudoscience...maybe one of the electric engineers that peruse these threads can explain how "bubbling action" fits into circuit theory that is used to describe electric circuits in plasmas?

The actual mechanism for the bubbling action is described in the paper and reference therein and and has nothing to do with currents in plasmas. I guess you never bothered to read it.

...there is no "gas" present, it's plasma and as such their gas dynamics/physics they rely upon are meaningless....

Your failure to recognize that plasma is just (partially) ionized gas shows you to lack even a basic knowledge of the relevant physics

...they also rely on the pseudoscientific magnetic reconnection to explain energy transfer...

You mean the observationally confirmed magnetic reconnection.

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2016
Your failure to recognize that plasma is just (partially) ionized gas shows you to lack even a basic knowledge of the relevant physics

Exactly! But the opposite is in fact accurate. Your (and astrophysicists) belief that plasma can be treated as a gas results in the fact that astrophysicists are missing 96% of their Universe and must invent 96% more "dark" stuff to explain their reality.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2016
@cantdrive85

Your failure to recognize that plasma is just (partially) ionized gas shows you to lack even a basic knowledge of the relevant physics

Exactly! But the opposite is in fact accurate. Your (and astrophysicists) belief that plasma can be treated as a gas....


WRONG. I defy you to find anywhere in the paper where they use such inappropriate physics.
The dark matter/energy obfuscation is irrelevant.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2016
@Benni
Your claim the Phys1 and I are the same person is clearly ridiculous. A glance at our writing styles and/or activity records make this obvious to anyone with any sense. I, for one, will spend no more time responding to this childish nonsense from you.
..........yeah, I know, it's the diametrically opposite writing styles which is the most obvious clue, or you get kicked off when you go on another one of your foul mouthed profanity filled rants as Phys1.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2016
Tangled threads weave through cosmic oddity December 2, 2016, 11:47 am 1 yyz RNP


......and here we go, yyz (Phys1), & RNP in lockstep. When one or the other posts, the other two followup votinf 5 Stars upvote or 1 Star downvotes in sync within minutes of one another........now what could be a better clue?
Hat1208
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2016
@RNP

I wonder if either one of them have ever looked up, "pseudo".
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2016
[ yyz (Phys1),

So yyz is me? Amazing, even I did not know that.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2016
The state of astrophysics is laughable!
.........Correction: Asstrophysics.


EITHER THAT OR BENNI IS A COMPLETE LUNATIC, PHYS.ORG.
IS THIS SITE RUN BY CRACKPOTS ?
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2016
@phys.org
I accuse phys.org of damaging science
by purposefully allowing the obviously insane "Benni"
to routinely abuse astrophysics and astrophysicists.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2016
WRONG. I defy you to find anywhere in the paper where they use such inappropriate physics.

Read it again, the linked tripe is laced up and down with pseudoscientific principles of "ideal gases" being applied to the plasma. There are references to pseudoscientific nonsense such as magnetic reconnection and black hole bs. No mention of circuitry, current density, Birkeland currents, Marklund Convection or any other properties of real plasma physics. Nope, just the typical fanciful preponderances of plasma ignoramuses blathering on about their non-existent matter.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2016
@eu troll
There are references to pseudoscientific nonsense such as magnetic reconnection
1- false claim
2- here is proof of your continued false claims from engineers and plasma physicists: http://www.pppl.g...nnection

No mention of
where is your own peer reviewed journal studies that were validated by secondary sources that demonstrate your "superior" plasma physics processes which replace the modern plasma physics?

you have none

the eu is "just the typical fanciful preponderances of plasma ignoramuses blathering on about their non-existent" delusional cult-like beliefs

RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2016
@cantdrive85

WRONG. I defy you to find anywhere in the paper where they use such inappropriate physics.

Read it again, the linked tripe is laced up and down with pseudoscientific principles of "ideal gases" being applied to the plasma. There are references to pseudoscientific nonsense such as magnetic reconnection and black hole bs. No mention of circuitry, current density, Birkeland currents, Marklund Convection or any other properties of real plasma physics. Nope, just the typical fanciful preponderances of plasma ignoramuses blathering on about their non-existent matter.


OK. So go ahead, it should be easy for you to give us one specific example and the relevant section of the paper.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2016
[ yyz (Phys1),

So yyz is me? Amazing, even I did not know that.

I always knew you were too stupid to be one person.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2016
@insanicle
Wow, a phrase with the word retard. Arte you drunk?
That would explain why you make more sense than usual.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2016
OK. So go ahead, it should be easy for you to give us one specific example and the relevant section of the paper.

There is no "relevant section", it's all 3-year old autistic crack baby with a twist of Cap'n Stoopid type tripe.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2016
@cantdrive85
There is no "relevant section", it's all 3-year old autistic crack baby with a twist of Cap'n Stoopid type tripe.


If you do not understand the paper that you so roundly condemn well enough to give a coherent response to a reasonable question there no point in trying to discuss it with you. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Your absurd ranting only underlines your irrationality.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2016
You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Your absurd ranting only underlines your irrationality.


Phys1.....almost everything you post reads within small variations of what you just posted in the above highlight.

Why don't you cease with this boring tact of constantly repeating yourself. Address the actual issues of the math & science involved in lieu of your customary name calling rants.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2016
@cantdrive85

WRONG. I defy you to find anywhere in the paper where they use such inappropriate physics.

Read it again, the linked tripe is laced up and down with pseudoscientific principles of "ideal gases" being applied to the plasma. There are references to pseudoscientific nonsense such as magnetic reconnection and black hole bs. No mention of circuitry, current density, Birkeland currents, Marklund Convection or any other properties of real plasma physics. Nope, just the typical fanciful preponderances of plasma ignoramuses blathering on about their non-existent matter.


OK. So go ahead, it should be easy for you to give us one specific example and the relevant section of the paper.

He probably only scans the text for keywords that he likes.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2016
Why don't you ...

Benni, you clown !
You address the wrong person.
In your mind we are the same, in reality we are not.
Is there any contact with reality left in your 20% remaining brains?
Or has Zwicky's, praise be him, dark matter swallowed you up entirely.
Phys1
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2016
removed
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2016
@cantdrive85
If you do not understand the paper that you so roundly condemn well enough to give a coherent response to a reasonable question there no point in trying to discuss it with you. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Your absurd ranting only underlines your irrationality.

You clearly have no understanding of real plasma physics, if you did it would be obvious that;
"The filamentary nature of the cold gas continues inward, swirling around and within the Bondi accretion radius of the central black hole, revealing the magnetic nature of the gas flows"
...shows a complete and utter ignorance of real plasma phenomena. First, there is no "gas", it's plasma and even if there were some portion of the matter that were a "neutral ideal gas" the "gas" is immersed in a sea of plasma which will cause the "gas" to experience phenomena driven by plasma physics and EM forces.

con't
RNP
5 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2016
@cantdrive
...cont

Don't bother. You again give NO reason for us to believe your nonsense.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2016
Secondly, the "magnetic nature of the gas flows" are due to one salient fact. The "gas flows" are in fact electric currents of plasma which in turn create the "magnetic nature" of the flows. Now it would seem that these astrophysicists should know this, right? Maxwell's equations and 300-400 years of empirical research on EM Theory would suggest this, yet we get a word salad of obfuscation or ignorance discussing "gas flows", magnetic fields being "swept" about, and "intriguing spiral shapes" by the filaments.

Alfven predicted way back in 1937 the Universe would be filamentary and cellular, because that's what plasma does. Magnetic fields aren't "swept" about, they are generated by electricity ("gas flows" if it makes more sense) and move about because so too are the flowing charges. And "intriguing spiral shapes" of the filaments is a completely expected morphology of electric Birkeland currents, the vortex of interacting charges is well understood by the experimentalists.
RNP
5 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2016
@cantdrive85
So, you still can not make any real comments about the paper and are going to simply regress to repeating your pseudo-scientific mantra. You are a waste of my time.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2016
Benni,
You address the wrong person.


NO, I did not......RNP, what methinks is that you protest it way too much, adding additional credibility to the fact that I'm addressing the right person.

Phys1/RNP- I'll bet I could come up with some poetic verse for this label. Keep reading & be on the look for some rhyme time masterpiece from me dedicated to you.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2016
Benni,
You address the wrong person.


NO, I did not......RNP, what methinks is that you protest it way too much, adding additional credibility to the fact that I'm addressing the right person.

Phys1/RNP- I'll bet I could come up with some poetic verse for this label. Keep reading & be on the look for some rhyme time masterpiece from me dedicated to you.

You are a full blown idiot, Benni. :) That's ok, with so much of your brains missing.
But why are you such a bore?
I understand why you do this: the science is out of scope for you.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2016
You are a full blown idiot, Benni. :) That's ok, with so much of your brains missing.
......but I can solve Differential Equations & you can't,

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2016
It appears that these hot streams of gas bubble outwards, dragging the filamentary material with them as they go. The galaxy's magnetic field is also swept out with this bubbling motion, constraining and sculpting the material within the filaments.

Whoever penned this nonsense has the equivalent understanding of a 3-year old autistic crack baby, with a case of the Cap'n Stoopid disease. This explanation is so far from real plasma physics it's deplorable it was even uttered. The state of astrophysics is laughable!


Lol. Coming from somebody who thinks a diamagnetic cavity is a f***ing double layer!!!!! Idiot.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2016
You are a full blown idiot, Benni. :) That's ok, with so much of your brains missing.
......but I can solve Differential Equations & you can't,



Yes, but can you do them better than this f***wit?
http://rationalwi...Crothers

Please don't make us all laugh, and tell us that this is who you are a fanboy of! That would be bloody hilarious.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2016
@Benni,
Hey gobsh*te, I'd actually like to see you practice what you preach; SHOW US THE EVIDENCE. Where is this crap that you keep droning on about? Prove it. Mathematically. If you can't - then a) either STFU, or b) link us to the genius of whom you are a fanboy.
After all, you are a self confessed engineer - I can't imagine that your maths is up to much, from experience. So let's see it, yes? Otherwise, as I said STF........ you understand?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2016
Alfven predicted way back in 1937 .


Ohhh, Alfven, Alfven, Alfven. Idiot (not Alfven). He died 20 frigging years ago. Stuff has moved on. He came out with a lot of stuff. Some of it was right. A lot of it was WRONG. Understand? Demonstrably bloody wrong. What the hell is it with you idiots?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2016
@cantdrive85

WRONG. I defy you to find anywhere in the paper where they use such inappropriate physics.

Read it again, the linked tripe is laced up and down with pseudoscientific principles of "ideal gases" being applied to the plasma. There are references to pseudoscientific nonsense such as magnetic reconnection and black hole bs. No mention of circuitry, current density, Birkeland currents, Marklund Convection or any other properties of real plasma physics. Nope, just the typical fanciful preponderances of plasma ignoramuses blathering on about their non-existent matter.


OK. So go ahead, it should be easy for you to give us one specific example and the relevant section of the paper.


Trust me, if he/ she got anywhere near an actual plasma physicist, he/ she would sh*t him/ herself! It is all learned by rote from Dunderdolts.misinfo.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2016
@eu-cult TROLL
1- You clearly have no understanding of real plasma physics, if you did it you would be linking validated peer reviewed studies from reputable journals

2- repeating your cult mantra doesn't make it factual

3- just because you can post to a science news aggregate doesn't mean what you have to say is science

4- typically, in discourse that is scientific, when someone makes a claim like "the linked tripe is laced up and down with pseudoscientific principles" then it should be followed by some evidenciary refute or falsification of said paper being maligned. there isn't a random word salad argument from cult pseudoscience and a vague reference to a long dead scientist that would likely kick you in the nuts simply for maligning his reputation attaching it to blatant pseudoscience

it's simple: no evidence + claims = bullsh*t pseudoscience lie that is cult propaganda

reputable links/ref's or STFU
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2016
You are a full blown idiot, Benni. :) That's ok, with so much of your brains missing.
......but I can solve Differential Equations & you can't,



Yes, but can you do them better than this f***wit?
http://rationalwi...Crothers

Please don't make us all laugh, and tell us that this is who you are a fanboy of! That would be bloody hilarious.

He makes this empty claim when he is desperate for attention.
Phys1
Dec 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2016
Moderator, you forgot to remove the nonsense posts that my post was aimed at.
Let me report is once more. :)

Could you please clean up another appalling mess as well?
You let things get really out of hand here:
http://phys.org/n...hat.html

Why don't you use the more powerful tool of the IP ban?
In that way you remove all sockpuppets in one go.
Efficient moderation could greatly improve this comment section.

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.