Astronomers investigate a mysterious isolated star cluster complex

March 20, 2017 by Tomasz Nowakowski report
A Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image of NGC 1316. Credit: NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

(Phys.org)—Astronomers have inspected a mysterious isolated star cluster complex designated SH2 in the galaxy NGC 1316 (also known as Fornax A). The results of their study, which were published Mar. 1 in a paper on arXiv.org, reveal important insights into the nature of this complex, providing crucial information about its origin.

Located some 62 million years away in the constellation Fornax, NGC 1316 is one of the brightest radio sources in the sky, classified as a lenticular radio galaxy. While the galaxy is dominated by old and intermediate-age stars, it shows signs of previous galaxy interactions. However, the only indicator of current in this galaxy is the HII region SH2.

This peculiar isolated star cluster complex is located in the southern outskirts of NGC 1316. With a ring-like morphology and an estimated age of about 100 million years, SH2 contains approximately 100 young star clusters. Although this complex has been the subject of few studies in the past, its origin still remains a mystery.

In order to reveal more details of this interesting region of NGC 1316, a team of astronomers led by Tom Richtler of the University of Concepcion in Chile observed it in October 2012. The observations were carried out with the Visible MultiObject Spectrograph (VIMOS) mounted on the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile. The researchers used VIMOS to study SH2's morphology, kinematics, and metallicity employing line maps, velocity maps, and line diagnostics of a few characteristic spectra.

"We used the Integral Field Unit of the VIMOS instrument, where each pixel of the field corresponds to a spectrum rather than to only one intensity value as in normal imaging. Therefore, this kind of instrument provides a very efficient way of gathering astrophysical information," Richtler told Phys.org.

The team conducted these observations with the main aim of testing the hypothesis of SH2 being an infalling dwarf galaxy. Richtler noted that this assumption is quite reasonable, given the shells and ripples in NGC 1316, witnessing other infalling dwarf . Moreover, SH2 has the typical size of a dwarf galaxy.

"Star formation would then be initiated by the shock in the gas of the precursor of SH2. This is a phenomenon that we see quite frequently in other dwarf galaxies that accompany bigger galaxies," Richtler added.

However, the strong-line diagnostic diagrams and empirical calibrations described in the paper show a high metallicity of SH2, which does not confirm this theory. The results rather favor a scenario in which a molecular cloud complex (which could form during a merger about 2 billion years ago) started a star-forming process approximately 100 million years ago.

"The metal content must be low, as invariably found for . Therefore, SH2 is not an infalling dwarf galaxy, but has formed within a big gas cloud which had its origin in some galaxy interactions more than 1 billion years ago. SH2 is an example of how the still enigmatic globular cluster formation might have happened in the past," Richtler concluded.

The researchers plan further observations of SH2 using VLT's other Integral Field Units, which could reveal more insights into the nature of this region. In particular, they want to know how a big molecular cloud complex could survive for 1 billion to 2 billion years without star formation, and why it has a ring-like morphology. The team will also investigate why the star formation process was so efficient in producing bound massive star clusters and not field stars.

Explore further: First ultra-compact dwarf galaxy in the group NGC 5044 found

More information: The globular cluster system of NGC 1316 IV. Nature of the star cluster complex SH2, arXiv:1703.00313 [astro-ph.GA], arxiv.org/abs/1703.00313

Related Stories

First ultra-compact dwarf galaxy in the group NGC 5044 found

February 27, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of astronomers led by Favio Faifer of the National University of La Plata, Argentina, has discovered the first ultra-compact dwarf (UCD) galaxy in an X-ray bright galaxy group designated NGC 5044. The ...

New dwarf satellite galaxy of Messier 83 found

December 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—Astronomers have found a new dwarf satellite of Messier 83 (M83, also known as the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy) located some 85,000 light years from its host. This satellite galaxy was designated dw1335-29 and could ...

Image: Hubble uncovers a mysterious dwarf galaxy

June 13, 2016

The drizzle of stars scattered across this image forms a galaxy known as UGC 4879. UGC 4879 is an irregular dwarf galaxy—as the name suggests, galaxies of this type are a little smaller and messier than their cosmic cousins, ...

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 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 ...

Recommended for you

Astronomers study a rare multi-eclipsing quintet of stars

March 23, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of astronomers led by Krzysztof Hełminiak of the Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center in Toruń, Poland, has investigated an interesting bright quintuple stellar system in which each of the stars is ...

Giant magnetic fields in the universe

March 22, 2017

Astronomers from Bonn and Tautenburg in Thuringia (Germany) used the 100-m radio telescope at Effelsberg to observe several galaxy clusters. At the edges of these large accumulations of dark matter, stellar systems (galaxies), ...

26 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2017
they want to know how a big molecular cloud complex could survive for 1 billion to 2 billion years without star formation, and why it has a ring-like morphology.

Because it did not survive so long from a gas cloud, and instead grew from within naturally with new matter generated therein being largely ejected therefrom. Once again, the obvious explanation is ignored by the merger maniac community. Merger mania is rampant. This must be embarrassing for maniacs.
691Boat
5 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2017
Because it did not survive so long from a gas cloud, and instead grew from within naturally with new matter generated therein being largely ejected therefrom.

What is the source of the new matter being generated? Conversion of nothing into matter?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2017
Because it did not survive so long from a gas cloud, and instead grew from within naturally with new matter generated therein being largely ejected therefrom.

What is the source of the new matter being generated? Conversion of nothing into matter?

Yep. Give it up. It is beyond your intellectual insight.
691Boat
5 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2017
Yep. Give it up. It is beyond your intellectual insight.

You don't know me or my intellectual abilities. I will fully admit when I don't know something, which is why I asked the question. To my knowledge, creation of matter from nothing is impossible. What is the mechanism? You post that you obviously know the answer, so why not share?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2017
You don't know me or my intellectual abilities. I will fully admit when I don't know something, which is why I asked the question. To my knowledge, creation of matter from nothing is impossible. What is the mechanism? You post that you obviously know the answer, so why not share?

@Boat, you must be new here. I am not popular with the maniacs. They would say I share too much too often. So check my post history if truly interested. Matter is generated in supermassive cores mostly, AGN's, etc., and ejected therefrom, as well as very slowly in intergalactic space. LaViolette's model is proving more and more accurate with each new confounding observation. It's just rather inconvenient for the math fairies, who don't quite grasp the implications of control systems theory projected into physics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2017
@tux
I am not popular with the maniacs
not true - you're not popular with anyone, especially anyone who requires evidence, logic, science or reality
They would say I share too much too often
you dont' share any science - ever!
like the next thing you post
So check my post history
you make the claim, so you provide the evidence
the biggest problem you will have is that you're argument is not only directly violating the known laws of physics, it is also unsubstantiated by any evidence, let alone any validation

worse still, you're advocating for a debunked model because you believe it to be factual... not because there is evidence, nor anything scientific

that is why you're not popular

pseudoscience and faith, or belief without evidence, are not the same thing as science or facts
691Boat
5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2017
Let me sum up all the other threads you post in:
"maniacs are wrong! LaViolette is right!"
That is seriously all I have seen, with absolutely no backing data or information. In a single paragraph, give a quick explanation of how matter is formed from nothing. That's all I want to know. I am truly interested!
Thanks!
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2017
Truly interested. I doubt that. Why should you be different??

http://starburstf...lations/

Because I have taken the time to understand the significance and theory behind these simulations, and because I have an appreciation of system dynamics from working defense aerospace control systems for more than 15 years. And because I know from experience that few have this appreciation, working apart in other fields. Controls is a specialty. Without a working background in this area, the implications are unlikely to be appreciated.

And because I have made predictions that consistently fit new observations.

Physicists certainly don't get it. I debated with a number of them from aerospace and still active cosmology. They like math, not really trusting logic. At least, that is my experience.

So if you are truly interested, you have some study ahead. At least then, you won't fall into the category of the common dismissive merger maniac, so prevalent on this board. Cheers.
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2017
So the basis is that your matter is being formed from zero-point-energy? zero-point-energy of what? If, as you claim, it is coming from the cores of these dense objects where gravity still applies, and matter does exist, you are saying that matter is being made from matter in a zero-point-energy state but not changing or destroying the original matter while making new matter?
Where's conservation of anything apply in there? Or is there a caveat that conservation doesn't apply in LaViolette's model?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2017
Or is there a caveat that conservation doesn't apply in LaViolette's model?

Conservation applies, but the system is simply larger than that which can ever be observed by the necessarily larger observable quantum objects of our realm. The smaller objects exist and react amongst themselves to produce a particle of observable matter propagating in a self-sustaining way through the underlying unobservables, but can never be observed by our larger structures. The unobservables then are the ether, which is such an unpopular concept. So the whole approach is dismissed.

When the conditions are ripe, such as inside stellar cores, a new reaction often occurs. The fire is lit and the reaction races about our realm as observable matter.
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2017
thanks for the reply. Since you brought it up, does the LaViolette model have any evidence/proof/theory to properly describe the ether?
Is the newly created observable matter propagating through the unobservable ether actually observable and measurable? Or is it "hidden" in some way?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2017
Since you brought it up, does the LaViolette model have any evidence/proof/theory to properly describe the ether?
Is the newly created observable matter propagating through the unobservable ether actually observable and measurable? Or is it "hidden" in some way?

The newly created matter is what we are all made of. A particle is not actually solid, but is a propagating transmutation reaction of underlying smaller somethings, that can never be directly observed, only inferred. This implies that the density of this underlying diffusive elementals is incredible, and light is like sound propagating through air, only it is a propagating reaction. There would be a natural speed limit based on the density of the elementals. And time appears to slow at speed, with the transmutation bandwidth dominated more and more simply with the propagation of the reaction itself, with less bandwidth left over for internal changes to the reaction itself, which we observe as time.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2017
@tux says
...a propagating transmutation reaction of underlying smaller somethings, that can never be directly observed, only inferred
But they can be found at the bottom of his garden...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2017
@tux says
...a propagating transmutation reaction of underlying smaller somethings, that can never be directly observed, only inferred
But they can be found at the bottom of his garden...
In the wabe, no doubt. Just next to the sundial.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2017
Just had to go look LaViolette up.

Warning, woo! Woo woo! Subquantum kinetics, UFOs, a replacement for the "deeply flawed" theory of relativity, not to even mention ancient astronauts and lots more amusement. Erich von Daniken meets Emmanuel Velikovsky.

http://etheric.co...tte-bio/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2017
They would say I share too much too often.

I dunno - to my knowledge you have never shared one of your 'insights'. And I've been here a good while. And certainly not for the lack of being asked about it.

So how about it? We would really like to learn about this theory of matter from nothing. I'm certain you can also outline an experiment where we can create some of our own? Is a vacuum sufficient? Do we need other environmental controls?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2017
Hi antialias, 691Boat, et al. :)

As I have often reminded all posters professing to be scientists/logical/fairminded, we should avoid double-standard type counter-arguments/attacks when challenging Tuxford's perspective re matter generation from "sub-quantum" scale etc.

In short, first ensure you have a tenable scientific/logical argument for claim by Big Bang Hypotheses proponents that the Universe "came from nothing" or from an "unobservable/undefined prior state" etc etc.

See the point? If you want to challenge Tuxford's perspective/claim, then FIRST ENSURE your OWN perspectives/claims are AT LEAST as good or better than his, hey? Otherwise you are using double-standards....an improper/unscientific thing to do in any fair discussion/arguments.

If you can provide Tuxford with YOUR 'science/logics' for Big Bang claims (ie, something from nothing etc), then all readers can COMPARE the science/logic behind said claims...and see which is equally/more tenable! Fair? :)
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2017
Hey RC, eat a dick. All I did was ask for explanations regarding Tuxford's comments, and had multiple follow up clarification questions, which he politely answered, and I subsequently thanked him for. I never came in claiming anything, so get off your high horse and actually do something to add something useful to discussions sometime.
If you have a problem with me gaining insights to a theory someone else believes by asking questions, you fail.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) 23 hours ago
just a little thought experiment...
Do we still observe matter if it exceeds the speed of light by one km per hour away from us?
Or do we have to wait 2 hours to catch up to it to see it?
Wouldn't that mean time is relative vectorable aspect of our relative velocity?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) 20 hours ago
Hi 691Boat. :)
Hey RC, eat a dick. All I did was ask for explanations regarding Tuxford's comments, and had multiple follow up clarification questions, which he politely answered, and I subsequently thanked him for. I never came in claiming anything, so get off your high horse and actually do something to add something useful to discussions sometime.
If you have a problem with me gaining insights to a theory someone else believes by asking questions, you fail.
My sincere apologies, mate! I 'appended' the "691Boat et al" to the address as a 'courtesy'; the intended main poster (which the "reminder" was targeted to) being "Da Schneib". I should have made that distinction clearer! My mistake. Yes, I saw you were asking polite and relevant questions of Tuxford; I should have just addressed my 'reminder' to "Da Schneib et al" and not included you at all. Sorry for any unintended offense, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) 19 hours ago
PS @ 691Boat: Actually I should just have named antialias and Da Schneib, since they were the insulting/deriding posters making fun of Tuxford and dismissing his argument/claim while not themselves having any better argument/claim for the Big Bang 'energy-matter 'creation from nothing' hypotheses. I was attempting to (again) get them and Tuxford 'onto the the same page' regarding ANY and ALL proposed 'something from nothing' perspectives, no matter whence the perspectives came or how 'old' they are. Then maybe they wouldn't keep making snarky remarks about each other because BOTH 'sides' need to explain their own 'something from nothing' perspectives (ie, Big Bang versus LaVoilette or other similar claims). Cheers. :)
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (4) 18 hours ago
I should just have named antialias and Da Schneib, since they were the insulting/deriding posters making fun of Tuxford and dismissing his argument/claim while not themselves having any better argument/claim for the Big Bang 'energy-matter 'creation from nothing' hypotheses
Tuxford needs to be derided - not for having different ideas, or even the courage for having them, but for the simple reason that his and LaViolette's ideas and theories are completely untenable, and are backed up by not a single shred of evidence.

The Big Bang and DM hypotheses, on the other hand, while admittedly not sitting comfortably in every researchers' toolbox, nonetheless are based on a large body of evidence which suggests that, in the absence of any other model which fits the observations, they're the best hypotheses we have at the moment.

BB+DM: hypotheses based on evidence, considered reasoning, standard physics + math.

Tux+LV+RC: theories based on say-so + hot air.

Take your pick.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) 15 hours ago
Frankly most of the EU woo reads like something out of 1940s and 1950s pulp science fiction, which is not surprising considering its original source is Velikovsky. I'm reading a collection of E. E. Smith's works, just about the middle of "Skylark of Space," and the similarity is pretty eerie, actually. Edward Elmer hadn't studied enough physics before writing it to understand why he was making serious technical errors. Still pretty good stories taken at face value though.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (1) 15 hours ago
Tried a year or so to get hold of some of the Lensman series for the Kindle, but nothing seemed to be available. Now got hold of the first two, which I'll tackle after finishing Robinson's Red Mars.

Curious that Red Mars is also a bit thin on tech details (how on Earth/Mars do those land vehicles drive thousands of km without refuelling, etc.) and heavier on interpersonal/interplanetary politics, where it seems that Weir's The Martian seems to go the other way in attempting to redress the balance by giving perhaps too many details of the tech aspects.

Whatever: as you say, they're stories and are not meant to be taken as exercises in scientific accuracy. Pity some of the regulars on this forum are not aware of the difference...
jonesdave
not rated yet 14 hours ago
^^^^Yes, I mostly enjoyed Robinson's trilogy, but, like you say, he does get heavily into the politics/ personal stuff. This is the same in all of his work. Weir's book was excellent on the science, apart from the most telling aspect; the wind strength on Mars wouldn't have ripped out the antenna that skewered him!
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (2) 13 hours ago
the wind strength on Mars wouldn't have ripped out the antenna that skewered him
Wind be damned, the EU would say: look out for those electric forces, 10 to the zillion times stronger than... well, anything else you can think of. Like a dimwitted game of trumps, which brings us to...

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.