Astronomers detect 'whirlpool' movement in earliest galaxies

January 10, 2018, University of Cambridge
Artist's impression of spinning galaxies. Credit: Amanda Smith, University of Cambridge

Astronomers have looked back to a time soon after the Big Bang, and have discovered swirling gas in some of the earliest galaxies to have formed in the Universe. These 'newborns' - observed as they appeared nearly 13 billion years ago - spun like a whirlpool, similar to our own Milky Way. This is the first time that it has been possible to detect movement in galaxies at such an early point in the Universe's history.

An international team led by Dr Renske Smit from the Kavli Institute of Cosmology at the University of Cambridge used the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile to open a new window onto the distant Universe, and have for the first time been able to identify normal star-forming at a very early stage in cosmic history with this telescope. The results are reported in the journal Nature, and will be presented at the 231st meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Light from distant objects takes time to reach Earth, so observing objects that are billions of light years away enables us to look back in time and directly observe the formation of the earliest galaxies. The Universe at that time, however, was filled with an obscuring 'haze' of , which makes it difficult to see the formation of the very first galaxies with optical telescopes.

Smit and her colleagues used ALMA to observe two small newborn galaxies, as they existed just 800 million years after the Big Bang. By analysing the spectral 'fingerprint' of the far-infrared light collected by ALMA, they were able to establish the distance to the galaxies and, for the first time, see the internal motion of the gas that fuelled their growth.

Video simulation of rotating disc. Credit: R. Crain (LJMU) and J. Geach (U.Herts)

"Until ALMA, we've never been able to see the formation of galaxies in such detail, and we've never been able to measure the movement of gas in galaxies so early in the Universe's history," said co-author Dr Stefano Carniani, from Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory and Kavli Institute of Cosmology.

The researchers found that the gas in these newborn galaxies swirled and rotated in a whirlpool motion, similar to our own galaxy and other, more mature galaxies much later in the Universe's history. Despite their relatively small size - about five times smaller than the Milky Way - these galaxies were forming stars at a higher rate than other young galaxies, but the researchers were surprised to discover that the galaxies were not as chaotic as expected.

"In the early Universe, gravity caused gas to flow rapidly into the galaxies, stirring them up and forming lots of new stars - violent supernova explosions from these stars also made the gas turbulent," said Smit, who is a Rubicon Fellow at Cambridge, sponsored by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. "We expected that young galaxies would be dynamically 'messy', due to the havoc caused by exploding young stars, but these mini-galaxies show the ability to retain order and appear well regulated. Despite their small size, they are already rapidly growing to become one of the 'adult' galaxies like we live in today."

The data from this project on paves the way for larger studies of galaxies during the first billion years of cosmic time. The research was funded in part by the European Research Council and the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).

Explore further: Image: Hubble's compact galaxy with big-time star formation

More information: Renske Smit et al, Rotation in [C ii]-emitting gas in two galaxies at a redshift of 6.8, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/nature24631

Related Stories

Image: Hubble's compact galaxy with big-time star formation

October 16, 2017

As far as galaxies are concerned, size can be deceptive. Some of the largest galaxies in the Universe are dormant, while some dwarf galaxies, such as ESO 553-46 imaged here by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, can produce ...

Explosive birth of stars swells galactic cores

September 10, 2017

Astronomers found that active star formation upswells galaxies, like yeast helps bread rise. Using three powerful telescopes on the ground and in orbit, they observed galaxies from 11 billion years ago and found explosive ...

Recommended for you

Astronomers witness galaxy megamerger

April 25, 2018

Peering deep into space—an astounding 90 percent of the way across the observable universe—astronomers have witnessed the beginnings of a gargantuan cosmic pileup, the impending collision of 14 young, starbursting galaxies.

Powerful flare detected on an M-dwarf star

April 25, 2018

An international team of astronomers reports the finding of ASASSN-18di—a powerful white-light superflare on a previously undetected, mid-type M-dwarf star. The discovery is detailed in a paper published April 12 on the ...

13 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wduckss
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2018
"In the early Universe, gravity caused gas to flow rapidly into the galaxies, stirring them up and forming lots of new stars," from article

Do authors distinguish the galaxies (a set of stars) and the nebula (set of gas)? Obviously not.
If the oldest galaxies (over 13 b ly) have the highest rate (redshift) how can simultaneously apply Hubble constant (for distance) and Bing Bang (past or old age)? (GN-z11 ≈13.4 b ly; 11.09; +0.08; -0.12 redshift (z); speed 295.050 ± 119.917 km / s. Z8 GND 5296, 13.10 b ly; 7.51 (z); spead 291.622 ± 120 km / s, M58, 62 Mly (68) 0.00506, spead 1517 ± 1 km / s, etc. table in "Where did the blue spectral shift within the universe come from?" http: //www.svemir- ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#4b)
FredJose
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2018
these galaxies were forming stars at a higher rate than other young galaxies

Well, maybe, maybe not.
The real question to ask is where did the first stars in the galaxy come from?

And of course the reason I ask that is simple: From what we know today, it's impossible for stars to "form" all by themselves from clouds of gas without any outside help and miraculous bending of physical laws. So just how did those stars get born, all by themselves? Where is the actual rational, fully coherent and scientifically acceptable explanation for that?

Right now, it just doesn't exist.

hence any storytelling regarding "star formation" is to be taken with truck-loads of salt.
cortezz
5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2018
The real question to ask is where did the first stars in the galaxy come from?


Google can answer that for you. From the first link in google "Irregularities in the density of the gas causes a net gravitational force that pulls the gas molecules closer together."

Maybe next time you google first when making arguments that something does not exist.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Jan 11, 2018
From what we know today, it's impossible for stars to "form" all by themselves from clouds of gas


Erm...that's from all YOU know. And you don't know diddly squat.

Everyone else knows that this is perfectly well possible.
Books are your friend. Try reading some. It'll expand your mind to no end. (And it will prevent you from hoisting that neon sign over your head that reads: "uneducated and proud of it" every time you post)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2018
Everyone else knows that this is perfectly well possible.
Books are your friend. Try reading some. It'll expand your mind to no end. (And it will prevent you from hoisting that neon sign over your head that reads: "uneducated and proud of it" every time you post)

So now books are all the "proof" that is needed to confirm the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses. Who needs experimental confirmation?
cortezz
5 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2018
So now books are all the "proof" that is needed to confirm the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses. Who needs experimental confirmation?

How do you experimentally create a star?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2018
How do you experimentally create a star?

Well, you can't if you rely on the standard theory. It is what is so convenient about the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses is that very few of their claims are falsifiable.
However, here is one possible way to create a star in the lab;
http://www.safireproject.com
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2018
How do you experimentally create a star?

Well, you can't if you rely on the standard theory. It is what is so convenient about the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses is that very few of their claims are falsifiable.
However, here is one possible way to create a star in the lab;
http://www.safireproject.com


Lol. Talk about amateurs! From the 'questions' page:
"Are nuclear reactions on the sun a cause or consequence of the sun shining?"

On the Sun? Try 'inside' the Sun. If it were happening on the surface we'd see the gamma rays from the reactions. And we'd all likely be fried. Probably wouldn't even have evolved. So the answer to the question is - they are the cause. Obviously.
http://www.safireproject.com/science/questions.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2018
How do you experimentally create a star?

Well, you can't if you rely on the standard theory. It is what is so convenient about the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses is that very few of their claims are falsifiable.
However, here is one possible way to create a star in the lab;
http://www.safireproject.com

Is that one of those "metal ball in a vacuum" setups CR was always talking about...?
cortezz
5 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2018
How do you experimentally create a star?

Well, you can't if you rely on the standard theory. It is what is so convenient about the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses is that very few of their claims are falsifiable.
However, here is one possible way to create a star in the lab;
http://www.safireproject.com

So your theory requires a metallic ball and a lot of electricity to born a star. Somehow I think that is not found in space. Im more confident with the theory that gas eventually builds up to thicker clumps which can grow even bigger. However, testing that will be difficult.
jljenkins
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2018
Don't feed the oxygen thieves. Do you realize what kind of joke you're "debating" with? https://www.mywot...phys.org

Think for a second just what a complete mental case cum retardation you'd have to be to be one of those Thunderbutts. Think how pitiful their lives are that a belief in the most implausible pseudoscience is the only thing that gives their existence meaning. That approval from con men is the only approval they will ever get. And you expect them to give up that defense mechanism, and somehow grow some grey matter because...you made such a persuasive argument over the internet. That's just about as crazy!

Electricity has been tempting the logic challenged since the day it was discovered. We've gone backwards. Serious scientists in the 19th century would.not.speak to someone that stupid. Do you ignore street beggars? What's the diff here?

Not that the article is about that. Moderator! As the review says, a joke on here.
jljenkins
4 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2018
Back on the subject...

This is an important observation because it adds to growing evidence that massive BHs at the center of galaxies didn't have to, and maybe never did, come from stars. Straight gas to BH pathway. https://arstechni...thought/

Now wasn't it nice to read that without having the town drunks singing at the bottom?
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 12, 2018
Back on the subject...

This is an important observation because it adds to growing evidence that massive BHs at the center of galaxies didn't have to, and maybe never did, come from stars. Straight gas to BH pathway. https://arstechni...thought/

Ok. That was an interesting article, even if a little short on the gas to BH mechanism. I somehow think that forming of a star (and the resultant destruction of it via massive fission, fusion interactions and gravity) is integral to the compaction process that go into forming a BH ...
(which I would prefer to call a gravity hole)

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.