Magellanic clouds duo may have been a trio

September 18, 2018, International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR)
The Large Magellanic Cloud photographed using a small telephoto lens and a modified DSLR camera to highlight the molecular clouds. Credit: Andrew Lockwood

Two of the closest galaxies to the Milky Way—the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds—may have had a third companion, astronomers believe.

Research published today describes how another "luminous" galaxy was likely engulfed by the Large Magellanic Cloud some three to five billion years ago.

ICRAR Masters student Benjamin Armstrong, the lead author on the study, said most stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud rotate clockwise around the centre of the galaxy.

But, unusually, some stars rotate anti-clockwise.

"For a while, it was thought that these stars might have come from its companion galaxy, the Small Magellanic Cloud," Mr Armstrong said.

"Our idea was that these stars might have come from a merger with another galaxy in the past."

Mr Armstrong, who is based at The University of Western Australia, used computer modelling to simulate galaxy mergers.

"What we found is that in this sort of merging event, you actually can get quite strong counter-rotation after a merger takes place," he said.

"This is consistent with what we see when we actually observe the ."

The Magellanic Clouds can be seen in the night sky with the naked eye and have been observed by ancient cultures for thousands of years.

The Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Credit: Andrew Lockwood

The Large Magellanic Cloud is a relatively small 160,000 light years away from us, while the Small Magellanic Cloud is around 200,000 light years away.

Mr Armstrong said the finding could help to explain a problem that has perplexed astronomers for years—why stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud are generally either very old or very young.

"In galaxies, there are these large objects called star clusters," he said.

"Star clusters contain many, many, many stars that are all of quite similar ages and made in similar environments.

"In the Milky Way, the star clusters are all very old.

"But in the Large Magellanic Cloud, we have very old clusters as well as ones that are very young—but nothing in between."

This is known as the 'age-gap' problem, Mr Armstrong said.

An inverse luminance image of the large and small clouds, effectively two hours of exposure using a tracked DSLR and 50mm lens showing tidal shells around the LMC, a bridge of stars linking the two and galactic cirrus in the foreground. Credit: Andrew Lockwood
"Because in the Large Magellanic Cloud we see star formation starting again, that could be indicative of a galaxy taking place," he said.

Mr Armstrong said the finding could also help explain why the Large Magellanic Cloud appears to have a thick disk.

"Our work is still very preliminary but it does suggest that this sort of process could have been responsible for the thicker disk in the past," he said.

Mr Armstrong said the research was about asking pertinent questions that astronomers could start examining.

"It's about creating a new idea, a new way of looking at an old problem," he said.

Explore further: Telescope maps cosmic rays in Magellanic clouds

More information: B Armstrong et al. Formation of a counter-rotating stellar population in the Large Magellanic Cloud: a Magellanic triplet system?, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly143

Related Stories

Telescope maps cosmic rays in Magellanic clouds

September 4, 2018

A radio telescope in outback Western Australia has been used to observe radiation from cosmic rays in two neighbouring galaxies, showing areas of star formation and echoes of past supernovae.

Image: Rotation of the Large Magellanic Cloud

April 30, 2018

Last week the much-awaited second slew of data from ESA's Gaia mission was released, providing information on a phenomenal 1.7 billion stars – the richest star catalogue to date.

Pairs of small colliding galaxies may seed future stars

August 9, 2018

A pair of dwarf galaxies closely circling the Milky Way, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, were in the throes of merging into one when they fell into our galaxy. The duo is thought to hold enough gas to replenish half ...

VISTA peeks through the Small Magellanic Cloud's dusty veil

May 3, 2017

VISTA's infrared capabilities have now allowed astronomers to see the myriad of stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud galaxy much more clearly than ever before. The result is this record-breaking image—the biggest infrared ...

Recommended for you

Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets

October 18, 2018

The word "HAZMAT" describes substances that pose a risk to the environment, or even to life itself. Imagine the term being applied to entire planets, where violent flares from the host star may make worlds uninhabitable by ...

Blazar's brightness cycle confirmed by NASA's Fermi mission

October 18, 2018

A two-year cycle in the gamma-ray brightness of a blazar, a galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, has been confirmed by 10 years of observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The findings were announced ...

Astronomers catch red dwarf star in a superflare outburst

October 18, 2018

New observations by two Arizona State University astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have caught a red dwarf star in a violent outburst, or superflare. The blast of radiation was more powerful than any such outburst ...

38 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2018
But, unusually, some stars rotate anti-clockwise.


The counter rotation of stars is a prediction of the assumption that Birkeland currents are powering galaxies.

https://youtu.be/N1P_vSCYG-A
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2018
But, unusually, some stars rotate anti-clockwise.


The counter rotation of stars is a prediction of the assumption that Birkeland currents are powering galaxies.

https://youtu.be/N1P_vSCYG-A


For which there is zero evidence, nor even a valid mechanism. It is pure woo.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
There is a hypothesis, a model, a maths derivation, and an observational confirmation. This is exactly how science works. And no faerie dust is required such as the standard model.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
There is a hypothesis, a model, a maths derivation, and an observational confirmation. This is exactly how science works. And no faerie dust is required such as the standard model.


Really, and where is that? There is zero observation of the required currents, zero mechanism for their e.m.f, and I have seen no maths to describe how stars are being moved by these non-existent currents.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
There is zero observation of the required currents

jonesdumb has denied this observational support before by essentially saying, nuh uh!

https://phys.org/...nic.html

The Magellanic stream connects these galaxies to the MW, it's observational confirmation of the required currents. jonesdumb will predictably respond by saying nub uh, but that is merely his wilful ignorance speaking.

zero mechanism for their e.m.f,

The creation of the emf by Birkeland currents has been repeatedly confirmed in the lab, and confirmed by measurements of Earth's Birkeland currents.
https://link.spri...7819-5_2

Hand wavy denials are the tools of the willfully ignorant. jonesdumb is the poster boy.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
Jonesdumb has denied this observational support before by essentially saying, nuh uh!

https://phys.org/...nic.html


And what has that got to do with anything? It ani't a current, and nobody is claiming that it is. Unless they're stupid.

The Magellanic stream connects these galaxies to the MW, it's observational confirmation of the required currents. jonesdumb will predictably respond by saying nub uh, but that is merely his wilful ignorance speaking.


Nobody is saying that the Magellanic stream is a current. Other than unqualified idiots.

The creation of the emf by Birkeland currents has been repeatedly confirmed in the lab, and confirmed by measurements of Earth's Birkeland currents.


I don't care what happens in a lab. What is creating these invisible, non-existent currents between galaxies?

So, that was your observational and mathematical proof, was it? No currents, no maths. Try to do better. Stick to Velikovsky.

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
I don't care what happens in a lab.

I know you don't, the entire edifice of your religion is based upon maths fantasy. What was said about the greatest pseudoscientist of all-time?
"Einstein was quite simply contemptuous of experiment, preferring to put his faith in pure thought." Paul Davies
What did one of the greatest scientists of all-time once say?
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén
That is a fundamental difference between you and I. You are fine with denying direct experimental laboratory and in situ evidence in favor of your hypothetical beliefs because you have been convinced by the plasma ignoramuses that astrophysical plasma behaves differently "over there". I, on the other hand, agree with Alfvén. As has been shown since the first rockets sent into space, space is nothing like the pre-space-age beliefs of an inert vacuum.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
^^^^^^Yada, yada, yada. No amount of experimenting is going to make an e.m.f. suddenly appear in the cosmos, No amount of experimenting is going to make these non-existent, undetectable currents suddenly leap into view. No amount of experiment is going to overturn the fact that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion.
And I think you'll also find that although Alfven preferred experiment to theory, his view was that observation trumped both. And you have none.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén


Well, unfortunately for him, he died just as the MRx experiments were starting up at Princeton, so he missed out on seeing himself proved wrong. As he would later be by in-situ observations. Which were his gold standard.

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2018
No amount of experimenting is going to make an e.m.f. suddenly appear in the cosmos

That high school diploma you claimed to have earned doesn't do you much good. From the first sentence of link;
"An electromotive force ϕ = ∫ v × B⋅ dl giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic field lines exist (Sect. 3.5.2)."

This statement is experimentally confirmed, observationally confirmed, maths confirmed, and applied daily by the modern society in which we reside. As mentioned above, it is you who are denying direct evidence in favor of your hypothetical beliefs.
As shown in the phy.org article I linked above, the large scale magnetic fields are highly ordered yet there are areas of highly turbulent plasma. These areas create the emf, Birkeland currents then carry the energy across the Cosmo, as the theory suggests. Plasma behaves like plasma.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2018
Well, unfortunately for him, he died just as the MRx experiments were starting up at Princeton, so he missed out on seeing himself proved wrong. As he would later be by in-situ observations.

Evidence please, or is this another of your hand wavy claims. What was "proved wrong"?
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2018
Uhh, cant dear fellow. You really need to reconsider and rewrite your last comment. You seem to be accepting jd's arguments as somehow being negative proof that your arguments are accurately wrong?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2018
No amount of experimenting is going to make an e.m.f. suddenly appear in the cosmos


As shown in the phy.org article I linked above, the large scale magnetic fields are highly ordered yet there are areas of highly turbulent plasma. These areas create the emf, Birkeland currents then carry the energy across the Cosmo, as the theory suggests. Plasma behaves like plasma.


Wrong. If there were Birkeland currents connecting galaxies they would stick out like a sore thumb in COBE, WMAP and Planck maps. They are nowhere to be seen, nor is there any mechanism by which they can explain stellar orbits around the galactic centre. It is pure woo. Nobody takes this nonsense seriously.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
Well, unfortunately for him, he died just as the MRx experiments were starting up at Princeton, so he missed out on seeing himself proved wrong. As he would later be by in-situ observations.

Evidence please, or is this another of your hand wavy claims. What was "proved wrong"?


Alfven was about MRx.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
Hand wavy denials are the tools of the willfully ignorant. jonesdumb is the poster boy.


I don't need to hand wave anything, woo boy. Your nonsense is impossible and unevidenced. The whole of the relevant scientific community dismisses it. Those that have even heard of it, given that Peratt's piss poor model hasn't been touched in decades.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
If there were Birkeland currents connecting galaxies they would stick out like a sore thumb in COBE, WMAP and Planck maps.

It's already been explained to you multiple times, Verschuur has explained there is a local "fog" created by nearby electric currents. What you are thinking you are looking at in those maps is not what it really is. And as some ideas are not completely accurate you apply new knowledge, just as you claim is okay for the dirty snowball guess, to explain discrepancies. Peratt's galaxy evolution models replicate numerous specific aspects of galactic evolution. You don't cast it aside due to one failed prediction when there is an explanation provided by an expert in the relevant field.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2018
Alfven was about MRx.

Despite your hand wavy claims, the plasma ignoramuses at the pppl don't have it figured out by a long shot. Nor have they falsified anything Alfvén ever produced, ironically in spite that Alfvén did it of himself. LOL!
hat1208
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
@cantdrive85

There is a hypothesis, a model, a maths derivation, and an observational confirmation. This is exactly how science works. And no faerie dust is required such as the standard model.

Could you link the maths derivation please.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018
Alfven was about MRx.

Despite your hand wavy claims, the plasma ignoramuses at the pppl don't have it figured out by a long shot. Nor have they falsified anything Alfvén ever produced, ironically in spite that Alfvén did it of himself. LOL!


Wrong. And they are not hand wavy claims, liar. They are observed facts. Seen in the lab, and seen in-situ. Idiot. Alfven was wrong. End of story. Even Falthammar dumped Alfven's misconception.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018
Despite your hand wavy claims, the plasma ignoramuses at the pppl


So, every single plasma physicist that doesn'y believe in your woo, is an ignoramus? So, that would be all of them, yes? Please give us a list of living plasma physicists who aren't on your list. Preferably those involved with the idiotic EU non-science.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
They are observed facts. Seen in the lab, and seen in-situ.
You are so dumb you can't even grasp the difference between interpretation and fact, pathetic.
Even Falthammar dumped Alfven's misconception.
This is, of course, another outright lie. Falthammar went so far as to write a paper which elucidated Alfvén's point resort regarding moving and breaking field lines;
http://adsabs.har...88..169F
Just exactly what Alfvén warned against, which you still believe to be true.
So, every single plasma physicist that doesn'y believe in your woo, is an ignoramus?
You're ridiculous! Every plasma physicist who relies on pseudoscientific claptrap such as this quote from the pppl website;
"Magnetic reconnection takes place when magnetic lines of force—or field lines—break apart and reconnect with a violent burst of energy"
What they are doing is creating an electric discharge and they are trying to reinvent the wheel in their explanation. KISS
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
Complete and utter crap from somebody who hasn't a clue about plasma physics, and that goes for the rest of his idiotic cult.

You are so dumb you can't even grasp the difference between interpretation and fact, pathetic.


No interpretation, dummy. Observation. And nobody is disputing it.

This is, of course, another outright lie. Falthammar went so far as to write a paper which elucidated Alfvén's point resort regarding moving and breaking field lines


Lol. What an idiot! Did you read that paper, you stupid fraud? What are you trying to hide by only linking to the abstract? This?

In fact, the most interesting plasma physics occurs pre­cisely where and because this equation is not satisfied, such as the auroral acceleration region, ***magnetic field reconnection***........


Want some more from Falthammar on reconnection?

What they are doing is creating an electric discharge......


Wrong idiot. Show me who has published such crap.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
Link to the full Falthammar paper that cantthink didn't want you to see:

https://agupubs.o...EO150002

Where Falthammar adds;

Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics of auroras [Falthammar,2004], in ***magnetic field reconnection [Mozer,2005]***, in shocks [Mozer et al,2006],and in plasma turbulance and many wave modes.


That is why the lying, obfuscating crank didn't want to link the freely available paper!
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
You are a moron squared! Using the title MRx doesn't change a thing, Falthammar himself wrote an article about the misuse of the moving field line concept. If the plasma ignoramuses use those concepts they are practicing pseudoscience. Hence quoted statement from pppl states pseudoscience per Falthammar's paper. If these people can't figure out how to find the paper they would not be able to grasp these ideas anyway.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
What they are doing is creating an electric discharge......


Wrong idiot. Show me who has published such crap.

From the same publication from the pppl;

"With the click of a computer mouse, a scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory (PPPL) sends 10,000 volts of electricity into a chamber filled with hydrogen gas. The charge heats the gas to 100,000 degrees Centigrade. In an instant — onethousandth of a second, to be precise — a process called "magnetic reconnection" takes place."

LOL!
That is the definition of electric discharge.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
What they are doing is creating an electric discharge......


Wrong idiot. Show me who has published such crap.

From the same publication from the pppl;

"With the click of a computer mouse, a scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory (PPPL) sends 10,000 volts of electricity into a chamber filled with hydrogen gas. The charge heats the gas to 100,000 degrees Centigrade. In an instant — onethousandth of a second, to be precise — a process called "magnetic reconnection" takes place."

LOL!
That is the definition of electric discharge.


No it isn't and no scientist is saying that it is. Only ignorant loons like you. And you are an irrelevance.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
No it isn't and no scientist is saying that it is.

LOL, read it again moron;

"With the click of a computer mouse, a scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) sends 10,000 volts of electricity into a chamber filled with hydrogen gas. The charge heats the gas to 100,000 degrees Centigrade. In an instant — onethousandth of a second, to be precise..."

It couldn't be any more clear. That is an electric discharge!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
No it isn't and no scientist is saying that it is.

LOL, read it again moron;

"With the click of a computer mouse, a scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) sends 10,000 volts of electricity into a chamber filled with hydrogen gas. The charge heats the gas to 100,000 degrees Centigrade. In an instant — onethousandth of a second, to be precise..."

It couldn't be any more clear. That is an electric discharge!


No, it isn't. That is just you being thick. Show me in the scientific literature anybody suggesting that reconnection is an electric discharge, and I will show you a complete idiot.
You are as thick as the rest of the EU cretins when it comes to plasma physics, given that none of you loons have ever studied it, have you? Go play on you mythology forum, woo boy. Science is not for dummies who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, among other cretinous beliefs.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
Explain in simple terms (which is all you got) how this description is not an electric discharge process;
"a scientist sends 10,000 volts of electricity into a chamber filled with hydrogen gas. The charge heats the gas to 100,000 degrees Centigrade. In an instant — onethousandth of a second, to be precise..."

Explain how that statement between the quotes is not an electric discharge, in simple terms. Feel free to use your usual grunts and murmurs if it helps.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
Explain how that statement between the quotes is not an electric discharge, in simple terms. Feel free to use your usual grunts and murmurs if it helps.


How the hell do you think they turn H gas into H plasma, which can then reconnect? Seriously, do you need this explained? Idiot.

cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2018
How the hell do you think they turn H gas into H plasma,

Electric discharge, which goes to show they are running electric discharge experiments and trying to explain processes which have already been described by real scientists but in their own pseudoscientific claptrap.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
How the hell do you think they turn H gas into H plasma,

Electric discharge, which goes to show they are running electric discharge experiments and trying to explain processes which have already been described by real scientists but in their own pseudoscientific claptrap.


Christ you are thick. Just goes to show that you haven't a clue about laboratory plasmas either. The plasma is created in an existing magnetic field. The field is altered somehow, and reconnection happens. Just as seen in-situ. Not a single sane scientist thinks that the pppl experiments are electric discharges. Only a clueless blowhard like you. Stick to mythology.

Nice movie explaining it here, for those with the brains to understand it;

https://mrx.pppl.gov/
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
The field is altered somehow, and reconnection happens.

Magic then, huh jonesdumb?

The "somehow" is due to the electric discharge, it's how plasma transfers matter and energy.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
The field is altered somehow, and reconnection happens.

Magic then, huh jonesdumb?

The "somehow" is due to the electric discharge, it's how plasma transfers matter and energy.


Nope, he explained it briefly in the video. They alter it themselves. I'm sure you could email them for an explanation. Given that nobody is questioning that MR happens, then I rather think that you are wasting pixels.
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2018
They alter it themselves

Which doesn't change the fact this is an electric discharge phenomenon. Altering electric discharge experiments with magnetic fields has been going on for well over 100-years, stop pretending the plasma ignoramuses at pppl are doing something unique. They are only attempting to reinvent the wheel using pseudoscientific claptrap.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
They alter it themselves

Which doesn't change the fact this is an electric discharge phenomenon. Altering electric discharge experiments with magnetic fields has been going on for well over 100-years, stop pretending the plasma ignoramuses at pppl are doing something unique. They are only attempting to reinvent the wheel using pseudoscientific claptrap.


Wrong, and nobody agrees with you. Given that you are an unqualified nobody, and a Velikovskian cultist, your idiotic pronouncements are of no relevance, nor interest.
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2018
So you are unable to explain in simple terms how the phenomenon is not an electric discharge. So you jump to name calling and strawman arguments. You should send GED you claimed to have back to whatever educational institution made the mistake of giving it to you.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2018
So you are unable to explain in simple terms how the phenomenon is not an electric discharge. So you jump to name calling and strawman arguments. You should send GED you claimed to have back to whatever educational institution made the mistake of giving it to you.


I don't need to explain anything. Nobody is questioning that they are observing MR. Please show me a scientist who thinks otherwise.

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.