Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Astronomers Witness Whopper Galaxy Collision

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Aug 07, 2007 08:01 AM
from the wanna-buy-some-galaxy-front-real-estate dept.
Raver32 writes "A major cosmic pileup involving four large galaxies could give rise to one of the largest galaxies the universe has ever known, scientists say. Each of the four galaxies is at least the size of the Milky Way, and each is home to billions of stars. The galaxies will eventually merge into a single, colossal galaxy up to 10 times as massive as our own Milky Way. "When this merger is complete, this will be one of the biggest galaxies in the universe," said study team member Kenneth Rines of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The finding, to be detailed in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters, gives scientists their first real glimpse into a galaxy merger involving multiple big galaxies. "Most of the galaxy mergers we already knew about are like compact cars crashing together," Rines said. "What we have here is like four sand trucks smashing together, flinging sand everywhere.""
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Merger? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MECC (8478) * on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:03AM (#20140745)
    "When this merger is complete, this will be one of the biggest galaxies in the universe,"

    Kind of like if Walmart, Target, Sears, and the DoD merged?

    One wonders what the galactic lawyers will get out of this.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Kind of like if Walmart, Target, Sears, and the DoD merged?"


      Nope. Read again, more closely.

      Astronomers Witness Whopper Galaxy Collision

      The implication is that Burger King intends to merge with Dairy Queen and will be introducing its line of BK burgers at DQ. Honestly.
      • The implication is that Burger King intends to merge with Dairy Queen and will be introducing its line of BK burgers at DQ. Honestly.


        No, no. It's a merger of four giants! The implication is that Burger King, Subway, McDonald's and Taco Bell are all merging, and soon you'll be able to get McBurritos and Whopper subs on whole wheat.

    • "When this merger is complete, this will be one of the biggest galaxies in the universe"

      Or one of the nastier black holes, sort of like what happens with corporate mergers gone wrong, or the federal deficit, for that matter.

    • What I find most fascinating about this is that they have apparently found a way of knowing there won't be many bigger galaxies in the universe we aren't able to see.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Space is big. Really big. Really really fucking big.

        During the collision of the galaxies, it's unlikely that any of the suns will even hit each other. That's how freaking big space is.

        Consider that we are in a galaxy. Now consider our nearest star (other than the Sun) is so far away that it takes _years_ for light to reach us.

        If our galaxy collided with another galaxy (as it will - we are set to collide with the Andromeda galaxy), we probably wouldn't see much.
  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Funkcikle (630170) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:08AM (#20140795)
    So a galaxy is not like a series of tubes, it is like a truck? Fascinating insight there.
  • We need to stop galaxies from forming a monopoly on being the only galaxy in the universe now, while there's still time. If we sit back and let these galaxies continue merging, it will be too late!
  • 4 way stop? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SQLGuru (980662) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:10AM (#20140821)
    So, how long is this going to take? What happens when the black holes at the center of each one collide? And, if as we say yesterday, they are really worm holes, what will that imply? Will the wormholes be the 4-way stop of the galaxy?

    Layne
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What happens when the black holes at the center of each one collide?
      You get one big black hole and a bunch of gravitational radiation.
    • Re:4 way stop? (Score:5, Informative)

      by drooling-dog (189103) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @09:14AM (#20141545) Homepage

      What happens when the black holes at the center of each one collide?
      Glad you asked that question... Just read a couple of papers about that yesterday in the 29 June issue of Science. From one of the abstracts:
      It is normally assumed that after the merger of two massive galaxies, a SMBH [supermassive black hole] binary will form, shrink because of stellar gas dynamical processes, and ultimately coalesce by emitting a burst of gravitational waves... We report hydrodynamical simulations that track the formation of a SMBH binary down to scales of a few light years after the collision between two spiral galaxies. A massive, turbulant, nuclear gaseous disk arises as the a result of the galaxy merger. The black holes form an eccentric binary in the disk in less than 1 million years as a result of the gravitational drag from the gas rather than from the stars.
      - Meyer et.al., Rapid Formation of Supermassive Black Hole Binaries in Galaxy Mergers with Gas, Science 316,1874 (2007).
  • "Each of the four galaxies is at least the size of the Milky Way, and each is home to billions of stars. The galaxies will eventually merge into a single, colossal galaxy up to 10 times as massive as our own Milky Way."

    4 galaxies the size of the Milky way create something 10 times bigger? Either the galaxies are much larger than the Milky Way or the result is not 10 times bigger...maybe only 4 times bigger?
  • by sizzzzlerz (714878) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:19AM (#20140897)
    Its an four-way inter-galactic throw-down to determine the true Champion of the Universe!

    Four galaxies enter. One galaxy leaves.

  • by cosmocain (1060326) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:29AM (#20140997)
    ...the new-formed galaxy will be named:

    BEOWULF!
    • Yeah, but will it run Linux?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      New galaxy? Why do people keep acting like this is something new? It's unbelievably old and out of date, and I don't know how it got on a *news* site. If the light from this eveny is just getting to us, it happened millions of years ago. Oh, I know, the old excuse, "well, it's new to *this* light cone". Kinda like how that '86 Chevy is a "new car" ... to me.
  • by kalirion (728907) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:34AM (#20141053)
    Shouldn't that be "One of the biggest in the known Universe"?
  • Expanding Universe? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slapout (93640) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:45AM (#20141167)
    I thought that galaxys where all moving away from each other. How did these manage to colide?
    • Think Lindsay Lohan and rehab...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Not all galaxies are moving away from each other. Due to gravity and local variations in density, some are moving towards each other. For instance, andromeda will crash into our galaxy in a billion years or so.
    • by Ambitwistor (1041236) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @09:23AM (#20141659)
      If galaxies are close enough, they can collide. Generally, a gravitationally bound system will resist the Hubble expansion (which is why our solar system and galaxy are not expanding at the rate the universe does). Only when the bodies are spread far apart and not gravitationally bound to each other does the universe's expansion dominate. See this FAQ [ucr.edu] and this [ucla.edu] and this [faqs.org] for details.
    • by Control Group (105494) * on Tuesday August 07 2007, @09:26AM (#20141693) Homepage
      Wrong scale. On the macroscopic scale - the same scale where the universe looks the same in all directions - everything is moving away from everything else. On smaller scales, of course, this isn't the case*. To see the "everything expanding" universe and the "everything homogenous" universe, you need to lower the granularity of your observations to the point that this sort of localized clustering isn't measurable. A good start would be to take Hubble's Ultra Deep Field [hubblesite.org] image as your basic unit of observation (and that's still only 0.000008% of the area of the sky). In that image, only five of the objects visible (the ones with lens flare crosses) are stars, every other object is a galaxy. You can see the homogeneity of the universe in that image. Four of those galaxies colliding - even the four largest that are visible - wouldn't change the overall character of the image at all.

      *Well, this may or may not be the case, depending on how well I understand the expansion of space. If the apparently-faster-than-light expansion of the early universe is, in fact, due to a combination of things flying apart and the space between them expanding, it's reasonable to think that space is still expanding. In which case, literally everything is moving apart from everything else, from the neutrons and protons in your average nucleus to galactic clusters. But I may be misunderstanding the expansion of space.
  • So when four galaxies collide, they make a huge super-galaxy...

    Now is that how they make those monster trucks?

  • But... (Score:5, Funny)

    by hcdejong (561314) <{ln.tensmx} {ta} {emca}> on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:56AM (#20141297)
    There was no kaboom! There is supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
  • Consider the amount of stars and the room between them. It's quite unlikely that many stars will actually "collide". Although it's fairly certain that due to gravity some will lose or gain a few planets and debris, some will start moving in a very different way around the center and so on. We'll certainly get a lot of "spill" from gravity desasters, but I don't really think that there will be many head-on collisions of entire stars or systems.
  • by alta (1263) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @09:05AM (#20141429) Homepage Journal
    Now, when someone can show me some live footage of two stars crashing into each other and a really big explosion, then I'll be impressed. Something far enough away so I can actually see it all happening, but not so far that it looks like a few grains of sand crashing into each other.

    The other thing that keeps me getting excited about this stuff is when something REALLY COOL is going to happen, and then they say. "It will be in the very near future, realativly, in the next 5 million years."

    I got more out of the banner ads for self aiming telescopes in the $400-$500 range. I never was good at aiming my old telescope. I could find the moon, but not anything smaller.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Now, when someone can show me some live footage of two stars crashing into each other and a really big explosion, then I'll be impressed.

      That's exactly what some gamma ray bursts [wikipedia.org] are thought to be: colliding stars. However, since they're colliding neutron stars, we can't really see them before the explosion, so all you see is a great big flash at the end. You don't see two stars zooming toward each other before they collide.

  • by Flying pig (925874) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @09:29AM (#20141727)
    A normal galactic collision is like compact cars smashing together?

    Yes, because obviously when a couple of small cars collide it takes place over a few hundred thousand light years and lasts for a million years or so (the warranty on the airbag may be voided).

    And this one is like trucks smashing together?

    I am now firmly of the view that astronomers:

    • Ought to be made to read Douglas Adams on how big the Universe is
    • Ought to get taught about valid and invalid metaphors and similes at school
    • Ought to stop whoring for research budget by trying to attract the mass media and dumbing down reality.

    How about "This in no way whatsoever resembles any kind of collision you have ever witnessed on Earth, it dwarfs your imagination, and by the way any kind of anthropocentric comparison should have been buried with Galileo?"

  • NASA Link (Score:3, Informative)

    by hawkfish (8978) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @10:48AM (#20142733) Homepage
    For anyone who finds space.com as annoying as I do, here [nasa.gov] is the link to the original story at NASA's Spitzer site.
  • by Shag (3737) <dan@@@birchalls...net> on Tuesday August 07 2007, @02:45PM (#20146163) Homepage

    Dear Astrophysical Journal Letters,

    Late one night while I was working on my dissertation on polarimetry of active galactic nuclei, I was surprised by Maria, the physics department's delicious young cleaning lady. Her janitorial uniform did little to conceal her large, perky breasts, which were spherical and of uniform density...
    I'm not sure this is a good idea...
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      It is assumed that the universe is not infinite in size.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2007, @08:31AM (#20141017)
      Your logic is flawed.

      There are an infinite real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, but there is a largest element in the set (specifically, 1.0).

      Likewise, even given an infinite set of galaxies, there can be a largest galaxy.
      • I don't have any mod points, so I'm replying to this AC to bump his comment up.

        As he says, this is a fallacy. Even if there were an infinite number of galaxies, that does not mean that each galaxy is necessarily larger than any other. You could, in fact, have an infinite number of galaxies that are all the exact same size.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          His logic did not depend on the set being continuous. It would have worked just as well using rational numbers in the range [0, 1], of which there are an infinite number and which still has a largest element (again, 1).

          And while there may in reality be a finite number of possible sizes, the argument the OP made and the GP rebutted was about an infinite universe with an infinite number of galaxies, which are not necessarily each a different size than every other galaxy. The argument still works exactly a
    • You don't want that. If Voltron is forming that close, then it is inevitable that we'll end up on the business end of a Blazing Sword.
    • It's sorta like this (Score:5, Informative)

      by Moraelin (679338) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @10:16AM (#20142277) Journal
      It's sorta like this:

      Some time ago, we figured out that:

      1. All type 1a supernovae are exactly as bright when they blow up, because that's a star going a tiny bit over the Chandrasekhar limit. So basically they're all very nearly exactly the same weight stars, and blow up in the same way. So since seen brighness decays with the square of the distance, you can calculate how far it was when you see one.

      2. (Based on 1 too.) The farther something is, the more re-shifted its spectrum will be. Basically the faster it moves. So you can know fairly accurately how far away these 4 are.

      And it would have to be a freakin' big star to be _that_ bright at that distance. You're asking for a galaxy sized star.

      3. We also know how big a main sequence star can possibly get, and that's only about 120 solar masses, but the closer you get to that limit, the faster it burns and the more unstable it is. The ones over 100 solar masses burn extremely fast and tend to regularly blow up huge chunks of their mass.

      At any rate, we know that a star can't possibly be as big as those things at that distance. Even a star with 100 solar masses, won't have 100 times the Sun's volume. Gravity compresses them a bit more. And even 100 times the Sun's volume would be only a bit over 4.5 times the Sun's radius. It's just not even _near_ the size of a galaxy.

      Also, in spite of their massive mass and fast burning rate, the hypergiant stars seem to be "capped" in brightness, so they won't get as bright as a whole galaxy anyway.

      Also, remember when I said they burn very fast? A hypergiant burns and blows up in 1 to 3 million years, give or take a few. That's about 4 orders of magnitude shorter than our Sun. They just don't live long enough for 4 of them to come anywhere near each other.