Slashdot Log In
Newly Discovered Young Galaxy Creates 4,000 Stars Per Year
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:02 PM
from the needs-a-galactic-prophylactic dept.
from the needs-a-galactic-prophylactic dept.
Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have found a galaxy producing an average of up to 4,000 stars per year. They contrast this with the Milky Way, which only produces an average of 10 each year. Nicknamed "Baby Boom," it is a young starburst galaxy, and its stellar birth rate conflicts with a commonly accepted model for the growth of a galaxy. Quoting:
"'The question now is whether the majority of the very most massive galaxies form very early in the universe like the Baby Boom galaxy, or whether this is an exceptional case. Answering this question will help us determine to what degree the Hierarchical Model of galaxy formation still holds true,' [said Peter Capak of NASA's Spitzer Science Center] 'The incredible star-formation activity we have observed suggests that we may be witnessing, for the first time, the formation of one of the most massive elliptical galaxies in the universe,' said co-author Nick Scoville of Caltech, the principal investigator of the Cosmic Evolution Survey,
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
Actually RTFAed, and ... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, to be more specific, this Galaxy was creating 4,000 stars per year 12.3 Billion years ago, when the universe was only 1.3 Billion years old. Also, they don't know the number to be 4,000 stars: it's in the range of 1,000 to 4,000 stars per year, based on how bright it is.
Re:Actually RTFAed, and ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
For what value of 'year'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's really insightful. I hope mods don't miss this comment.
Re:For what value of 'year'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that it would be slower, not faster.
Parent
Re:For what value of 'year'? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, clocks "run" faster in gravitational wells. For proof, just think of the equivalence principle [slashdot.org], and clocks as sources of periodic light, or at least just think of light as a series of wavefronts (helps in understanding gravitational redshift too!). A good source on this is "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity" by James Hartle.
It is also important to remember the principle of proper time [wikipedia.org] when considering the formation of these stars. Ignoring special relativity concerns for a second, clocks only run at relative different rates if they are at different gravitational potentials (the only way to measure gravitational potential anyway). So if the entire early universe were all at nearly the same gravitational potential, then all matter would be experiencing the same "proper" time, and things such as star formation rates would still be comparable; so this case examined here is still, probably, exceptional.
For further reading and a great intro to the formation of the universe and gravity and such, check out the book I mentioned above and "Introduction to Cosmology" by Barbara Ryden. I am not an expert-yet (grad school in a bit!)- but the cosmo. book is a great read for anyone interested and the gravity book is great for anyone with a little background in general and special relativity and some advanced linear algebra. Hope this helps!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation [wikipedia.org] is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.
Also read Wikipedia's article on the Big Bang [wikipedia.org], since it's directly related. Both pages above are easy to read for amateurs with no serious physics background.
Clearly.... (Score:5, Funny)
Older galaxies are outsourcing their star production needs to this one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, this is clearly the Mormon galaxy.
Re:Clearly.... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Clearly.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So using Mormon as the subject of a joke will get a -1 Troll while the same joke with Mexican get a +4 Funny?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Mexicans have a better sense of humor than Mormons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another sure-fire way to get modded up on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... youre just ignorant.
The birth rate of Mexico as of today is 1.8 kids per woman (latest figure of TODAY -heard it in the news, here in Mexico).
In the US, according to: http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html [susps.org] - this, its 2.1 kids per woman.
Its interesting that youre "half hispanic" and dont even know what youre talking about.
Youll retort, naturally (being the hispa-neo-redneck that you are), that the US birth rate is probably that high due to the Mexicans living there, which will further expose
Re: (Score:1)
OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
It's probably more entertaining, and productive as well.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the words of that world renowned astrophysicist, Paris Hilton, "That's hot!"
Re:OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
Rumour has it the MPAA and RIAA have already filed injunctions as it could infringe on their ability to make a profit
Parent
"My God, it's full of stars!" (Score:5, Funny)
"My God, it's full of stars!"
Re: (Score:2)
"...and pink hearts, yellow moons, green clovers, and blue diamonds!" :-9
Familiar Model? (Score:5, Funny)
If I read the article right, this would seem to say that we are witnessing this galaxy forming approximately 12.3 billion light years ago. As to the answer of whether or not this galaxy is exceptional, I guess the most interesting answer may be if this galaxy is 'currently' producing stars at the same rate as the Milky Way (~10 per year). Unfortunately, the only way I can see to figure that out is to wait another 12.3 billion years. I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting stocking up on beer now.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be 12.3 billion "years" ago :) Damn typos.
Re:Familiar Model? (Score:5, Funny)
I light know how you feel. I'm always light making typos where light I accidentally type the word light light.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Us cosmologists actually order a special light keyboard (a custom Model M, of course) that has a "light " key.
It's kind of unfortunate light though because it's right next to the light spacebar.
Oh well... It sure does make typing light papers easier.
Re:Familiar Model? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
More teenage angst (Score:5, Funny)
They contrast this with the Milky Way, which only produces an average of 10 each year.
I live in the most boring galaxy!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, in 5 billion years, when we collide with Andromeda, we'll be in a very exciting galaxy... i don't think scientists really know what happens when 2 galaxies collide, but the coolest thing that could happen is 2 habituated solar systems, coming within easy radio range of one another.
I believe a while back scientists were predicting that the formation of large gas giants, and small, earth like planets was more common than earlier thought, thus improving the odds of extra terrestrial life.
now if on
Re: (Score:2)
How says that we aren't already colliding with Andromeda galaxy ? After all, the light we are getting is 2.5 million years old at current time.
The collision might have started long time ago, we would not even notice from our point of view of space.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I am using the Euro standard while you are using the U.S one.
The wiki says, like every other text valid book on the subject.
"The Andromeda Galaxy (IPA: /ænËdrÉ'mÉ(TM)dÉ(TM)/, also known as Messier 31, M31, or NGC 224; often referred to as the Great Andromeda Nebula in older texts) is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years away[4] in the constellation Andromeda."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant inhabited. Habituate is the process of habitation. Your sentence could mean that the 2 solar systems *were* populated, whereas inhabited means they *are* populated.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not to mention that in 5 billion years, Earth will be totally vitrified by a red giant (namely, the Sun)."
nobody actually knows exactly when that will happen, it's purely hypothesis without any real data, other than the energy output of the sun, and a few recorded events that happened billions of years ago, in far flung parts of the milky way that happened to reach earth while scientists were figuring out what happens to yellow stars in decline.
it could come sooner, it could come later, because the sun is
Somewhere... (Score:1, Funny)
The Kepler Satellite Team [slashdot.org] is rejoicing
Moving Forward to.... (Score:1)
In other news.. (Score:2, Funny)
Social Security to be bust in 3 generations.
President announces plan to stem the growth of illegal star migration by building a giant wall between neighboring galaxies.
More at 10.
Can it answer the last question? (Score:3, Funny)
It's only delaying the inevitable [multivax.com]...
Outsourcing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
that's one per 2:11:40 (Score:1)
Gravity well between earth and distant galaxy. (Score:2, Interesting)
maybe there are several gravity wells between our galaxy and the other one that accelerates light at such a pace that we are seeing the whole history of that galaxy at once.
Wasn't there a post here recently that spoke of the speed of light having been faster in the past? Which would mean that the maximum speed of light is not a constant, and can thus be accelerated.
Re:Gravity well between earth and distant galaxy. (Score:4, Interesting)
As an aside, I have read in a few different places that there is some evidence that the speed of light is exponentially decaying.
Parent
Intelligent Procrastination (Score:2)
The reason is obvious: God wasted too much time dealing with those troublesome Milky Way sinners and got behind on galaxy construction. To catch up, he has to crank up the speed.
Call Zaphod... (Score:2)
God working overtime (Score:3, Funny)
It took God a whole day to create our sun. Now he's creating them somewhere else at a rate of 11 per day. Did the homosexuals piss Him off again or something?
That's a lot of babies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. They obviously know that it won't produce an exact number of 4K stars per year. So they are trying to guess the average, and 4K seems to be the upper limit of that guess.
Example:
Reporter: How many stars are produced by this galaxy per year?
Pinhead: Oh, I don't know, my guess is about 1K to 4K stars per year, but certainly not over 4K.
Reporter: Thanks, we'll use the upper limit if you don't mind.