New Study: Some Massive Galaxies Were Practically Born That Way

by Anne Minard on April 1, 2009

j2235

Infrared image of the cluster XMMU J2235.3-2557 taken with Subaru, seen at a distance corresponding to 65 percent of the way back to the Big Bang. Credit: Chris Collins et al., Nature

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New research is casting doubt on the prevailing view that the heaviest galaxies in the universe started out small and gained mass by devouring other matter that ventured too close.

Peering at galaxies two-thirds of the way back in time to the Big Bang, an international team of astronomers is suggesting that some of the giants we see today were just as massive in that earlier age as they are now.

The new findings were released today in the journal Nature.

Lead author Chris Collins, an astronomer at the United Kindgdom’s Liverpool John Moores University, and his colleagues made their discovery using one of the largest optical telescopes in the World, called Subaru (named after the Japanese word for the Pleiades star cluster), located on the Island of Hawaii and owned by the National Observatory of Japan.

They focused on brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), located at the centers of galaxy clusters. The massive galaxies constitute a separate population from bright elliptical galaxies, and both their predictability and extreme luminosity have motivated their use as standard candles for cosmology, the authors point out.

Analysing the light from these remote galaxies, the astronomers effectively weighed them and found that despite feeding on a constant diet of small galaxies, the heaviest galaxies have not increased their weight over the last 9 billion years. In a universe whose age is 13.7 billion years old, these results spark a debate as to how these galaxies put on so much weight in the first few billion years after the Big Bang.

“Current predictions using simulations run on super computers suggest that at such a young age these galaxies should be only 20 percent of their final weight, so to find galaxies so large suggests that galaxy formation is a much more rapid process than we previously thought,” Collins said, “and perhaps the theories are missing some important physics.”

John Stott, Collin’s colleague at LJMU and a co-author on the paper, said the team was “surprised to find that the largest and brightest galaxies in the Universe have remained essentially unchanged for the last 9 billion years, having grown rapidly soon after the Big Bang.”

One possibility being considered is that the galaxies formed by the collapse of an already massive cloud at the dawn of the universe.

MORE ABOUT LEAD IMAGE: The image shows the central 1.5 x 1.5 arc min of the cluster corresponding to 0.75 Mpc at this distance. The clusters X-ray emission is used to pinpoint the location of the brightest galaxy in the cluster as shown by the green contours which represent the X-ray intensity as measured by the XMM-Newton X-ray satellite.

Source: LJMU’s Astrophysics Research Institute

  • ND

    Solrey: “I have “learned some math” like calculus, differential equations, statistical analysis, and was even a math tutor in college”

    I take back what I said earlier. You’r not OilIsMastery writing under a different nick.

    Solrey: “Take real science back from the domain of the abstract theoretical mathematician.”

    I find this to be just rhetoric and even a red herring. Mathematics is the best thing we have in expressing the phenomenon in nature as we understand them. Last time I checked, science has not given up on experimentally verifying new and old theories. You’re painting a skewed picture of the interplay between scientists, mathematical theories and experimentation/observation.

    Solrey: “What I’m saying is that nature doesn’t have to conform to our mathematics”

    I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. It is a struggle to express nature’s ways using math. Mathematical models are changed to conform to nature’s ways.

    Solrey: “it is what it is and math will only take us so far in understanding it.”

    Do you have something better. Don’t plasma physicists use math?

  • Will

    @Mr. Hanford
    “Considering their enormous sizes, current models of smaller galaxies merging to become a BCG just doesn’t work. They propose that BCGs started out massive even in the early universe, over 9 billion years ago. This makes sense because accretion of smaller galaxies to form a BCG would take too long in this very early epoch. If corroborated, these findings show that not all galaxies were formed or created equal. Note, however, that the vast majority of galaxies in the universe were indeed formed from smaller stellar systems that coalesced into the regular cluster galaxies we see today (the so-called ‘bottom-up’ theory).”
    I thought this was concluded based on the latest WMAP results.

  • Will

    Sorry; substitute postulated for the word concluded in my previous post.

  • solrey

    @ND
    Actually, I think the interplay is skewed by such a heavy emphasis on mathematically based theories. I’m just talking about maintaining a balance with less emphasis on pure theoretical math.
    Of course plasma physicists use math, pretty much about as complicated as math gets actually, given the combination of fluid dynamics and electromagnetism, a.k.a. magnetohydrodynamics. What plasma physicists have discovered is that plasma behavior can be studied and quantified but is notoriously difficult to model mathematically. Even so, A. Peratt modeled a computer simulation of spiral galaxy formation based solely on formulae from plasma physics.

    I’m not against math per se, quite the opposite, I’m simply against relying on math for all the answers and the propensity to interpret observations to fit the existing theoretical mathematical models, when they don’t necessarily correspond, instead of modifying the models to fit the observations.

  • ND

    solrey,

    The Peratt simulation is brought up quite often. If I read/remember right, he did use gravity as part of his simulation. I don’t know to what extent it played out compared to the plasma physics he used since my background in in physics is way limited.

    Also, the simulation was done in the 80s. That same simulation could be done with ease with todays desktop computers. I don’t believe this simulation has been explored further since then.

  • ND

    You know, I had this feeling of dejavu right after I posted my previous post. As if this has happened all before. I wonder why?

  • Jon Hanford

    @ Will: I would look at these results as being in agreement with a conclusion from a WMAP study of the existence of massive galaxies in the early universe.

  • Feenixx

    solrey says:

    “What I’m saying is that nature doesn’t have to conform to our mathematics,”

    In the Universe I live in, mathematics is not something Nature may or may not conform to.
    It’s more like a “language of Nature”, which Nature “uses in order to try and communicate with us”. I have to learn mathematics in order to understand the way Nature works.

    @Jon Hanford
    thanks for your posting – I had a huge problem with this article. It made utterly no sense to me, due to just one missing piece of information. You filled in the gaps nicely.

  • Jon Hanford

    @ Feenixx, glad to be of some help interpreting these observations. I too, had several questions concerning these results, which is one of the reasons I like to read the original published or submitted papers concerning the object or mechanism being studied. While not a professional astronomer, I took three years of undergrad studies majoring in astrophysics at Ohio State University, so technical published papers don’t all read like Greek to me. I like to get my info “from the horses mouth”, so to speak. This is also why I try to include links to original papers where possible, or follow supplied links by UT, Science News, or New Scientist, etc. to the original papers. Press releases tend to gloss over details of the observations or theories presented to make the press release accessible to the layperson.

Previous post:

Next post: