Dark Energy Model Explains ‘Hubble Sequence’ of Galaxies

by Nancy Atkinson on January 12, 2010


Caption: A figure illustrating the Hubble sequence. Image: Ville Koistinen

One look at a Hubble Deep Field image reveals that galaxies come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. But why? Astronomers have been at a loss to explain the diversity of galaxy shapes seen in the Universe. But now, two astronomers have tracked the evolution of galaxies over thirteen billion years from the early Universe to the present day, helping to clarify the “Hubble Sequence,” a classification of galaxies developed by Edwin Hubble. Keys to their model include galaxy mergers and dark energy.

Dr. Andrew Benson of Caltech and Dr. Nick Devereux of Embry-Riddle University in Arizona Benson and Devereux combined data from the infrared Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) with sophisticated computer model they developed, called GALFORM. The model reproduced the evolutionary history of the Universe over thirteen billion years. To their surprise, their computations reproduced not only the different galaxy shapes but also their relative numbers.

Caption: The image shows some of the galaxies generated by the computer model. The yellow objects are most distant and therefore appear as they were 13 billion years ago, whilst those closer are seen as they looked more recently. Image: A. Benson (University of Durham), NASA / STScI

“We were completely astonished that our model predicted both the abundance and diversity of galaxy types so precisely,” said Devereux. “It really boosts my confidence in the model,” Benson said.

The astronomers’ model is underpinned by and endorses the ‘Lambda Cold Dark Matter’ model of the Universe. Here ‘Lambda’ is the mysterious ‘dark energy’ component believed to make up about 72% of the cosmos, with cold dark matter making up another 23%. Just 4% of the Universe consists of the familiar visible or ‘baryonic’ matter that makes up the stars and planets of which galaxies are comprised.

Galaxies are thought to be embedded in very large haloes of dark matter and Benson and Devereux believe these to be crucial to their evolution. Their model suggests that the number of mergers between these haloes and their galaxies drives the final outcome – elliptical galaxies result from multiple mergers whereas disk galaxies have seen none at all. Our Milky Way galaxy’s barred spiral shape suggests it has seen a complex evolutionary history, with only a few minor collisions and at least one episode where the inner disk collapsed to form the large central bar.

In Hubble’s classification, there are three basic shapes: spiral, where arms of material wind out in a disk from a small central bulge; barred spiral, where the arms wind out in a disk from a larger bar of material; and elliptical, where the galaxy’s stars are distributed more evenly in a bulge without arms or disk. The different types clearly result from different evolutionary paths, which Benson and Devereux’s model now explains.

“These new findings set a clear direction for future research. Our goal now is to compare the model predictions with observations of more distant galaxies seen in images obtained with the Hubble and those of the soon to be launched James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)”, said Devereux.

Their results appear in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Benson and Devereux’s paper.

Lead image complete caption: A figure illustrating the Hubble sequence. On the left are elliptical galaxies, with their shapes ranging from spherical (E0) to elongated (E7). Type S0 is intermediate between elliptical and spiral galaxies. The upper right line of objects stretch from Sa (tightly wound spiral) to Sc (loosely wound spiral). The lower right line shows the barred spirals that range from the tightly wound SBa to loosely wound SBc types. Image: Ville Koistinen

Source: RAS


  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Anaconda’s desperate attempts in trying to engage individuals is to perpetuate an illusion, whose response is certainly not genuine. From his long history here he just continues to express many irrelevant alternative comments often stating his own “personal theories.” It is very clear all he wants to do is spread hearsay instead of discussing the issues presented in the news story at hand.

    ?Towards any newer readers here who don’t know, this individual known “Anaconda” has been pointed out by the contributors here as a TROLL,

    It is commonly suggested we just ignore him – and perhaps he’ll have the sense to go away for good.? There is absolutely no need to “prove him wrong” or even correct his unfounded views, In the end this drastic treatment he has brought on himself.

    IMO, the only way he can properly redeem himself is through improving his own behaviour, instead of trying to corrupt others or highjack the discussion to his own ends. Until he discuss the issues in a rational and logical manner, he should be ignored or discussed in the third person.Engaging him will only encourage his rather poor behaviour, and unless responders are willing to ignore this individual, we will only continue to perpetuate the same old rhetorical nonsense.

    There is a great saying. “‘For things to change, I must change.” And this importantly applies to this very misguided individual.

    I would suggest he should be encouraged to do so.

    Until then, I recommend we just ignore him – if only for all our sakes.

    Thanks.

  • DrFlimmer

    So, what was THIS topic about?

  • Anaconda

    DrFlimmer:

    This topic is about a computer simulation where the data input was “tailored” to get results that match observation & measurement.

    How so, you might ask?

    It is evident because Science doesn’t know what “dark matter” or “dark energy” is or if it even exists or what its physical properties are beyond “dark matter” has gravitational attraction or “dark energy” has physical repulsion.

    Nothing about these substances are quantified. If they aren’t quantified then what is being fed into the computer?

    It’s obvious this is a case of reverse engineering. Look at the galaxy and then determine what inputs into the computer program will generate the desired results.

    Theorists don’t even know where this “stuff” resides in relation to galaxies.

    What is assumed is no better than speculation.

    Put those two properties together and it sounds like electro-magnetic properties — which has BOTH physical attactive and repulsive properties.

    But why make “stuff” up when Science knows electro-magnetic plasma has both properties.

    The paper linked by myself runs a computer simulation considering physical properties that are KNOWN and quantified in advance and result in data that matches known properties of double lobe radio galaxies.

    The properties of magnetized plasma are known by experimental results in plasma physics laboratories and in situ satellite probes in space plasma. Its properties have been quantified by laboratory and in situ observation & measurement.

    Nothing like that can be said for “dark matter” or “dark energy”.

    By the way, how do you falsify “dark” matter?

  • IVAN3MAN
  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Anaconda said;
    “By the way, how do you falsify “dark” matter?”

    Easy. Just listen to the bull&%#$ said by yourself!

  • RUF

    “it’s just a model.”
    No need to get so upset…

  • Nereid2

    Here’s an interesting factoid about the Peratt simulations: they do not include stars.

    Here’s an interesting factoid about galaxies: they contain lots of stars.

    The source code for the Peratt simulations has been published, along with his own ideas on how it can be extended to make them more realistic … yet no one seems to have bothered to pick up the baton – in over 20 years! – despite the fact that it should be quite straight-forward, require no more than an ordinary desktop PC, etc.

    Curious, n’est pas?

Previous post:

Next post: