Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Newly Discovered Young Galaxy Creates 4,000 Stars Per Year

Posted by Soulskill on 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,

64 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Actually RTFAed, and ... by Aetuneo · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Rare 'Star-Making Machine' Found in Distant Universe" is the title of it, on NASA's website. The first paragraph makes it clear that it's intended to be "in the distant reaches of the universe," but it's still strange phrasing. Really got my hopes up there for a bit.

    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.

    --
    Everything is subjective.
    1. Re:Actually RTFAed, and ... by mpeskett · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh great, now the universe is using the "up to" con on us. We expect 4000 stars, it delivers 1000, but we have to grin and bear it because of the Terms of Service we agreed to by being born... same old story.

    2. Re:Actually RTFAed, and ... by gandmk · · Score: 1

      There is a whole lot of presumptions in this story.

  2. For what value of 'year'? by Kligat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If general relativity says that a clock ticks faster the deeper it is in a gravity well, and at the beginning of the universe all that matter was closer together, maybe time just flew faster for star formation. Was the value of "year" used in the article, to put a new spin on an old phrase, adjusted for inflation?

    1. Re:For what value of 'year'? by Robert1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's really insightful. I hope mods don't miss this comment.

    2. Re:For what value of 'year'? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that it would be slower, not faster.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:For what value of 'year'? by mischief+herald · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, clocks "run" faster in gravitational wells. For proof, just think of the equivalence principle , 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 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!

      --
      "Someday I would like to quote myself."
    4. Re:For what value of 'year'? by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      There is definitely something odd with the timings in these deep space stories. If this event occurred in a 1.3 Billion years old universe, then our own point in this universe (or the point of whatever would become the milkyway later on) could've been only 2.6 Billion light years away from it max.
      So the wave front of this event should've passed us 5.2 Billion years later at most.
      The fact that we see this NOW means that either the light was delayed quite a bit (did it take a round trip?), or relativity is playing a trick on me once again.

      This must be a common thing for astronomers, so should be easy to answer for them, but I just cant figure it out. ;)

    5. Re:For what value of 'year'? by Kagura · · Score: 2, Informative

      In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation 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, since it's directly related. Both pages above are easy to read for amateurs with no serious physics background.

    6. Re:For what value of 'year'? by dmcq · · Score: 1

      Actually I believe clocks run slower in gravitational wells. In the case of a black hole time effectively stops so it looks like something entering freezes at the boundary and fades away.

      --
      thou discernest my thoughts from afar
    7. Re:For what value of 'year'? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I looked up "equivalence principle" and it talks about how everything, no matter it's mass/density, will accelerate at the same speed in a vaccuum

    8. Re:For what value of 'year'? by mischief+herald · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you are correct. What the proof I mentioned shows is that observers with a clock at a lower gravitational potential (deeper in a gravitational well) receive pulses from an emitter with a clock at a higher gravitational potential faster than the rate at which they were emitted. That is, if somebody counts the natural numbers at a rate of 1 number/sec, then somebody at a lower gravitational potential will say they are counting >1 number/sec (interval between each number is less than 1 second), and thus say that higher gravitational potential person's clock runs faster.

      So yes, clocks do appear to run slower at lower gravitational potentials, that is, deeper in gravitational wells. My bad, I misinterpreted the text. (I'm glad I didn't claim to be an expert (-yet)!)

      --
      "Someday I would like to quote myself."
  3. Clearly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Older galaxies are outsourcing their star production needs to this one.

    1. Re:Clearly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, no, this is clearly the Mormon galaxy.

    2. Re:Clearly.... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it's the Mexican Galaxy. Will somebody please rocket some birth control out to it before it overcrowds us and drives down our wages?

    3. Re:Clearly.... by crowbarsarefornerdyg · · Score: 1

      Transport must be a bitch...

      --
      "Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
    4. Re:Clearly.... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    5. Re:Clearly.... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I posted it expecting to be modded -1 troll: real men aren't afraid to lose karma. The mods stuck it to me this time, eh? As for your call to mod me down, well, I think those points would be better spent modding up the mormon-joke-guy. I'm partially hispanic. Could you please learn to take a fucking joke while I buy some condoms(I prefer Trojan large in the green package, usually only sold at convenience stores)?

      Another sure-fire way to get modded up on /. is to begin your posts with, "I know I'll be modded down for this, but..."

      Works like a charm! Don't cry because you ain't got points!

    6. Re:Clearly.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      So using Mormon as the subject of a joke will get a -1 Troll while the same joke with Mexican get a +4 Funny?

      Let see, so a joke about a Mexican Mormon will get you about a 2 rating.
                 

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    7. Re:Clearly.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I actually would have enjoyed the humor a bit more with some reference to the "Every Sperm is Perfect" song but, meh... I thought it was funny but I'm most generally considered to have bad taste.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Clearly.... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe Mexicans have a better sense of humor than Mormons.

    9. Re:Clearly.... by alexborges · · Score: 1

      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 - 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 you as the person I have just so masterfully described (in not-so-badly written english, and I am Mexican from the four sides).

      --
      NO SIG
    10. Re:Clearly.... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Using Black will get you a +1 Insightful.

    11. Re:Clearly.... by ps2os2 · · Score: 1

      First send them a book so they can qualify for citizenship in the federation. Beam me up Scotty:-)

    12. Re:Clearly.... by Blufar · · Score: 1

      It's OK to make fun of foreigners: Southpark Episode 205, Conjoined Fetus Lady

  4. OMG! by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's faster than American Idol!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:OMG! by nschubach · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's probably more entertaining, and productive as well.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:OMG! by crossmr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rumour has it the MPAA and RIAA have already filed injunctions as it could infringe on their ability to make a profit

    3. Re:OMG! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      On top of that, comparing the stars from American Idol and the stars from this new galaxy, I would probably gravitate towards the latter, simply because I find them much more attractive.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:OMG! by PPH · · Score: 1

      In the words of that world renowned astrophysicist, Paris Hilton, "That's hot!"

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  5. "My God, it's full of stars!" by objekt · · Score: 4, Funny

    "My God, it's full of stars!"

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
    1. Re:"My God, it's full of stars!" by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      "...and pink hearts, yellow moons, green clovers, and blue diamonds!" :-9

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  6. Familiar Model? by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Familiar Model? by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 1

      That would be 12.3 billion "years" ago :) Damn typos.

    2. Re:Familiar Model? by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      If - and this is a big if - the current model for galaxy formation is wrong, then this could have all kinds of consequences to cosmological theories. For example, the current estimate for the amount of dark matter (or, indeed, the need for it) is based on what would be needed for galaxies to work under the current models. There are a lot of interdependencies in cosmology. Another consequence is that they'll need to revisit estimates for the number of rogue stars that lie outside of galaxies. Given the frequency of galactic collisions, and given the new, revised estimate for star formation, you should expect to find a lot of rogue stars maybe a billion light-years closer than this galaxy.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Familiar Model? by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Funny

      galaxy forming approximately 12.3 billion light years ago

      That would be 12.3 billion "years" ago :) Damn typos.

      I light know how you feel. I'm always light making typos where light I accidentally type the word light light.

    4. Re:Familiar Model? by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      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.

  7. More teenage angst by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    They contrast this with the Milky Way, which only produces an average of 10 each year.

    I live in the most boring galaxy!

    1. Re:More teenage angst by kesuki · · Score: 2, 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 only a scientifically advanced civilization can survive for 5 billion years, and still be able to send radio waves to passerby solar systems.

      I don't have much faith in humans surviving that long, population growth problems, limited resources, the possibility of 'real' atomic war...

      --
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    2. Re:More teenage angst by jonfr · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:More teenage angst by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You're mixing (5) billions with (2.5) millions. I'm sorry, but this does not work that way. ;)

      If we were colliding the delay could only be a maximum of 100,000 years, which is the time the light takes to go trough the whole galaxy.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:More teenage angst by flewp · · Score: 1

      Actually, from what I've read two galaxies colliding isn't as exciting as one may think. Because the stars within the galaxies are pretty spread out, two galaxies will mostly just pass right through each other. Their overall structures would get warped by gravity and all, but it wouldn't be the star crashing demolition derby that many people may expect.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    5. Re:More teenage angst by jonfr · · Score: 1

      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

    6. Re:More teenage angst by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      ...but the coolest thing that could happen is 2 habituated solar systems, coming within easy radio range of one another.

      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.

    7. Re:More teenage angst by da_flo · · Score: 1

      I don't have much faith in humans surviving that long, population growth problems, limited resources, the possibility of 'real' atomic war...

      Not to mention that in 5 billion years, Earth will be totally vitrified by a red giant (namely, the Sun).

    8. Re:More teenage angst by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 1

      i don't think scientists really know what happens when 2 galaxies collide

      Astronomers refer to the event as an "intergalactic rodeo".

    9. Re:More teenage angst by kesuki · · Score: 1

      "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 so inconsistent in the amount of fusion going on in it's core... even the wikipedia citation about the sun becoming a red dwarf (in about 5 billion years) postulates several alternative possibilities..

      besides, if human technology survives until the sun becomes a dwarf, by then there should easily be the technology to either recreate a human civilization on one of Jupiter's moons, or even perhaps going interstellar in a type of space arc, in search of a more newly born star with a stable planetary body.

      --
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  8. Somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Kepler Satellite Team is rejoicing

  9. Moving Forward to.... by Darklamp · · Score: 1

    Amazing!!! I believe the meaning of this is called progress. For every theory we disprove, we become a little more wiser. I am all for a renaissance of the mind! Congratulations!

  10. In other news.. by Zekasu · · 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.

  11. Can it answer the last question? by Jogar+the+Barbarian · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's only delaying the inevitable...

    --
    3. Profit!
    2. ???
    1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
  12. Outsourcing by dotslashdot · · Score: 1

    Creating 4,000 Stars per year? Why that's more than Hollywood! With all this far outsourcing, does that mean Brittney, Paris and Lindsay will soon be out of jobs? Those damn illegal aliens!

    1. Re:Outsourcing by aXi · · Score: 1

      I don't think they are outpacing britney though...

  13. that's one per 2:11:40 by aXi · · Score: 1

    Yes one star for every 2 hours and change... All life in that galaxy is probably fly based. In the relativity theory you could say that an hour in our galaxy is relative to a couple of bilion years over there.. But in all fairness: finally those shows that try to relate the lifetime of earth to a 12 hours period are outdone by a galaxy.

  14. Gravity well between earth and distant galaxy. by aXi · · 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.

    1. Re:Gravity well between earth and distant galaxy. by Gazzonyx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IIRC, that model works like quantum tunneling and would require the speed of light to drop everywhere in the universe at the same moment without decelerating to the lower velocity. I think I read somewhere that if that happened, (and IMHO the model makes a lot of sense, but I don't care one way or the other) you wouldn't be able to see it, since everything slows down relative to everything else. However, you could see the difference if you compared the speed of light to previously known values.

      As an aside, I have read in a few different places that there is some evidence that the speed of light is exponentially decaying.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  15. Stellar Nursery by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "My God, it's full of used diapers!"
           

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  16. Intelligent Procrastination by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  17. an average of up to 4,000 stars by Evildonald · · Score: 1

    Either it's producing UP TO 4000 stars or it's producing AN AVERAGE of 4000 stars, surely?

    1. Re:an average of up to 4,000 stars by owlstead · · Score: 2, 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.

  18. Birth control, anyone? by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

    Hasn't this galaxy heard of CONTRACEPTIVES?

  19. Call Zaphod... by owlnation · · Score: 1

    ...we've found Magrathea.

  20. God working overtime by mattwarden · · Score: 2, 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?

  21. That's a lot of babies by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I wonder if that galaxy is as neurotic as Kate Gosselin is? Do I lose my geek card for loving that show?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!