Slashdot Mirror


Newly Discovered Young Galaxy Creates 4,000 Stars Per Year

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,

19 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. 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 SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that it would be slower, not faster.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. 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."
  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 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?

  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

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

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

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  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 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)
    2. 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.

  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!

  8. Can it answer the last question? by Jogar+the+Barbarian · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    3. Profit!
    2. ???
    1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
  9. 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.