APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Sun May 21, 2017 11:56 pm

ALMA should pry even more secrets from ellipticals.

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/05/n ... -astronomy

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by starsurfer » Sun May 21, 2017 4:37 pm

Ann wrote:
douglas wrote:
Sounds like its become a Wild West of image presentation. I must say, also, if the S-shaped transfer is being used to that extent it would imply the central region is incredibly bright and/or the outer regions incredibly dark in these ellipticals.
Galaxy M100. Photo: Jeff Bryant.
Galaxy M100. Photo: Adam Block.


















Here is how it works. In Jeff Bryant's quite realistic photo, little can be seen of galaxy M100 apart from its very bright center and some very faint spiral arms. In Adam Block's image, the brightness of the center has been decreased and the brightness of the outer parts of the galaxy has been increased.

You can certainly argue that Adam Block's image is "less realistic" than Jeff Bryant's, but it does reveal many more details than Jeff Bryant's picture.

I want to extend my thanks to both photographers, Jeff Bryant and Adam Block, for highlighting important facts and details of galaxy M100, both in their own way.

Ann
A lot of deep sky objects have a high brightness dynamic range with very bright parts and then very faint parts. To show both the bright and faint parts simultaneously, the brightness dynamic range has to be compressed unfortunately.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Sun May 21, 2017 2:30 pm

Ann wrote: Here is how it works.

.. You can certainly argue that Adam Block's image is "less realistic" than Jeff Bryant's, but it does reveal many more details than Jeff Bryant's picture.

I want to extend my thanks to both photographers, Jeff Bryant and Adam Block, for highlighting important facts and details of galaxy M100, both in their own way.

Ann
Details are revealed, and for that reason is worthwhile, yes. It's also good to occasionally include, if only a thumbnail, the unprocessed appearance.
A commenter had made a seemingly offhand reference to my referring to "furthest extents" being illuminated, so that prompted this needed drawdown of 'working materials'.

I say ellipticals are as worthy of study as spirals as decades-old concepts about ellipticals are falling by the wayside. Concepts like "randomly orbiting stars" appear to be more related to triaxiality and disk remnants than any true lack of galactic structure.

I wonder if Taleb has comments on 'learning curves' in Gaussian image processing? self-updating in conceptual integration? /possibly inappropriate sarc :ssmile:

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 21, 2017 2:19 pm

douglas wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote: ... But published images are usually processed with the intent of showing structural detail. Do not make any assumptions about absolute brightness from looking at an image!
Published images are usually processed as if captured in much closer proximity.
Only in the sense of apparent size. A galaxy would not look any different to our eyes when close than it does from far away. It would not be brighter, it would not show greater contrast.
Absolute brightness looks to have become a playground of sorts for demonstrating differences in visible halos, right? Versus the entirely different concept of dark matter halos as demonstrating problems with modeling.
The technique of extracting information from accurate measurements of intensity is called photometry. It is one of the foundational methods of observational astronomy, and is used for countless purposes.
The topic of some ellipticals' cores being sped up in rotation due to mergers is an important clue. Shells are only visible after images are highly processed, too, and occur only in ellipticals, never spirals. Newer stars in shells yet all the shells are nearly the same brightness at different radii.
Elliptical galaxies don't have rotating cores. What distinguishes an elliptical from a disk is the fact that its constituent stars have random inclinations (as with globular clusters).

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Sun May 21, 2017 2:05 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ... But published images are usually processed with the intent of showing structural detail. Do not make any assumptions about absolute brightness from looking at an image!
Published images are usually processed as if captured in much closer proximity.

Absolute brightness looks to have become a playground of sorts for demonstrating differences in visible halos, right? Versus the entirely different concept of dark matter halos as demonstrating problems with modeling.

This is where the "furthest extents" mentioned came into the discussion, as you'll recall. Visible halos.

The topic of some ellipticals' cores being sped up in rotation due to mergers is an important clue. Shells are only visible after images are highly processed, too, and occur only in ellipticals, never spirals. Newer stars in shells yet all the shells are nearly the same brightness at different radii.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 21, 2017 1:38 pm

douglas wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:What the heck does that mean?
The extent, Chris, the "extents" to which they are lit up, "luminous", in their visible halos.
How do you make any inference at all about the extent of any dark matter halo? That is something that can only be determined by studying the movement of stars in a galaxy.
douglas wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Look at a raw, unprocessed image of a galaxy directly on a computer screen and it's very common to see nothing at all except the central region. Everything else is black.
Sounds like its become a Wild West of image presentation. I must say, also, if the S-shaped transfer is being used to that extent it would imply the central region is incredibly bright and/or the outer regions incredibly dark in these ellipticals.
We do not make astronomical images to provide "realistic" images, in the sense of showing the same thing we'd see with our eyes. We make them with the intent of extracting information that is beyond our eyes. Images are processed to make the most information available to our eyes. The same data is used to extract non-visual information, as well. Photometric data is an example of this. A brightness profile can be generated from the raw data before any processing is applied, and that information used for purposes such as estimating the amount of luminous matter in a galaxy. But published images are usually processed with the intent of showing structural detail. Do not make any assumptions about absolute brightness from looking at an image!

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Ann » Sun May 21, 2017 6:02 am

douglas wrote:
Sounds like its become a Wild West of image presentation. I must say, also, if the S-shaped transfer is being used to that extent it would imply the central region is incredibly bright and/or the outer regions incredibly dark in these ellipticals.
Galaxy M100. Photo: Jeff Bryant.
Galaxy M100. Photo: Adam Block.


















Here is how it works. In Jeff Bryant's quite realistic photo, little can be seen of galaxy M100 apart from its very bright center and some very faint spiral arms. In Adam Block's image, the brightness of the center has been decreased and the brightness of the outer parts of the galaxy has been increased.

You can certainly argue that Adam Block's image is "less realistic" than Jeff Bryant's, but it does reveal many more details than Jeff Bryant's picture.

I want to extend my thanks to both photographers, Jeff Bryant and Adam Block, for highlighting important facts and details of galaxy M100, both in their own way.

Ann

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Sun May 21, 2017 2:45 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
douglas wrote:Being devoid of structural detail, with a surface brightness that must rival their dark matter halos, and a bright central region appears to be consistent in their description.
What the heck does that mean?

The extent, Chris, the "extents" to which they are lit up, "luminous", in their visible halos.

Bear in mind that virtually no image you see of a galaxy presents a realistic picture of the brightness profile. There is almost always a wide dynamic range, with the outer sections several orders of magnitude less bright than the core. So when processing, we create a (typically) S-shaped transfer function, bringing up the brightness of dim regions and decreasing the brightness of bright regions. This allows us to see structure and detail in the entire galaxy, at the expense of flattening the brightness profile.

Look at a raw, unprocessed image of a galaxy directly on a computer screen and it's very common to see nothing at all except the central region. Everything else is black.
Sounds like its become a Wild West of image presentation. I must say, also, if the S-shaped transfer is being used to that extent it would imply the central region is incredibly bright and/or the outer regions incredibly dark in these ellipticals.

Reminds of how Saturn when viewed from terrestrial backyard scopes takes on a ghostly glow due to the water in the rings.
And your dark matter, is it really there .. or does it signify a lack of input/the unknown? /bait :ssmile:

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 21, 2017 2:16 am

douglas wrote:Being devoid of structural detail, with a surface brightness that must rival their dark matter halos, and a bright central region appears to be consistent in their description.
What the heck does that mean?
Is stare time during imaging that important?
Exposure time? The longer it is, the better the signal-to-noise ratio.

Bear in mind that virtually no image you see of a galaxy presents a realistic picture of the brightness profile. There is almost always a wide dynamic range, with the outer sections several orders of magnitude less bright than the core. So when processing, we create a (typically) S-shaped transfer function, bringing up the brightness of dim regions and decreasing the brightness of bright regions. This allows us to see structure and detail in the entire galaxy, at the expense of flattening the brightness profile.

Look at a raw, unprocessed image of a galaxy directly on a computer screen and it's very common to see nothing at all except the central region. Everything else is black.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Sat May 20, 2017 9:58 pm

Ellipticals do have features:
https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/barnes ... /oeg1.html

"Traditionally, elliptical galaxies were seen as rather simple systems. Their overall luminosity profiles were fit by the de Vaucouleurs (1948) law, while the cores seen in surface photometry of their central regions were frequently fit using King (1966) models. In form, these galaxies were often assumed to be oblate spheroids, flattened by rotation. The stars within them were viewed as belonging to a single, ancient population analogous to the bulge and halo populations of our galaxy; gas and dust were thought to be absent. Finally, elliptical galaxies were considered to be dynamically unevolved.

At one level or another, all of the above are incorrect."

Gotta love it: "random orbital motions" in rotationally flattened oblate spheroids. :)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Sat May 20, 2017 9:36 pm

starsurfer wrote: Some elliptical galaxies do have dust and other features such as tidal shells or ionized outflows.
"The discovery of kinematic shells and a peculiar core deep within the potential well of NGC 474 is important in this context. It is very unlikely that the mass transfer of material could form shells at very small radii, and which would exist for the timescales required. Kinematically-distinct core (KDC) ellipticals have central regions that rotate rapidly, and often in the opposite direction to the stars in the outer parts of the galaxy."
pg9
"A key result from the present study of NGC 474 and NGC 7600 is that the shell surface brightness is roughly constant with radius. This is a strong argument against the Weak Interaction Model (Thomson 1991), which predicts that the surface brightness profile of the shells should follow that of the galaxy."
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9905041

Makes you wonder if the entire elliptical galaxy brightness over radius is related to shell brightness constancy over radius. (matter rendered "luminous" in "extents" :ssmile: /sarc )

Now if we could find how these shells evolve over time ..

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Sat May 20, 2017 6:34 pm

neufer wrote:
  • Elliptical formation probably has been found at every stage along its formative continuum
    ...but like with humanoid fossils it is hard to know exactly how to catalogue them all.
Being devoid of structural detail, with a surface brightness that must rival their dark matter halos, and a bright central region appears to be consistent in their description.

Is stare time during imaging that important?

Ann's picture of NGC 5866 has a surface brightness that approaches ellipticals'. And yes, at its furthest extent and "extents-plural" upon multiple viewings. ( :ssmile: )
Surely the process that gave 5866 its appearance is related to ellipticals'. Black holes are not powering visible light galactic halos to that degree of uniformity of appearance. That is simply not possible. The distances are too vast and black hole powering would be too turbulent.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by starsurfer » Fri May 19, 2017 1:00 pm

Ann wrote:
NGC 891.
Jean-Charles Cuillandre, Hawaiian Starlight, CFHT
NGC 5866.
NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team.
















douglas wrote:
I was referring to a more general observation that ellipticals appear so devoid of features. That's a signatory aspect of them.
Indeed, ellipticals seem devoid of features, and they seem devoid of dust. But for one thing that doesn't necessarily mean that they have no dust at all, and for another, it doesn't mean that all spiral galaxies are the same, or that they have the same amount of dust.

Take a look at edge-on galaxies NGC 891 and NGC 5866. As you can see, NGC 891 has a pretty massive dust lane that appears to stretch along the full length of the visible disk. NGC 5866, by contrast, has a thin, small dust disk, much smaller in extent that the visible stellar disk. I believe that the dust disk of NGC 5866 has shrunk. Not only that, but it seems certain that galaxies in general used to contain very much more gas in the past than they do now.

All the hydrogen that the universe is ever going to get was created in the Big Bang. In the very, very early universe there were no stars at all. But then stars started to form, and very many of them were low-mass stars. Today, according to Ken Croswell and his book Planet Quest, 80% of all stars in the Milky Way are small, faint red dwarfs, and only 4% are G-type stars like the Sun. But although the red dwarfs are small and faint, they are more massive than you'd think. The typical mass of a red dwarf may be 30-50% of the mass of the Sun, but because the red dwarfs are so numerous, their combined mass is much greater than the combined mass of stars like the Sun.

The thing about red dwarfs is that they evolve so terrifically slowly that they, in effect, remove hydrogen gas from the universe and lock it up inside themselves as they form, and they don't give back appreciable amounts of this hydrogen for perhaps trillions of years. Stars like the Sun, by contrast, will give back probably at least half of their mass during their drawn-out death processes, and they are not likely to live for more than 10-12 billion years at most. This means that since most stars that in the universe are low-mass stars, star formation effectively removes large quantities of "free gas" from the universe. And as the amount of gas is continually being depleted in the universe, how can we expect the dust lanes of all galaxies to remain as thick and massive as they once were?

NGC 5866 is fast on its way to using up its gas and dust. At the same time its stellar disk is puffing up, becoming more similar to an elliptical galaxy. As spiral galaxies use up their "free gas" they seem bound to slowly evolve into more puffed-up disk galaxies with shrinking dust lanes and little star formation.

Ann
Some elliptical galaxies do have dust and other features such as tidal shells or ionized outflows.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by neufer » Fri May 19, 2017 11:24 am

douglas wrote:
I was polling for info on the process of elliptical formation. I remember reading years ago of theories that ellipticals' lack of features represents some process that effectively 'pulses' constituent gas & dust to give their appearance in the visible. It is plausible that mergers account for it, but its uniformity still troubles the imagination. Over time in this golden age of astronomy you'd think elliptical formation would be found along its formative continuum at every stage.
  • Elliptical formation probably has been found at every stage along its formative continuum
    ...but like with humanoid fossils it is hard to know exactly how to catalogue them all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy#Evolution wrote:
<<It is widely accepted that the evolution of elliptical galaxies is primarily composed of the merging of smaller galaxies. Many galaxies in the universe are gravitationally bound to other galaxies, which means that they will never escape the pull of the other galaxy. If the galaxies are of similar size, the resultant galaxy will appear similar to neither of the two galaxies merging, but will instead be an elliptical galaxy.

Such major galactic mergers are thought to have been common at early times, but may occur less frequently today. Minor galactic mergers involve two galaxies of very different masses, and are not limited to giant ellipticals. For example, our own Milky Way galaxy is merging with a couple of small galaxies right now. The Milky Way galaxy is also, depending upon an unknown tangential component, on a collision course in 4–5 billion years with the Andromeda Galaxy. It has been theorized that an elliptical galaxy will result from a merger of the two spirals.

It is believed that black holes may play an important role in limiting the growth of elliptical galaxies in the early universe by inhibiting star formation.>>

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am

sillyworm wrote:http://burro.cwru.edu/JavaLab/GalCrashWeb/ellipt.html Some interesting info.
That was very good, sillyworm. I finally got around to reading it!

"Interaction-induced star formation may also account for the differing globular cluster specific frequencies of spirals and ellipticals."
Not so sure about that, but may be related to this:
"From this point of view, it may be wiser not to ask ``did mergers form ellipticals?" but rather `` what merged to form ellipticals?'' Observational studies have shown that cluster ellipticals must have formed very early, perhaps even before massive disk galaxies had formed. If so, the merging objects were probably very different from the types of galaxies we see involved in nearby mergers."

Surface brightness is the term to be referred to in their "uniformity" of appearance, as I was having it. Just trying to elucidate ellipticals' "learning curves" for such brightness ..
[/sarc]

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Fri May 19, 2017 11:05 am

Ann wrote:
douglas wrote:
I really "need" to understand how central black holes can cause such uniform extent of illumination.
(Well, it seems certain that practically all elliptical galaxies still have some Sun-like stars in them, because Sun-like stars live for 10-12 billion years, and the universe is only about 14 billion years old. Not all Sun-like stars have had time to die in elliptical galaxies.)

As interactions with other galaxies have stirred up and destroyed the dust lane of the galaxy, no visible structure remains, only the bee-swarm of mostly old red stars buzzing around the center of the galaxy, with its supermassive black hole.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Ann

I guess I was polling for info on the process of elliptical formation. I remember reading years ago of theories that ellipticals' lack of features represents some process that effectively 'pulses' constituent gas & dust to give their appearance in the visible. It is plausible that mergers account for it, but its uniformity still troubles the imagination.

Over time in this golden age of astronomy you'd think elliptical formation would be found along its formative continuum at every stage.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Ann » Thu May 18, 2017 11:39 pm

douglas wrote:
I really "need" to understand how central black holes can cause such uniform extent of illumination.
Elliptical galaxies can form in different ways, and it is true that black holes can be involved. Typically, however, when black holes inhibit star formation, they have jets that inject enormous energy into their interstellar medium (make that, their gas and dust), and this gas and dust becomes far too hot to be able to form any new stars. In order to form new stars, pockets of gas must cool, shrink in size and become ever more concentrated. Hot, turbulent gas generally can't form any new stars.

These nuclear jets form as matter is fed into a supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy. Since the physical size of the black hole is small, even for supermassive black holes, it can't swallow huge amounts of matter in one go. Instead, inspiralling matter forms an accretion disk around the black hole, which generates enormous amounts of heat and light. Also magnetic lines get trapped and "wound up" in the accretion disk, eventually leading to a jet shooting out from the black hole at the same time as the black hole is ingesting matter. See this video for a simulation of what is happening.

A huge jet can affect not only the galaxy where the jet was formed, but it can actually affect nearby galaxies too, stirring up their gas and dust too and making those galaxies, too, unsuitable for star formation.

When no new stars are formed, the existing stars age. Hot, massive, blue stars die first, then intermediate stars like Sirius and Vega die, then the "high-end mass of low-mass stars" like the Sun die. It takes about 10-12 billion years. But the tremendous amounts of small red dwarf stars don't die for trillions of years. Not a single small red dwarf that has ever formed in the universe has died of old age.

As the bright blue stars die, and the intermediate stars die, and the Sun-like stars die, only red dwarf stars (and some evolved red giants) remain, orbiting the center of the galaxy like a swarm of bees. (Well, it seems certain that practically all elliptical galaxies still have some Sun-like stars in them, because Sun-like stars live for 10-12 billion years, and the universe is only about 14 billion years old. Not all Sun-like stars have had time to die in elliptical galaxies.)

As interactions with other galaxies have stirred up and destroyed the dust lane of the galaxy, no visible structure remains, only the bee-swarm of mostly old red stars buzzing around the center of the galaxy, with its supermassive black hole.

Watch this youtube video to see a simulation of what will happen when the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy collide and give rise to an elliptical galaxy.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Ann

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Thu May 18, 2017 9:03 pm

douglas wrote:Yet they are illuminated to their furthest extents.
Well, not really. Their actual extents are typically defined by a much larger dark matter halo. However, in discussing the ordinary matter content of galaxies, they are all "illuminated to their furthest extents". They are, after all, made out of stars. Luminous matter. What would it mean for them not to be illuminated that way?
I really "need" to understand how central black holes can cause such uniform extent of illumination.
This has nothing to do with central black holes. As a rule, central black holes play a very small role in galaxy morphology. They simply don't have enough mass to have much effect.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Thu May 18, 2017 8:43 pm

Ellipticals appear to be rather a mystery if opaque at all wavelengths.

"Their appearance shows little structure and they typically have relatively little interstellar matter. Consequently, these galaxies also have a low portion of open clusters and a reduced rate of new star formation. Instead they are dominated by generally older, more evolved stars that are orbiting the common center of gravity in random directions. The stars contain low abundances of heavy elements because star formation ceases after the initial burst."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Ellipticals

Yet they are illuminated to their furthest extents. I really "need" to understand how central black holes can cause such uniform extent of illumination. Totally uniform, at visible wavelengths?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -dead.html

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Ann » Thu May 18, 2017 2:03 pm

NGC 891.
Jean-Charles Cuillandre, Hawaiian Starlight, CFHT
NGC 5866.
NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team.
















douglas wrote:
I was referring to a more general observation that ellipticals appear so devoid of features. That's a signatory aspect of them.
Indeed, ellipticals seem devoid of features, and they seem devoid of dust. But for one thing that doesn't necessarily mean that they have no dust at all, and for another, it doesn't mean that all spiral galaxies are the same, or that they have the same amount of dust.

Take a look at edge-on galaxies NGC 891 and NGC 5866. As you can see, NGC 891 has a pretty massive dust lane that appears to stretch along the full length of the visible disk. NGC 5866, by contrast, has a thin, small dust disk, much smaller in extent that the visible stellar disk. I believe that the dust disk of NGC 5866 has shrunk. Not only that, but it seems certain that galaxies in general used to contain very much more gas in the past than they do now.

All the hydrogen that the universe is ever going to get was created in the Big Bang. In the very, very early universe there were no stars at all. But then stars started to form, and very many of them were low-mass stars. Today, according to Ken Croswell and his book Planet Quest, 80% of all stars in the Milky Way are small, faint red dwarfs, and only 4% are G-type stars like the Sun. But although the red dwarfs are small and faint, they are more massive than you'd think. The typical mass of a red dwarf may be 30-50% of the mass of the Sun, but because the red dwarfs are so numerous, their combined mass is much greater than the combined mass of stars like the Sun.

The thing about red dwarfs is that they evolve so terrifically slowly that they, in effect, remove hydrogen gas from the universe and lock it up inside themselves as they form, and they don't give back appreciable amounts of this hydrogen for perhaps trillions of years. Stars like the Sun, by contrast, will give back probably at least half of their mass during their drawn-out death processes, and they are not likely to live for more than 10-12 billion years at most. This means that since most stars that in the universe are low-mass stars, star formation effectively removes large quantities of "free gas" from the universe. And as the amount of gas is continually being depleted in the universe, how can we expect the dust lanes of all galaxies to remain as thick and massive as they once were?

NGC 5866 is fast on its way to using up its gas and dust. At the same time its stellar disk is puffing up, becoming more similar to an elliptical galaxy. As spiral galaxies use up their "free gas" they seem bound to slowly evolve into more puffed-up disk galaxies with shrinking dust lanes and little star formation.

Ann

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by starsurfer » Thu May 18, 2017 8:32 am

The primary member of Hickson 90, NGC 7172 isn't included in the Hubble image. :cry:

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Thu May 18, 2017 4:46 am

douglas wrote: I was referring to a more general observation that ellipticals appear so devoid of features. That's a signatory aspect of them.
But the dust here is associated with an Sa spiral galaxy, not the two ellipticals or one irregular that make up the rest of HCG 90.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by douglas » Thu May 18, 2017 1:04 am

Ann wrote:
douglas wrote:I'd like to see a plausible explanation for why the dust lights up to the furthest extents of its presence in so many of these galaxies. A physical explanation. As if it were fluorescing, almost. Doesn't look like it's disturbed by gravitational acceleration, almost like it's been suspended from gravitational effects.
It is possible that you are referring to Geck's (Geckzilla's) processed image of NGC 2146, which I posted earlier.

The reason why some of the dust in Geck's image is seen to light up is almost certainly that Geck had access to infrared data about NGC 2146, and there is ongoing star formation in NGC 2146.

When star formation is taking place inside dust clouds, so that it can't be seen in visual light, it is often visible in infrared. What happens is that the dust gets warmer as stars are forming inside it, and infrared filters react to heat.

However, dust is also more transparent to infrared light (i.e., heat) than to visual light. In NGC 2146, we are probably seeing the heat of billions of stars in the nucleus and the bulge of the galaxy shine through the dust lane in front of them.

So in infrared photography, dust may seem to flouresce because it emits heat, and because heat from various hot sources in it or behind it may well penetrate it.
douglas wrote:
Your proffering can only imply the galaxies have become incredibly dust-enriched, which I reject. And a uniformity of photon disturbance that makes it as an explanation truly unlikely?
The way I read Chris' answer to you, he wasn't suggesting that any of the galaxies in today's APOD are incredibly dust-enriched.

Dust is created in stars. Vast amounts of dust are formed in starbursts, and dust is also formed as stars die. The dust is then mixed with the hydrogen gas of galaxies. When the dust is sufficiently concentrated to be very visible, it is usually mixed with a lot of gas. Concentrated dust appears to help to cool gas to very low temperatures, which is what is needed in the nearby universe to form cool cores of gas and get star formation going. But after bursts of star formation, or after a lot of interaction with other galaxies, the dust may be quite hot and turbulent, and that way it will be unable to help hydrogen gas to cool down and form concentrated cores.

The dust that is visible in today's APOD is not very dark. It doesn't look very concentrated. We see some, but not many, point sources scattered in it. There are signs of outflows, but it is not clear that the outflows are related to star formation rather than to tidal forces or magnetic forces.

Ann
I was referring to a more general observation that ellipticals appear so devoid of features. That's a signatory aspect of them.

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Ann » Wed May 17, 2017 10:13 pm

douglas wrote:I'd like to see a plausible explanation for why the dust lights up to the furthest extents of its presence in so many of these galaxies. A physical explanation. As if it were fluorescing, almost. Doesn't look like it's disturbed by gravitational acceleration, almost like it's been suspended from gravitational effects.
It is possible that you are referring to Geck's (Geckzilla's) processed image of NGC 2146, which I posted earlier.

The reason why some of the dust in Geck's image is seen to light up is almost certainly that Geck had access to infrared data about NGC 2146, and there is ongoing star formation in NGC 2146.

When star formation is taking place inside dust clouds, so that it can't be seen in visual light, it is often visible in infrared. What happens is that the dust gets warmer as stars are forming inside it, and infrared filters react to heat.

However, dust is also more transparent to infrared light (i.e., heat) than to visual light. In NGC 2146, we are probably seeing the heat of billions of stars in the nucleus and the bulge of the galaxy shine through the dust lane in front of them.

So in infrared photography, dust may seem to flouresce because it emits heat, and because heat from various hot sources in it or behind it may well penetrate it.
douglas wrote:
Your proffering can only imply the galaxies have become incredibly dust-enriched, which I reject. And a uniformity of photon disturbance that makes it as an explanation truly unlikely?
The way I read Chris' answer to you, he wasn't suggesting that any of the galaxies in today's APOD are incredibly dust-enriched.

Dust is created in stars. Vast amounts of dust are formed in starbursts, and dust is also formed as stars die. The dust is then mixed with the hydrogen gas of galaxies. When the dust is sufficiently concentrated to be very visible, it is usually mixed with a lot of gas. Concentrated dust appears to help to cool gas to very low temperatures, which is what is needed in the nearby universe to form cool cores of gas and get star formation going. But after bursts of star formation, or after a lot of interaction with other galaxies, the dust may be quite hot and turbulent, and that way it will be unable to help hydrogen gas to cool down and form concentrated cores.

The dust that is visible in today's APOD is not very dark. It doesn't look very concentrated. We see some, but not many, point sources scattered in it. There are signs of outflows, but it is not clear that the outflows are related to star formation rather than to tidal forces or magnetic forces.

Ann

Re: APOD: Galaxy Group Hickson 90 (2017 May 17)

by Chris Peterson » Wed May 17, 2017 6:35 pm

douglas wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
douglas wrote:I'd like to see a plausible explanation for why the dust lights up to the furthest extents of its presence in so many of these galaxies. A physical explanation. As if it were fluorescing, almost. Doesn't look like it's disturbed by gravitational acceleration, almost like it's been suspended from gravitational effects.
The dust isn't lighting up at all. It's attenuating the light of billions of galactic stars behind it.

The dust is orbiting due to gravity, but most of the disruption is probably electromagnetic in nature- disturbed by photons, winds of charged particles, and hydrodynamic interactions within itself.
Your proffering can only imply the galaxies have become incredibly dust-enriched, which I reject. And a uniformity of photon disturbance that makes it as an explanation truly unlikely?
I don't understand what you're suggesting. Many galaxies have large amounts of dust. What we're seeing here isn't at all unusual. The only difference between the dust we see here and the dust we see in many individual galaxies is that this is stirred around more by the multiple interactions between the compact components of the cluster.
No. It is an expression of something poorly understood at this time. The uniformity. Hydrodynamic interactions that leave no artifact of turbulence?
There is really nothing in the structure of the dust that isn't well understood. It's the most trivial part of what's going on in these compact clusters. The real questions involve the distribution of neutral hydrogen and the way the the interstellar medium transfers to the intragalactic medium.

Top