APOD: Unusual Spiral Galaxy M66 from Hubble (2010 Apr 13)

[APOD Robot]

Unusual Spiral Galaxy M66 from Hubble

Explanation: Why isn't spiral galaxy M66 symmetric? Usually density waves of gas, dust, and newly formed stars circle a spiral galaxy's center and create a nearly symmetric galaxy. The differences between M66's spiral arms and the apparent displacement of its nucleus are all likely caused by previous close interactions and the tidal gravitational pulls of nearby galaxy neighbors M65 and NGC 3628. Spiral galaxy M66, pictured above, spans about 100,000 light years, lies about 35 million light years distant, and is the largest galaxy in a group known as the Leo Triplet. Like many spiral galaxies, the long and intricate dust lanes of M66 are seen intertwined with the bright stars and nebulas that light up the spiral arms.

<< Previous APOD

Discuss Any APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

[bystander]

STSci: Hubble snaps heavyweight of the Leo Triplet

[neufer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCYApJtsyd0

[list]If you ever plan to motor west,
Travel my way, take the highway that is best.
Get your kicks on M66.

It winds from chicago to l.a.,
More than two thousand miles all the way.
Get your kicks on M66.

Now you go through saint looey
Joplin, missouri,
And oklahoma city
is mighty pretty.
You see amarillo,
Gallup, new mexico,
Flagstaff, arizona.
Don't forget winona,
Kingman, barstow, san bernandino.

Won't you get hip to this timely tip:
When you make that california trip
Get your kicks on M66.[/list]

[tesla]

Tidal gravitational pulls from nearby galaxies? I do not think so! Gravity is not that strong in space to have that effect. Astronomers can only say gravity because; 1 They do not look at the observed facts before them; 2 They cannot think of anything else! M66 is another good example of why gravity is not a major force in the formation of galaxies

[neufer]

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm… that's funny…'"

• Finnegans Wake page 4.7: Arms apeal with larms, appalling.

<<Obviously [M66's] spiral arms are deformed, probably because of the encounters with its neighbors.
They seem to be distorted and displaced above the plane of the galaxy.
Note how one of the spiral arms seems to pass over the left side of the central bulge.>>

<<This First Folio Shakespeare engraving was given to two tailoring journals. 'The Tailor and Cutter', March 1911 and 'The Gentleman's Tailor', April 1911 . Both trade journals agreed that the figure was clothed in a coat composed of the back and the front of the same left arm. This was proved by cutting out the two halves of the coat and showing them shoulder to shoulder.

It has also been suggested that the type of collar depicted on the engraving did not exist. The head does not appear to be connected to the body but is sitting on the collar. The collar looks solid, it has no fastenings, how would you put this on?>>

[Chris Peterson]

Tidal gravitational pulls from nearby galaxies? I do not think so! Gravity is not that strong in space to have that effect.

A first year physics student can easily do the math to demonstrate otherwise. The absolute strength of the force is not important; what matters is the vector sum of the forces acting on the disrupted stars. You're right that gravity is a weak force- but that applies as well to the gravity holding stars in galaxies as to the gravity from nearby galaxies. It takes very little to change the orbit of a star in a galaxy, and that's what we're seeing in tidal distortion.

[tesla]

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the explanation. But if you have a close look at what an astronomer would call "streams of brown gas" in the arms, you would see that they are filamentary in structure, In some places you can see that these filaments are twisted. Gravity does not do this. Neither does wind off nearby stars or the theoretical & mythical black hole. If you look at M51 on the Chandra website you will see the same structure.
Gravity is not the main force in organizing the Universe. Astronomers in general need to "get past" Isaac Newton and really look at what they are seeing rather than what they think they are seeing to fit a theoretical model

[bystander]

Chandra: M51: Whirpool Galaxy (2007)

Hubble: M51: Whirpool Galaxy (2001)

[neufer]

If you have a close look at what an astronomer would call "streams of brown gas" in the arms, you would see that they are filamentary in structure, In some places you can see that these filaments are twisted. Gravity does not do this. Neither does wind off nearby stars or the theoretical & mythical black hole.

Try making twisted filaments of electrically neutral gas using electromagnetism, tesla:

Explanation: <<Interstellar space is filled with extremely tenuous clouds of gas which are mostly Hydrogen. The neutral Hydrogen atom (HI in astronomer's shorthand) consists of 1 proton and 1 electron. The proton and electron spin like tops but can have only two orientations; spin axes parallel or anti-parallel. It is a rare event for Hydrogen atoms in the interstellar medium to switch from the parallel to the anti-parallel configuration, but when they do they emit radio waves with a wavelength of 21 centimeters (about 8 inches) and a corresponding frequency of exactly 1420 MHz. Tuned to this frequency radio telescopes have mapped the neutral Hydrogen in the sky. The above image represents such an all-sky HI survey with the plane of our Milky Way Galaxy running horizontally through the center. In this false color image no stars are visible, just diffuse clouds of gas tens to hundreds of light years across which cluster near the plane. The gas clouds seem to form arching, looping structures, stirred up by stellar activity in the galactic disk.>>

[Chris Peterson]

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the explanation. But if you have a close look at what an astronomer would call "streams of brown gas" in the arms, you would see that they are filamentary in structure, In some places you can see that these filaments are twisted. Gravity does not do this. Neither does wind off nearby stars or the theoretical & mythical black hole.

I see what might be described as filaments, but nothing I'd conclude to be twisted. Filaments are easily produced by a combination of gravitational condensation and shock waves from supernovas or winds from hot stars. On a galactic scale they can be produced by a sort of aliasing between the orbital period of stars and high density regions. Even twisted structures can be created by gravitational effects, as is seen in Saturn's rings. But I don't think there are any large scale twisted structures in M66. Or M51.

[tesla]

The stumbling block with most astronomers is that they see the universe as electrically neutral when all the evidence points to a different conclusion. Theories are constantly having to be rewritten as new evidence is found that does not fit the gravitational model. An electrical universe fits simply the observed facts without having to invent far fetched theories. Have a look at the experiments done by Kristian Birkeland and his Terrella ball. Gravity not needed to get an experiment that matches observed facts. Look at the observed facts instead of trying to come up with a new theory to fit an old model.
Example; We were told by astronomers that comets were balls of ice and water. First satellite that got close found no trace of water. Then the Chandra satellite was pointed at a comet. Surprise! X Rays.
Look at the observed facts not what you think they may be!

[Chris Peterson]

The stumbling block with most astronomers is that they see the universe as electrically neutral when all the evidence points to a different conclusion. Theories are constantly having to be rewritten as new evidence is found that does not fit the gravitational model. An electrical universe fits simply the observed facts without having to invent far fetched theories.

The idea that the Universe is shaped by electric fields has been completely discredited. It is nothing but pseudoscience. Discussing it in this forum is grounds for having your account suspended.

This discussion is over.

[dougettinger]

If you have a close look at what an astronomer would call "streams of brown gas" in the arms, you would see that they are filamentary in structure, In some places you can see that these filaments are twisted. Gravity does not do this. Neither does wind off nearby stars or the theoretical & mythical black hole.

Try making twisted filaments of electrically neutral gas using electromagnetism, tesla:

Explanation: <<Interstellar space is filled with extremely tenuous clouds of gas which are mostly Hydrogen. The neutral Hydrogen atom (HI in astronomer's shorthand) consists of 1 proton and 1 electron. The proton and electron spin like tops but can have only two orientations; spin axes parallel or anti-parallel. It is a rare event for Hydrogen atoms in the interstellar medium to switch from the parallel to the anti-parallel configuration, but when they do they emit radio waves with a wavelength of 21 centimeters (about 8 inches) and a corresponding frequency of exactly 1420 MHz. Tuned to this frequency radio telescopes have mapped the neutral Hydrogen in the sky. The above image represents such an all-sky HI survey with the plane of our Milky Way Galaxy running horizontally through the center. In this false color image no stars are visible, just diffuse clouds of gas tens to hundreds of light years across which cluster near the plane. The gas clouds seem to form arching, looping structures, stirred up by stellar activity in the galactic disk.>>

Art, you went to a lot of effort for this answer. It was much appreciated. However, it does cause some stupid questions. I never heard the term "anti-parallel". Is the meaning similar to the spin axes of the Sun and planet Uranus ? I know there is opposite spin: CW and CWW. What causes the switching of the hydrogen atoms from parallel to anti-parallel configuration?

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[dougettinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCYApJtsyd0

[list]If you ever plan to motor west,
Travel my way, take the highway that is best.
Get your kicks on M66.

It winds from chicago to l.a.,
More than two thousand miles all the way.
Get your kicks on M66.

Now you go through saint looey
Joplin, missouri,
And oklahoma city
is mighty pretty.
You see amarillo,
Gallup, new mexico,
Flagstaff, arizona.
Don't forget winona,
Kingman, barstow, san bernandino.

Won't you get hip to this timely tip:
When you make that california trip
Get your kicks on M66.[/list]

I ate a hamburger and milkshake on M66 west of Flagstaff,AZ. A Harley parade went by and my hair stood on end - it was either an electrical or gravitational phenomenon. But I could never "be sure" even though I worked for Westinghouse.

Doug Ettinger

[neufer]

I ate a hamburger and milkshake on M66 west of Flagstaff,AZ. A Harley parade went by and my hair stood on end - it was either an electrical or gravitational phenomenon. But I could never "be sure" even though I worked for Westinghouse.

Perhaps it was a gust of air.

<<George Westinghouse, Jr (October 6, 1846–March 12, 1914) once witnessed a train wreck where two engineers saw one another, but were unable to stop their trains in time using the existing brakes. Brakemen ran from car to car, on catwalks atop the cars, applying the brakes manually on each car. In 1869 at age 22 Westinghouse invented a railroad braking system using compressed air. The Westinghouse system used a compressor on the locomotive, a reservoir and a special valve on each car, and a single pipe running the length of the train (with flexible connections) which both refilled the reservoirs and controlled the brakes, applying and releasing the brakes on all cars simultaneously. It is a failsafe system, in that any rupture or disconnection in the train pipe will apply the brakes throughout the train. Modern trains use brakes in various forms based on this design.>>

[dougettinger]

Neufer, did you actually have that story memorized? It is an interesting analogy. We are witnessing the wrecks of galaxies; can we apply our minds to the situation like George did ? I presume you also know the stories about the relationships between Tesla, Edison, Westinghouse and JP Morgan.

If you have the time please briefly provide an answer for the neutral H2 switching spin orientations. Thanks.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[neufer]

Art, you went to a lot of effort for this answer. It was much appreciated. However, it does cause some stupid questions. I never heard the term "anti-parallel". Is the meaning similar to the spin axes of the Sun and planet Uranus ? I know there is opposite spin: CW and CWW. What causes the switching of the hydrogen atoms from parallel to anti-parallel configuration?

Hi, Doug.

Mercury (Axial tilt ~ 2.11′ ) and the sun are in a parallel spin state.
Venus (Axial tilt ~ 177.3° ) and the sun are in an anti-parallel spin state.

<<The proton and electron of a hydrogen atom are both little spinning dipole magnets that interact with each other.
The excited higher energy state has the two spins going in the same direction (i.e., parallel).
The ground state energy state has the two spins going in the opposite direction (i.e., anti-parallel).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An electron orbiting a proton with parallel spins (pictured)
has higher energy than if the spins were anti-parallel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collisions with other hydrogen atoms and interaction with the cosmic microwave background are constantly mixing up these two neutral hydrogen atomic states such that there are roughly equal numbers of each state. However, every year one ten millionth of the excited parallel spin states will spontaneously decay to the ground anti-parallel thus radiating a 1420.4 MHz photon.>>

[dougettinger]

Thanks, Art. I was not sure whether anti-parallel meant something other than about 180 degrees difference in spin. Do you find the similarities of small particles and the large bodies in our solar system and in other star systems as mind boggling ? Are we actually witnessing dimensionless physics and just don't know the equivalencies ?

You don't have to answer. I just love to question things.

Doug Ettinger