PDA

View Full Version : Massive merger of galaxies



ToSeek
2004-Sep-24, 04:56 PM
Massive Merger Of Galaxies Is The Most Powerful On Record (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040924090404.htm)


An international team of scientists, led by a NASA-funded researcher, announced today, they observed a nearby head-on collision of two galaxy clusters. The clusters smashed together thousands of galaxies and trillions of stars. It is one of the most powerful events ever witnessed. Such collisions are second only to the Big Bang in total energy output.

The event was captured with the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton observatory. Scientists are calling the event the perfect cosmic storm: galaxy clusters that collided like two high-pressure weather fronts and created hurricane-like conditions, tossing galaxies far from their paths and churning shock waves of 100-million-degree gas through intergalactic space.

bigsplit
2004-Sep-24, 06:25 PM
If galaxy cluster are the largest gravitationally linked systems in the Univerve and we have Inflation, how did this collision occur?

George
2004-Sep-24, 07:24 PM
If galaxy cluster are the largest gravitationally linked systems in the Univerve and we have Inflation, how did this collision occur?
Are you saying Inflation theory disallows clusters from merging?

Glom
2004-Sep-24, 07:33 PM
I believe inflation theory said that the universe condensed into a web of strands of galaxies. That being the case, there could be concentrations of galaxies that could collide.

I bet this is going to be blamed on global warming as well.

George
2004-Sep-24, 08:00 PM
I believe inflation theory said that the universe condensed into a web of strands of galaxies. That being the case, there could be concentrations of galaxies that could collide.

I bet this is going to be blamed on global warming as well.
At 100 million degrees, maybe it is the cause of global warming. :wink: :)

Just tell 'em, "Nah, what we are seeing happened several billion years ago" and see if that slows 'em down. :)

George
2004-Sep-24, 08:03 PM
BTW, ToSeek. The violence of this merger is so intense, it may have disrupted your link (as well as cause global warming). :)

Lurker
2004-Sep-24, 08:03 PM
I don't know... do these two galaxy clusters have FTC approval for this merger?? [-(

George
2004-Sep-24, 08:07 PM
I don't know... do these two galaxy clusters have FTC approval for this merger?? [-(
I suspect, due to their age, they have been "grandfathered".

[Hmmm...it's starting to look like Friday afternoon around here :) ]

ToSeek
2004-Sep-24, 08:10 PM
BTW, ToSeek. The violence of this merger is so intense, it may have disrupted your link (as well as cause global warming). :)

Alternate source:

Massive Merger of Galaxies is the Most Powerful on Record (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15119)

George
2004-Sep-24, 08:18 PM
Alternate source:

Massive Merger of Galaxies is the Most Powerful on Record (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15119)


The AOL takeover of Time-Warner was peanuts compared to this merger," he added.
Wow. They're as bad as we are. :)

How does this bode for the Static universe folks?

[Edit...Hmmm...can an oxymoron describe one word?]

bigsplit
2004-Sep-24, 08:25 PM
I believe inflation theory said that the universe condensed into a web of strands of galaxies. That being the case, there could be concentrations of galaxies that could collide.

I bet this is going to be blamed on global warming as well.

I thought inflation theory said that galaxies were accelerating away from one another giving us the red shift. Also in the above article it says that galaxy clusters are the largest known gravitational systems, if these two galaxy clusters collided, something must have linked them together. The balloon analogy of Inflation certainly doesn't fit. Maybe we must now conclude that there is are "binary galaxy clusters", these are the biggest.

badprof
2004-Sep-24, 09:21 PM
Hi Bigsplit,

Although the universe is expanding, carrying galaxies further apart on average, local motions in galaxy clusters due to mutual garvity can be sufficient to overcome the expansion and result in galaxy collisions. For example M31 is heading our way right now.

<sick humour> Time to check the collision insurance!! 8-[ </sick humour>

Cheers

wackywizjr
2004-Sep-24, 09:36 PM
Hi Bigsplit,

Although the universe is expanding, carrying galaxies further apart on average, local motions in galaxy clusters due to mutual garvity can be sufficient to overcome the expansion and result in galaxy collisions. For example M31 is heading our way right now.

<sick humour> Time to check the collision insurance!! 8-[ </sick humour>

Cheers

I have tickets aboard the Zeta express I'll sell ya cheep :P .

Lurker
2004-Sep-24, 10:50 PM
Hi Bigsplit,

Although the universe is expanding, carrying galaxies further apart on average, local motions in galaxy clusters due to mutual garvity can be sufficient to overcome the expansion and result in galaxy collisions. For example M31 is heading our way right now.

<sick humour> Time to check the collision insurance!! 8-[ </sick humour>

Cheers

I have tickets aboard the Zeta express I'll sell ya cheep :P .
[bad joke mode]
How do we really know that a billion years from now we're really gunna collide with the Andromeda galaxy!! [-(
[shrug] Well… we could wait… :wink:
[/bad joke mode]

bigsplit
2004-Sep-25, 02:43 PM
Hi Bigsplit,

Although the universe is expanding, carrying galaxies further apart on average, local motions in galaxy clusters due to mutual garvity can be sufficient to overcome the expansion and result in galaxy collisions. For example M31 is heading our way right now.

<sick humour> Time to check the collision insurance!! 8-[ </sick humour>

Cheers

Hey Badprof,

I understand that, but we are in the same local group as M31, these are two different clusters as I understand the article. The article seems to imply that these two clusters are interacting which means they are sharing some gravitational system which has more influence than the dark energy. Doesn't this imply there is a center of gravity for the two systems somewhere between the BH/great attractors of the two clusters? And when they eventually evolve into a single super cluster, will these three BHs actually collide or are the two cluster BHs evaporating and forming the New shared attractor?

Ari Jokimaki
2004-Sep-25, 04:32 PM
How does this bode for the Static universe folks?

Do you mean that things like this shouldn't happen in a static universe? If so, then you perhaps are taking the word 'static' too literally.

Cougar
2004-Sep-26, 03:19 AM
The article seems to imply that these two clusters are interacting which means they are sharing some gravitational system which has more influence than the dark energy.
Correct. This gives you some idea of the extremely vast distances that it takes for the effect of dark energy to come into play.

Doesn't this imply there is a center of gravity for the two systems somewhere between the BH/great attractors of the two clusters?
Yes.

And when they eventually evolve into a single super cluster, will these three BHs actually collide or are the two cluster BHs evaporating and forming the New shared attractor?Depends on their relative velocities and the directions of those velocities. Under the right circumstances, the BHs would orbit each other, probably with a very large distance between them.

Gullible Jones
2004-Sep-26, 03:44 AM
Whoa. :o Yep, that definitely makes the AOL-Time-Warner merger look a bit insignificant...

George
2004-Sep-27, 01:31 PM
How does this bode for the Static universe folks?

Do you mean that things like this shouldn't happen in a static universe? If so, then you perhaps are taking the word 'static' too literally.
I was just curious. On the one hand, as Bigsplit was refering, an expanding space should minimize this possibility. If the anisotropy were much less, could this event have happened in BB Theory?

On the other hand, BB Theory should allow for greater early dynamics over the Static Theory but I am mainly asking as I am not knowledgeable on Static Theory (as you know :-? ).

On the other hand, assuming a 3rd is allowed, this affects no change in view of either theory. This one is likely the "handier" of the 3. :wink:

Ari Jokimaki
2004-Sep-27, 02:43 PM
I was just curious. On the one hand, as Bigsplit was refering, an expanding space should minimize this possibility. If the anisotropy were much less, could this event have happened in BB Theory?

On the other hand, BB Theory should allow for greater early dynamics over the Static Theory but I am mainly asking as I am not knowledgeable on Static Theory (as you know :-? ).

On the other hand, assuming a 3rd is allowed, this affects no change in view of either theory. This one is likely the "handier" of the 3. :wink:

I think you are correct, at least I don't see this causing trouble for any cosmological model. However, there are lots of different static models (there's no "the static theory" :) ), so this might be hard to explain in some of them, but I doubt it. From what I have seen, the large scale structure dynamics doesn't seem to be of highest priority for static model designers, they seem to consentrate more on redshift mechanisms. This is probably because there is not much resources for static universe scientists, so they have to solve the bigger problems first.

Maybe we should just call this observation interesting, but of no cosmological significance. :wink:

George
2004-Sep-27, 09:41 PM
Maybe we should just call this observation interesting, but of no cosmological significance. :wink:
Yeah, it ain't that big of an event to be of cosmological significance :)