PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible for a Galaxy to disappear due to a cataclysm?



solomarineris
2009-Jun-11, 01:07 PM
If we have hundred billion plus them out there wouldn't it be reasonable to think one or two of them falling victim to a black hole or a gravitational flux? especially in early phases of Big Bang expansion when galaxies started to form, creation of different matters began.
Is there any chance, you think, we will be able to peer into an early expansion phase of universe to observe some of these events?

Amber Robot
2009-Jun-11, 01:18 PM
What is a "gravitational flux"?

rommel543
2009-Jun-11, 01:18 PM
That would be one nasty black hole to swallow an entire galaxy.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jun-11, 01:21 PM
If we have hundred billion plus them out there wouldn't it be reasonable to think one or two of them falling victim to a black hole or a gravitational flux?
It is speculated that there is a black hole at the center of each galaxy now. "Falling victim" and cataclysm seems to imply some rapid event. It isn't.

Is there any chance, you think, we will be able to peer into an early expansion phase of universe to observe some of these events?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we already peered to a point before the formation of galaxies?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-11, 01:40 PM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we already peered to a point before the formation of galaxies?

Everytime we look into a telescope we are looking into the past.

Edit: Unless it's one of those handy "future peering telescopes" :)

Jeff Root
2009-Jun-11, 01:42 PM
The ability to see what was going on at the time of formation of the
earliest galaxies is extremely limited. The Webb Space Telescope will
make viewing of such galaxies easier, due to the light-gathering power
of its large mirror and the fact that it is optimized for infrared light.

There might have been large concentrations of mass early on, or there
might not have. If they did not emit light, they will be really hard to
detect. Only observation of their effects on other galaxies or the CMBR
would reveal their existence.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

NEOWatcher
2009-Jun-11, 01:45 PM
Everytime we look into a telescope we are looking into the past.
Don't even need a telescope. The time periods are just shorter without one.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-11, 01:54 PM
Don't even need a telescope. The time periods are just shorter without one.

Maybe that's why I look old?

solomarineris
2009-Jun-11, 06:34 PM
It is speculated that there is a black hole at the center of each galaxy now. "Falling victim" and cataclysm seems to imply some rapid event. It isn't.
True, but it happens regularly somewhere as M82 demonstrates;
http://www.weblore.com/richard/m82_exploding_galaxy.htm
I mean, is this a Supernovae or Galaxy? What is causing this massive ejection?
Multiple chain reactions?
Here another one, even more graphic;
http://www.grandunification.com/hypertext/Galaxy_Formation3.html
In this one cores are still redhot.
Very spectacular,instructive pictures

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we already peered to a point before the formation of galaxies?
If we did I'd appreciate any link for it.

Amber Robot
2009-Jun-11, 07:33 PM
Here another one, even more graphic;
http://www.grandunification.com/hypertext/Galaxy_Formation3.html
In this one cores are still redhot.
Very spectacular,instructive pictures.

What do you mean by "redhot"? Do you know what is going on in this galaxy and what the nature of the emission is?

mugaliens
2009-Jun-11, 09:48 PM
A supermassive black hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#By_mass)contains hundreds of thousands to billions of solar masses, and are thought to exist at the center of most galaxies. By contrast, the Milky Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way_galaxy)galaxy, which has it's own (likely) SMBH, Sagittarius A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*), contains between 200 billion and 400 billion stars.

Still, most of the Milky Way's mass comes from dark matter, not stars or black holes.

So, despite the gravitational attraction going on, gravity remains the weakest of all forces, and is not really capable of swalling entire galaxies by the current 14 billion year age of the universe.

Scamp
2009-Jun-11, 09:54 PM
Perhaps via a collsion with another galaxy that absorbes it and/or leaves it scatterd into space?

matthewota
2009-Jun-11, 09:56 PM
The fact that there are black holes in the centers of most galaxies does not mean that the galaxies are in peril. The stars and dust in the galaxies orbit around the black hole and do not "fall in".

solomarineris
2009-Jun-11, 09:58 PM
What do you mean by "redhot"? Do you know what is going on in this galaxy and what the nature of the emission is?
The picture is explaining alot, you can see the two expansion points where the Galaxy is blown outward, "Redhot" is a metaphor, if you think something else please share with us.
I know very little about what color the elements represent, if I'm not wrong red is Hydrogene, it is very likely that it will coalesce into thousands of spheres, creating new stars.

solomarineris
2009-Jun-11, 10:48 PM
The picture is explaining alot, you can see the two expansion points where the Galaxy is blown outward, "Redhot" is a metaphor, if you think something else please share with us.
I know very little about what color the elements represent, if I'm not wrong red is Hydrogene, it is very likely that it will coalesce into thousands of spheres, creating new stars.
Edited to add;
I didn't bother to make sure whether above mentioned picture was taken in Infrared, which I thought so. If it is infrared color of Hydrogen is read, if it is taken with normal lens Hydrogen is greenish blue.

trinitree88
2009-Jun-11, 10:51 PM
[QUOTE=mugaliens;1507024] SNIPPET
Still, most of the Milky Way's mass comes from dark matter, not stars or black holes.
Mugaliens...SNIPPET.

I won't dispute the fact that the observed galactic rotation curves see:http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/dark_matter/rotation_curves.html do not fit with our Newtonian/ Keplerian physics, and that something is wrong there. However dark matter remains putative until it shows up in a lab under predictable circumstances...a cosmic ray shower, a particle detector, some interesting nuclear interaction.... So far it hasn't and remains as "iffy" as Nessie, Bigfoot, Ogopogo, the Chupacabra, Moby Dick, and Zeta Reticulans. Putative dark matter, rather than simply ...dark matter....as if it were fact, is a safer route for now.
pete

solomarineris
2009-Jun-12, 04:06 AM
[QUOTE=mugaliens;1507024] SNIPPET
Still, most of the Milky Way's mass comes from dark matter, not stars or black holes.
Mugaliens...SNIPPET.

I won't dispute the fact that the observed galactic rotation curves see:http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/dark_matter/rotation_curves.html do not fit with our Newtonian/ Keplerian physics, and that something is wrong there. However dark matter remains putative until it shows up in a lab under predictable circumstances...a cosmic ray shower, a particle detector, some interesting nuclear interaction.... So far it hasn't and remains as "iffy" as Nessie, Bigfoot, Ogopogo, the Chupacabra, Moby Dick, and Zeta Reticulans. Putative dark matter, rather than simply ...dark matter....as if it were fact, is a safer route for now.
pete
You'ra senior member
How refreshing.

WayneFrancis
2009-Jun-12, 05:33 AM
It is speculated that there is a black hole at the center of each galaxy now. "Falling victim" and cataclysm seems to imply some rapid event. It isn't.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we already peered to a point before the formation of galaxies?

Well if you are talking about the CMBR then yes. Besides that no. There is a radio telescope going up that is supposed to let us see some of the first stars forming I think.

solomarineris
2009-Jun-12, 06:12 PM
[QUOTE=trinitree88;1507079]

I agree 100%, and that Non-baryonic Dark Matter should "Always" be identified as WIMP's (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) to distinguish it from Non-baryonic Dark Matter Neutrinos, which could still have 'some' association with an explanation for the rotation curves of spiral galaxies

You are talking about wimps, neutrinos, nobody I've heard claimed they have mass. Most of us hypothesize Dark Matter has mass and pulling power or keeping galaxies in line.
Unfortunately I hear all experts speculate on the subject, I was hoping Hedron Collider would shed some light by now. Hopefully it'll start working soon.

RussT
2009-Jun-13, 08:44 AM
The quote tages got mixed up above, so I deleted my orginal, and made the quote tags right, so hopefully this is enough to fix this...sorry



[quote=mugaliens;1507024] SNIPPET
Still, most of the Milky Way's mass comes from dark matter, not stars or black holes.
Mugaliens...SNIPPET.



I won't dispute the fact that the observed galactic rotation curves see:http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/dark_ma...on_curves.html do not fit with our Newtonian/ Keplerian physics, and that something is wrong there. However dark matter remains putative until it shows up in a lab under predictable circumstances...a cosmic ray shower, a particle detector, some interesting nuclear interaction.... So far it hasn't and remains as "iffy" as Nessie, Bigfoot, Ogopogo, the Chupacabra, Moby Dick, and Zeta Reticulans. Putative dark matter, rather than simply ...dark matter....as if it were fact, is a safer route for now.
pete

I agree 100%, and that Non-baryonic Dark Matter should "Always" be identified as WIMP's (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) to distinguish it from Non-baryonic Dark Matter Neutrinos, which could still have 'some' association with an explanation for the rotation curves of spiral galaxies

RussT
2009-Jun-13, 09:23 AM
You are talking about wimps, neutrinos, nobody I've heard claimed they have mass. Most of us hypothesize Dark Matter has mass and pulling power or keeping galaxies in line.
Unfortunately I hear all experts speculate on the subject, I was hoping Hedron Collider would shed some light by now. Hopefully it'll start working soon.

I am not going to go into alot of detail here...at first I was going to say, that because you only have 99 posts, that you could be forgiven for linking two decidely non-mainstream sites, and asking wide ranging questions...But...you have made 6 posts in this thread, and yet you are stuck on 99 posts still...Hummmmmm.



You are talking about wimps

Yes, and I was just agreeing with Trinitree88, that they are putative (predicted/assumed), and that because there is so much confusion with what is actually meant by the term "Dark Matter", that they should always be identified for what they are. Non-baryonic WIMPS.



Most of us hypothesize Dark Matter has mass and pulling power or keeping galaxies in line.

Yep...that's mainstream.

And, since you say...Most of us , many would wonder why you are bringing these site into play...


True, but it happens regularly somewhere as M82 demonstrates;
http://www.weblore.com/richard/m82_exploding_galaxy.htm

Halton Arp sees an ejection mechanism responsible for these quasars,

You need to read up more on this.



Here another one, even more graphic;
http://www.grandunification.com/hype...ormation3.html
In this one cores are still redhot.
Very spectacular,instructive pictures

The Ball-of-Light Particle Model

And this is a "Very Out There" (Being Kind here) theory.

You really need to be careful which sites you go to...with a little effort you can find the sites that are 'more mainstream'.

tusenfem
2009-Jun-13, 09:25 AM
The picture is explaining alot, you can see the two expansion points where the Galaxy is blown outward, "Redhot" is a metaphor, if you think something else please share with us.
I know very little about what color the elements represent, if I'm not wrong red is Hydrogene, it is very likely that it will coalesce into thousands of spheres, creating new stars.

Dear solomarineris
I hope you do realize that "red hot" (even when used as a metaphor) is misleading, most definitely in the picture that you have show, because "blue" light (on the pics) come from hotter places than "red" light.


And please keep this place mainstrean, if you cannot do that, then I will move this trhead to ATM.

astromark
2009-Jun-13, 09:57 AM
It would seem that this Universe has rules... In order for a whole Galaxy to be consumed by some as yet un-imagined cataclysmic event, you would need to have broken some or many of those rules. As weak as it might seem to be. The relentless force of gravity in co-operation with rotational valocity would rule it not likely. Highly un probable and may even be impossible.
So . . . ' Could a whole Galaxy be ? ... NO.

WayneFrancis
2009-Jun-15, 03:13 AM
[QUOTE=RussT;1507394]

You are talking about wimps, neutrinos, nobody I've heard claimed they have mass. Most of us hypothesize Dark Matter has mass and pulling power or keeping galaxies in line.
Unfortunately I hear all experts speculate on the subject, I was hoping Hedron Collider would shed some light by now. Hopefully it'll start working soon.

I'm not sure if you meant this but I read that as you saying that the neutrino has zero rest mass. I believe that it has a very small but non zero rest mass.

RussT
2009-Jun-15, 08:10 AM
The quote tags got mixed again...it was
solomarineris, that said this...
You are talking about wimps, neutrinos, nobody I've heard claimed they have mass. Most of us hypothesize Dark Matter has mass and pulling power or keeping galaxies in line. Unfortunately I hear all experts speculate on the subject, I was hoping Hedron Collider would shed some light by now. Hopefully it'll start working soon.

But I believe you are correct that Neutrinos are now supposed to have a some kind of limit established on possible mass.

Trinitree88 knows this better than I.

astromark
2009-Jun-15, 09:08 AM
if we have hundred billion plus them out there wouldn't it be reasonable to think one or two of them falling victim to a black hole or a gravitational flux? Especially in early phases of big bang expansion when galaxies started to form, creation of different matters began.
Is there any chance, you think, we will be able to peer into an early expansion phase of universe to observe some of these events?

No !

No amount of aperture or magnifacation will reveal the secrets of the early universe. It was nearly half a billion years old before light could penetrate the space between galaxies...or so they say. We can at best just speculate what most probably did happen. As information becomes available we modify our view of this history.

tusenfem
2009-Jun-15, 09:16 AM
Still there is the question: What is gravitational flux?

cfgauss
2009-Jun-15, 09:28 AM
No !

No amount of aperture or magnifacation will reveal the secrets of the early universe. It was nearly half a billion years old before light could penetrate the space between galaxies...or so they say. We can at best just speculate what most probably did happen. As information becomes available we modify our view of this history.

Well, there's a cosmic neutrino background and a cosmic gravitational wave background that could directly tell us things about before the universe was transparent to light. But these are far off from being detected :D.

Also, the exact structure of the CMB spectrum does tell us indirectly about the goings-on of the early universe, even though we can't "see" it.

astromark
2009-Jun-15, 09:49 AM
Well, there's a cosmic neutrino background and a cosmic gravitational wave background that could directly tell us things about before the universe was transparent to light. But these are far off from being detected :D.

Also, the exact structure of the CMB spectrum does tell us indirectly about the goings-on of the early universe, even though we can't "see" it.

Its good to see the science climbing above the fog of ignorance... and Please explain Gravatational Flux... gently:)

astromark
2009-Jun-15, 09:52 AM
Was it a plasma state or just supper hot matter ?

JustAFriend
2009-Jun-15, 02:17 PM
If all you want to see is a ginormous explosion with the potential for countless civilizations to die horribly, there are plenty of photos of galaxies colliding.

....then again lots of people like to go to demolition derbies and stock-car races just to watch the wrecks, too....

NEOWatcher
2009-Jun-15, 02:24 PM
If all you want to see is a ginormous explosion with the potential for countless civilizations to die horribly, there are plenty of photos of galaxies colliding.
Are there? I've always learned that galaxy collisions are rather non-explosive events and are more of a "dance of the stars".

(Not to be confused with current network programming of course)

rommel543
2009-Jun-15, 02:41 PM
Gravitational Flux:

http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node129.html

The only way a galaxy would be able to be 'destroyed' would be interaction with another galaxy or galaxies. Even then the galaxy would not destroyed in the way the OP is discussing, but only consumed by the bigger celestial body.

m1omg
2009-Jun-15, 06:18 PM
Don't be all so sure.While we don't know any natural mechanism that can absolutely destroy an galaxy except for one that certainly will - time, no physical law prevents this, even through it would require obscene amounts of energy.
And galactic collisions are largy without stars colliding, but some collisions occur and star densities near galactic centers or in globular star clusters are thousands of times larger than in the vicinity, so some collisions are gonna occur.And collisions of gas will bring flashy nebulas and starbursts = a massive spike in star formation rate, that would bring many young stars in the long term, as can be seen on pictures of an elliptical galaxy that collided with a younger spiral galaxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaurus_A , also bringing a lot of gas and dust, creating a constrast between gas poor elliptical galaxy, and the remains of the spiral galaxy.