Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Waspie_Dwarf

Cool, New Views of Andromeda Galaxy

23 posts in this topic

Cool, New Views of Andromeda Galaxy

722455mainpia16681673.jpg

The ring-like swirls of dust filling the Andromeda galaxy stand out colorfully in this new image from the Herschel Space Observatory, a European Space Agency mission with important NASA participation. Image credit: ESA/NASA/JPL-Caltech/NHSC › Full image and caption

Two new eye-catching views from the Herschel space observatory are fit for a princess. They show the elegant spiral galaxy Andromeda, named after the mythical Greek princess known for her beauty.

The Andromeda galaxy, also known as Messier 31, lies 2 million light-years away, and is the closest large galaxy to our own Milky Way. It is estimated to have up to one trillion stars, whereas the Milky Way contains hundreds of billions. Recent evidence suggests Andromeda's overall mass may in fact be less than the mass of the Milky Way, when dark matter is included.

Herschel, a European Space Agency mission with important NASA contributions, sees the longer-wavelength infrared light from the galaxy, revealing its rings of cool dust. Some of this dust is the very coldest in the galaxy -- only a few tens of degrees above absolute zero.

In both views, warmer dust is highlighted in the central regions by different colors. New stars are being born in this central, crowded hub, and throughout the galaxy's rings in dusty knots. Spokes of dust can also be seen between the rings.

One view, seen at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/herschel/multimedia/pia16682.html , is a mosaic of data from Herschel's Photodetecting Array Camera and Spectrometer (PACS) and spectral and photometric imaging receiver (SPIRE).

The second view, seen at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/herschel/multimedia/pia16681.html , shows data from only the SPIRE instrument, which captures the longest of wavelengths detectable by Herschel.

Herschel is a European Space Agency cornerstone mission, with science instruments provided by consortia of European institutes and with important participation by NASA. NASA's Herschel Project Office is based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. JPL contributed mission-enabling technology for two of Herschel's three science instruments. The NASA Herschel Science Center, part of the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, supports the United States astronomical community. Caltech manages JPL for NASA.

More information is online at http://www.herschel.caltech.edu , http://www.nasa.gov/herschel and http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Herschel .

Whitney Clavin 818-354-4673

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

whitney.clavin@jpl.nasa.gov

2013-035

arrow3.gifSource

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing. Beautiful pictures. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree; thanks.

I believe our Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda are headed on a collision course for each other and will actually collide in a few billion years. I wish I could be around to see it -- although the individual stars are so far apart the chances of it doing harm to the earth are small, it will be something to see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the kinetic and other types of energy produced by such a collision will fundamentally change everything about both galaxies. The Earth and sun will both cease to exist long before this collision occurs regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the kinetic and other types of energy produced by such a collision will fundamentally change everything about both galaxies.

No it won't. Gravitational interactions will change the external shape of the galaxies, they will cease to be spirals, but from the point of view of an observer living in either galaxy there would be no real change. A collision between galaxies is a bit like a collision between two puffs of smoke. There are huge spaces between the stars and actual, physical collisions between stars as a result are extremely rare.

The Earth and sun will both cease to exist long before this collision occurs regardless.

No they won't. The Earth will likely be destroyed when the sun becomes a red giant in around 5 billion years. The two galaxies will collide in about 4 billion years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill take your word for it. Thank you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earth will likely be destroyed when the sun becomes a red giant in around 5 billion years.

I'd like to think that our descendants will not allow that to happen. They'll save good ol' Earth. Think of how advanced human technology will be in a few thousand years, think of how much in a few billion years...

FTL speed will be attained at some point in a few thousand years for sure, allowing travel that we now think of as impossible, possible.

We'll be able to change the galactic orbit of both the Sun and Earth together as a pair, and fly to wherever we'd like to around the galaxy very quickly. We'll be able to change our Sun for other stars whenever we want to, and with Andromeda on the way, there will be even more to choose from...

Intergalactic travel will be quick at some point in the future as well. There are so many possible ways it may happen, and we have billions of years of technological advancements to "make it so."

We'll find a way. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We'll find a way. :)

Ever thought some things are really impossible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever thought some things are really impossible?

Nope, I believe everything and anything is possible.

You just need the knowledge and power to do so.

Knowledge is increasing at a phenomenal rate.

The power available in the universe is huge.

Add in teamwork and determination and we can do anything we want to, and we will. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I believe everything and anything is possible.

Belief is a wonderful thing, but evidence and knowledge trumps it EVERY time.

You just need the knowledge and power to do so.

And your evidence for this is?

Knowledge is increasing at a phenomenal rate.

Yes it is, but none of that knowledge has yet replaced Relativity, in fact the more we know the more it seems to confirm relativity.

The power available in the universe is huge.

But not greater than infinite, which is what Relativity says is needed for faster than light travel.

Add in teamwork and determination and we can do anything we want to, and we will. :)

Sadly the universe may disagree with you on that. The laws of nature limit what is possible, NOT human imagination. If the universe doesn't allow it we can't do it. At the moment our understanding suggests that faster than light travel is impossible. If we are right then we will be forever limited in the speeds we can reach.

Of course it is always possible that in the future we will discover that Relativity is wrong, or discover ways around it without breaking those laws, but even if we do your statement will still be wrong, there will always be things that the laws of nature forbid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No it won't. Gravitational interactions will change the external shape of the galaxies, they will cease to be spirals, but from the point of view of an observer living in either galaxy there would be no real change. A collision between galaxies is a bit like a collision between two puffs of smoke. There are huge spaces between the stars and actual, physical collisions between stars as a result are extremely rare.

The analogy with puffs of smoke may be wrong.

If one 'puff of smoke' is hydrogen gas, and the other 'puff of smoke' chloride gas, you think nothing much will happen?

H2 and Cl2 have to be close together to form 2HCl, and you can bet it happens in measurable amounts.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty that space holds, is uncanny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine a technology that could save a star that is out of fuel. Far easier just to move somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belief is a wonderful thing, but evidence and knowledge trumps it EVERY time.

And your evidence for this is?

Yes it is, but none of that knowledge has yet replaced Relativity, in fact the more we know the more it seems to confirm relativity.

But not greater than infinite, which is what Relativity says is needed for faster than light travel.

Sadly the universe may disagree with you on that. The laws of nature limit what is possible, NOT human imagination. If the universe doesn't allow it we can't do it. At the moment our understanding suggests that faster than light travel is impossible. If we are right then we will be forever limited in the speeds we can reach.

Of course it is always possible that in the future we will discover that Relativity is wrong, or discover ways around it without breaking those laws, but even if we do your statement will still be wrong, there will always be things that the laws of nature forbid.

Think of what we thought was "impossible" a few hundred years ago.

Think of what we can now do with our new knowledge, yes, many things that were once thought to be "impossible".

Fast forward a million years worth of scientific study, then a billion... think of what will be possible...

Look at the current rate of knowledge growth and extrapolate... envision what is to be...

We're only in the extreme infancy of our studies right now.

There is much, much more to the universe to be discovered. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of what we thought was "impossible" a few hundred years ago.

Think of what we can now do with our new knowledge, yes, many things that were once thought to be "impossible".

Fast forward a million years worth of scientific study, then a billion... think of what will be possible...

Look at the current rate of knowledge growth and extrapolate... envision what is to be...

We're only in the extreme infancy of our studies right now.

There is much, much more to the universe to be discovered. :)

All positive thoughts right there,but with all the problems we currently have just thinking about going to mars i can foresee a complete reset of humanity several times over before we ever will get to our next nearest star.To many problems,to many complications with space travel add that to the incredible rate at which we are destroying our own planet,i do not think we have another million years of our current rate of technology before us.I know this sounds pessimistic to some,but seems realistic to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All positive thoughts right there,but with all the problems we currently have just thinking about going to mars i can foresee a complete reset of humanity several times over before we ever will get to our next nearest star.To many problems,to many complications with space travel add that to the incredible rate at which we are destroying our own planet,i do not think we have another million years of our current rate of technology before us.I know this sounds pessimistic to some,but seems realistic to others.

There will be pockets of humanity that will likely survive anything that is to come.

The further into the future these calamaties happen, the more chance some will survive, because we will be more technologically advanced, and there are those that can see what will happen and will be prepared.

I wish I could be alive myself to see all that is to come... the realization that not only our Milky Way galaxy, and the Andromeda galaxy, are full of all kinds of other life, but the vast, whole universe including all the other billions of galaxies are full of life too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The analogy with puffs of smoke may be wrong.

If one 'puff of smoke' is hydrogen gas, and the other 'puff of smoke' chloride gas, you think nothing much will happen?

H2 and Cl2 have to be close together to form 2HCl, and you can bet it happens in measurable amounts.

Wow! So much wrong in one, three sentence post, I almost don't know where to begim.

You have totally failed to understand the entire point of my analogy, which has nothing to do with chemistry. It is to do with the fact that galaxies are mostly empty space. They cam pass through one another without there being any collisions of any of the stars, that was the point I was making. The same also holds true for nebulae, the chance of collisions, even when galaxies are colliding, is very small.

Next you don't seem to know something even as basic as what smoke is (although the fact that you have placed 'puff of smoke' within speech marks it is possible that you do know but are deliberately using the term incorrectly).

A cloud of hydrogen or chlorine CAN NOT be described as a "puff of smoke". The definition of smoke is:

1. The vaporous system made up of small particles of carbonaceous matter in the air, resulting mainly from the burning of organic material, such as wood or coal.

2. A suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium.

3. A cloud of fine particles.

4. Something insubstantial, unreal, or transitory.

5.

a.
The act of smoking a form of tobacco: went out for a smoke.

b.
The duration of this act.

6. Informal Tobacco in a form that can be smoked, especially a cigarette: money to buy smokes.

7. A substance used in warfare to produce a smoke screen.

8. Something used to conceal or obscure.

9. A pale to grayish blue to bluish or dark gray.

arrow3.gifSource

None of these definitions are a valid description of a gas cloud.

When it comes to chemistry, you chose a very poor example to illustrate your (incorrect) argument. Do yo know what happens if you mix a cloud of H2 and Cl2 together in the blackness of space? Absolutely nothing is the answer. That reaction requires ultraviolet light to set it in action.

Next, where are these clouds of chlorine gas? Whilst astronomers have detected HCl molecules in space they have not detected Cl2. There do not appear to be huge clouds of chlorine floating around out there. Chlorine was not created in the Big Bang, it is generated in supernovae. It is pretty much always found in space as the chloride ion in molecules such as HCl, Kcl, Nacl, AlCl, etc. It is not found as molecular chlorine.

You don't appear to understand the nature of nebulae either. From your post you make it seem like there are densely packed clouds of molecules out there. Nothing could be further from the truth. whilst nebulae may look substantial to us that is only because of how vast they are. in fact they are, to all intents and purposes, still a vacuum. The space between molecules in a nebula is massive. Even if there were clouds of molecular hydrogen colliding with clouds of molecular chlorine in the presence of sufficient UV there won't be an explosive reaction. The two clouds are so sparse that reactions would occur slowly over millions of years.

Sorry Abramelin but if you are going to argue a point, first make sure you understand the point to begin with and then make sure the facts are on your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of what we thought was "impossible" a few hundred years ago.

Think of what we can now do with our new knowledge, yes, many things that were once thought to be "impossible".

Fast forward a million years worth of scientific study, then a billion... think of what will be possible...

Look at the current rate of knowledge growth and extrapolate... envision what is to be...

We're only in the extreme infancy of our studies right now.

There is much, much more to the universe to be discovered. :)

I agree with all these points but it doesn't change the fact that (to quote Montgomery Scott), "Ye cannae change the laws of physics!"

We will never be able to do what the laws of nature forbid. Those rules are hard wired into the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all these points but it doesn't change the fact that (to quote Montgomery Scott), "Ye cannae change the laws of physics!"

We will never be able to do what the laws of nature forbid. Those rules are hard wired into the universe.

What we now may consider as unbreakable laws of nature may be shown to not apply under certain conditions, under which other, yet undiscovered laws apply.

Scotty was right, but my point is that there are yet undiscovered laws.

The other day I looked up at a huge plane flying overhead and thought that if someone from a couple of hundred years ago would have been able to see all that heavy metal up there in the "thin air", and not crashing to the ground, that they would likely think it was magic.

Think of how scientists from a million years from now will look upon the knowledge of today's scientists. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Waspie the reason I used two gases is not that I equate gas with smoke, I used it because in those gasses the molecules are also very far apart. But the molecules do react, and yes, under the influence of UV light.

I know this is not about chemistry and also not about gasses in space.

Like you made an analogy with puffs of smoke, I made an analogy with reacting gasses.

I also did not 'attack' your analogy based on there not being 'puffs of smoke' in space, didn't I?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waspie the reason I used two gases is not that I equate gas with smoke,

Then why call gases smoke in the first place? If even the most basic terminology you use is wrong why should anything else in your post be taken seriously?

I used it because in those gasses the molecules are also very far apart.

Your analogy is still totally false. The force of gravity is far weaker than the electromagnetic force which cause the attraction of atoms to each other. Scale up your smoke gas clouds to the same size as galaxies and they will behave very differently.

But the molecules do react

Just as two nearby stars chemically react with each other except, wait a minute, THEY DON'T.

You aren't even comparing apples and oranges here, you are comparing apples with elephants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You're totally over the top.

Your analogy is flawed, and that's all I said.

A collision between galaxies is a bit like a collision between two puffs of smoke.

Shall we analyze your analogy like you did mine?

First: there are NO 'puffs of smoke' in space. If there are, show us please.

My analogy is flawed too, I admit it.

Now it's your turn again. I know that will be hard for you...

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.