VoijaRisa
VoijaRisa
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:40:48 +0000
Galactic Evolution
We all know how much of a fit creationists throw over biological evolution. We've also seen just how much of a fit they throw fits over stellar evolution. But there's change on even bigger scales as well.
From Brahe’s observation of a supernova in 1572, to Arp’s catalogue of odd an interacting galaxies, to Hubble’s observation of an expanding universe, it has become quite apparent in the history of astronomy that we live in a dynamic universe; it evolves. However, the evolution of some systems is easier to trace than that of others. With stars, we can observe clusters, in which only the mass of the various components differs significantly, in order to test our theories of stellar evolution. Unfortunately, for systems as large as galaxies there is no analogue.
One of the main reasons for this is a difference in the way stars evolve as compared to galaxies. Most stars are, for all intents and purposes, isolated systems, separated by vast interstellar distances. Even for the rare stellar systems that are close enough to undergo some sort of transfer, these amounts are typically only fractions of the mass of the objects. Thus, the evolution of stars is governed primarily by internal forces. While galaxies have gas and dust by which they can change their properties by making new stars and building heavier elements, galaxies are never observed in complete isolation. They are always members of some cluster in which interaction is inevitable.
As such, galaxies are not only subject to internal forces, but are also acted upon by external forces when they interact with other galaxies through glancing blows, mergers, or even cannibalization. This is true even in our own galaxy. While our nearest major neighbor may be quite a ways away, the Magellanic Clouds as well as several recently discovered dwarf galaxies swarm around us.
The current theory of galactic formation is that early in the universe, star formation began in smaller systems, which accreted into larger systems as the universe aged (Wiklind, 2007). As such, we would expect massive galaxies to be more prevalent at low redshifts. However, recent studies such as one by Wiklind et al (2007) looking at galaxies in the HDF, have shown that many massive galaxies with aged stellar populations exist at redshifts > 5, indicating that star formation occurred within a few hundred million years of the Big Bang.
For the first time, with larger and more advanced telescopes, are we able to peer back through true cosmological time scales to begin to see how galaxies have evolved as the universe has aged. Powerful new surveys, such as the Cosmological Evolution Survey (COSMOS), are new letting us place constraints on fundamental questions about how galaxies evolve. Questions of the evolution of the number density, when periods of star formation occurred, morphology, and chemical evolution can now be explored.
Mass Accumulation
Since, as previously mentioned, one of the driving forces of galactic evolution is that of accumulation of additional matter, it is of interest to study how this process occurs. This accumulation primarily occurs in two ways. The first is through the accretion of matter from the intergalactic medium (IGM). The second is through mergers with other galaxies that have already formed. The importance of each of these depends on the properties of the local universe at the time. If a great deal of raw matter is still available in the IGM as compared to the number density of galaxies, then the former process will dominate.
One way this question has been approached, is to analyze the number of galaxies in close galaxy pairs at various redshifts. This method was undertaken by Kartaltepe et al (2007). By analyzing 1,749 galaxy pairs from the COSMOS field and comparing the number of paired galaxies to the overall number, they determined that the number of galaxies in close pairs increased significantly throughout the history of the universe (see Fig 1). Their study extended to z ~ 1.2, but they suggested that if the trend were extended to a distance of z = 2, it would indicate that nearly 50% of galaxies were in pairs during that time. However, little has been done in terms of high quality investigations for such limits.
Fig 1.
Fig 1. Fraction of bright galaxies in close pairs (5-20 kpc) vs (1 + z) for COSMOS field. Vertical error bars are 1σ. Star indicates local fraction. (Kartaltepe, et al., 2007).
Another interesting study indicating that mergers can strongly influence the properties of galaxies examined the density of galaxies (Trujillo et al, 2007). They found that, at redshifts of ~2, galaxies existed that had a density almost two orders of magnitude higher than any found in the present universe. Because of this, they suggest that such compact galaxies must have merged with others.
But mergers are not the only form of mass intake which galaxies can undergo. Accretion of matter from the IGM also plays an important role. Simulations by Semelin and Combes (2005) have indicated that mass gained via accretion exceeds that of mergers by a factor of 2 to 4. Before z ~ 2, the importance leaned more towards the factor of 4 while more material was still available. After that time, accretion should have become less important. This is somewhat supported by a study done by Netzer and Trakhtenbrot (2007), which looked at the growth time of AGN at z < 0.75 due to accretion and found that the amount of time they should have formed in is older than the observed age of the universe, thus agreeing with the conclusion that the rate of accretion is decreasing towards present time.
Star Formation & Luminosity
The process of adding more material almost certainly induces periods of star formation in galaxies. Accretion passively provides new raw resources; mergers and close encounters provide perturbations necessary to trigger collapses, and can have dramatic consequences, as demonstrated by the M81 group. Where new star formation occurs, so is there an excess of luminous stars, brightening the overall galaxy. Thus, if there is a correlation between the amount of mass and methods of gain through cosmological time, there must also be a relation to luminosity.
To investigate this, many authors begin by examining what should be expected photometrically from a passively evolving galaxy in which no new star formation is taking place. Observations are then compared to this standard. In this area, studies have indicated that more massive galaxies (typically taken to be M > 10^11 solar masses) show less evidence for luminosity evolution than their lower mass counterparts (Bower, Lucey, & Ellis, 1992). This suggests that the most massive galaxies underwent a large burst of star formation early in the history of the universe, but have not done any significant star formation since that time.
In other cases, significant evolution is frequently noted. A study by Dahlen et al (2007) investigated the star formation and luminosity functions for lower mass galaxies. They concluded that star formation rates have been increasing towards present time and that specifically, in the spectral regimes they examined, this led to an increase of nearly 1 magnitude since z ~ 1.73. Their survey did not extend past this redshift, but other studies have indicated that there may well have been a peak in the star formation rate near z ~ 2. This was the conclusion reached by Bowens & Illingworth (2006) and is illustrated in Figure 2.
Fig 2.
Fig 2. Star formation rate at 1,900 Angstroms as a function of resdhift (Bouwens & Illingworth, 2006).
Morphology
Another consequence of the evolution of galaxies is that morphologies will change as galaxies evolve. While morphologies can dramatically change due to interactions mangling structure, morphology can also be driven by more quiescent processes, such as the location of star formation. Such an investigation was also carried out by Dahlen et al (2007). They discovered that the number of galaxies with structure dominated by their bulges drops, approaching present time, from an average of ~10% of galaxies at z ~ 0.5 to ~30% at a redshift of 2.2. They also find that the overall size of galaxies has been increasing towards the present, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Fig 3.
Fig 3. Size - redshift relation for disk galaxies selected by absolute magnitude. Blue dots show the median value in each redshift bin used. The solid line shows the best-fitting size evolution (1+z)<sup>1+m</sup>, where m = 1.1. Also shown are theoretical curves if sizes evolve as r is proportional to H(z)<sup>-1</sup> (dashed line) and r proportional to H(z)<sup>-2/3</sup> (dotted line). (Dahlen et al, 2007).
Meanwhile, in the arena of morphological evolution, there seems to be a more questionable relation to mass and limits of evolution. According to Conselice et al (2007), galaxies with masses of 10^11 solar masses are observed to have a consistent fraction of ellipticals (~70-90%). Other studies, such as that of Cresci et al (2006), have also indicated that massive galaxy morphology may be more stable over long periods. However, for galaxies above 10^11.5 solar masses they discovered that there has been a ~20% increase in frequency of such galaxies since z = 1.2. Additionally, there has also been an increase in the frequency of the 10^10 solar masses spiral galaxies since the same time, where peculiar galaxies of that sort have decreased in commonality. These findings are shown in Figure 4.
Fig 4.
Fig 4. Frequencies of various types of galaxies vs. redshift for two binnings of mass. (Conselice et al, 2007).
It should also be noted that there is a strong correlation between galaxy morphology and the number of other galaxies in near proximity. Galaxies in clusters are significantly more likely to be of the “early type” (elliptical and lenticular) than a typical field galaxy (Smith et al, 2005). As with most other properties, we may ask whether this correlation also evolves. The findings of Smith et al (2005) suggested that for most clusters, the likelihood of a particular galaxy being early type is roughly constant over the past 7 Gyr. Only the densest clusters they studied showed strong evidence of any evolution of frequency.
Chemical Evolution
As stars are formed and die, they inherently enrich their host galaxies. From my review of the literature, it appears that most of the investigation into this topic has come in the form of modeling and very little has been applied in the way of constraints. One of the few studies that does make this attempt is that of Fritze, et al (2002). They applied observations of Damped Lyman α Absorber (DLA) galaxies to various models for the chemical evolution of spiral galaxies. They concluded that these early DLA galaxies followed the general trend set forth by models, suggesting that they may well be progenitors of spiral galaxies we see in the universe today.
Conclusions
In this post we have investigated four major galactic properties as a function of redshift in order to infer the manner by which galaxies evolve with the universe. It was shown that the number of galaxies in close pairs has been decreasing as the universe has aged. Star formation has also been decreasing in recent cosmological times, after apparently having a peak near a redshift of z ~ 2. The issue of morphology tends to be somewhat more difficult to untangle, as many factors seem to have an effect on this property. In general, galaxies around 10^11 solar masses seem to be somewhat resistant to morphological evolution, although more massive galaxies seem to be susceptible. While chemical evolution also undoubtedly occurs, little seems to be available in the literature as to how this has related to redshift for various types of systems.
In general, evolution is an important a force in the universe at large as it is for life on Earth. It sculpts galaxies and makes them shine.
-Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., 2006, Nature, 443, 189.
-Bower, R. G., Lucey, J. R., Ellis, R. S., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601.
-Conselice, C. J., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 962.
-Cresci, G., et al, 2006, preprint, arXiv:astro-ph/06072212v2.
-Dahlen, et al., 2007, ApJ, 654, 172.
-Fritze, U., Alvensleben, V., Linder, U., Fricke, K. J., 2002, Cosmic chemical evolution. Proceedings of the 187th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union, held at Kyoto, Japan, 26-30 August 1997, 147.
-Kartaltepe, J. S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 172, 320.
-Netzer, H., Trakhtenbrot, B., 2007, ApJ, 654, 754.
-Smith, G. P., et al, 2005, ApJ, 620, 78.
-Trujillo, I., et al, 2007, MNRAS, 382, 109.
-Wiklind, T., et al, 2007, preprint, arXiv:0710.0406v1
We all know how much of a fit creationists throw over biological evolution. We've also seen just how much of a fit they throw fits over stellar evolution. But there's change on even bigger scales as well.
From Brahe’s observation of a supernova in 1572, to Arp’s catalogue of odd an interacting galaxies, to Hubble’s observation of an expanding universe, it has become quite apparent in the history of astronomy that we live in a dynamic universe; it evolves. However, the evolution of some systems is easier to trace than that of others. With stars, we can observe clusters, in which only the mass of the various components differs significantly, in order to test our theories of stellar evolution. Unfortunately, for systems as large as galaxies there is no analogue.
One of the main reasons for this is a difference in the way stars evolve as compared to galaxies. Most stars are, for all intents and purposes, isolated systems, separated by vast interstellar distances. Even for the rare stellar systems that are close enough to undergo some sort of transfer, these amounts are typically only fractions of the mass of the objects. Thus, the evolution of stars is governed primarily by internal forces. While galaxies have gas and dust by which they can change their properties by making new stars and building heavier elements, galaxies are never observed in complete isolation. They are always members of some cluster in which interaction is inevitable.
As such, galaxies are not only subject to internal forces, but are also acted upon by external forces when they interact with other galaxies through glancing blows, mergers, or even cannibalization. This is true even in our own galaxy. While our nearest major neighbor may be quite a ways away, the Magellanic Clouds as well as several recently discovered dwarf galaxies swarm around us.
The current theory of galactic formation is that early in the universe, star formation began in smaller systems, which accreted into larger systems as the universe aged (Wiklind, 2007). As such, we would expect massive galaxies to be more prevalent at low redshifts. However, recent studies such as one by Wiklind et al (2007) looking at galaxies in the HDF, have shown that many massive galaxies with aged stellar populations exist at redshifts > 5, indicating that star formation occurred within a few hundred million years of the Big Bang.
For the first time, with larger and more advanced telescopes, are we able to peer back through true cosmological time scales to begin to see how galaxies have evolved as the universe has aged. Powerful new surveys, such as the Cosmological Evolution Survey (COSMOS), are new letting us place constraints on fundamental questions about how galaxies evolve. Questions of the evolution of the number density, when periods of star formation occurred, morphology, and chemical evolution can now be explored.
Mass Accumulation
Since, as previously mentioned, one of the driving forces of galactic evolution is that of accumulation of additional matter, it is of interest to study how this process occurs. This accumulation primarily occurs in two ways. The first is through the accretion of matter from the intergalactic medium (IGM). The second is through mergers with other galaxies that have already formed. The importance of each of these depends on the properties of the local universe at the time. If a great deal of raw matter is still available in the IGM as compared to the number density of galaxies, then the former process will dominate.
One way this question has been approached, is to analyze the number of galaxies in close galaxy pairs at various redshifts. This method was undertaken by Kartaltepe et al (2007). By analyzing 1,749 galaxy pairs from the COSMOS field and comparing the number of paired galaxies to the overall number, they determined that the number of galaxies in close pairs increased significantly throughout the history of the universe (see Fig 1). Their study extended to z ~ 1.2, but they suggested that if the trend were extended to a distance of z = 2, it would indicate that nearly 50% of galaxies were in pairs during that time. However, little has been done in terms of high quality investigations for such limits.
Fig 1.
Fig 1. Fraction of bright galaxies in close pairs (5-20 kpc) vs (1 + z) for COSMOS field. Vertical error bars are 1σ. Star indicates local fraction. (Kartaltepe, et al., 2007).
Another interesting study indicating that mergers can strongly influence the properties of galaxies examined the density of galaxies (Trujillo et al, 2007). They found that, at redshifts of ~2, galaxies existed that had a density almost two orders of magnitude higher than any found in the present universe. Because of this, they suggest that such compact galaxies must have merged with others.
But mergers are not the only form of mass intake which galaxies can undergo. Accretion of matter from the IGM also plays an important role. Simulations by Semelin and Combes (2005) have indicated that mass gained via accretion exceeds that of mergers by a factor of 2 to 4. Before z ~ 2, the importance leaned more towards the factor of 4 while more material was still available. After that time, accretion should have become less important. This is somewhat supported by a study done by Netzer and Trakhtenbrot (2007), which looked at the growth time of AGN at z < 0.75 due to accretion and found that the amount of time they should have formed in is older than the observed age of the universe, thus agreeing with the conclusion that the rate of accretion is decreasing towards present time.
Star Formation & Luminosity
The process of adding more material almost certainly induces periods of star formation in galaxies. Accretion passively provides new raw resources; mergers and close encounters provide perturbations necessary to trigger collapses, and can have dramatic consequences, as demonstrated by the M81 group. Where new star formation occurs, so is there an excess of luminous stars, brightening the overall galaxy. Thus, if there is a correlation between the amount of mass and methods of gain through cosmological time, there must also be a relation to luminosity.
To investigate this, many authors begin by examining what should be expected photometrically from a passively evolving galaxy in which no new star formation is taking place. Observations are then compared to this standard. In this area, studies have indicated that more massive galaxies (typically taken to be M > 10^11 solar masses) show less evidence for luminosity evolution than their lower mass counterparts (Bower, Lucey, & Ellis, 1992). This suggests that the most massive galaxies underwent a large burst of star formation early in the history of the universe, but have not done any significant star formation since that time.
In other cases, significant evolution is frequently noted. A study by Dahlen et al (2007) investigated the star formation and luminosity functions for lower mass galaxies. They concluded that star formation rates have been increasing towards present time and that specifically, in the spectral regimes they examined, this led to an increase of nearly 1 magnitude since z ~ 1.73. Their survey did not extend past this redshift, but other studies have indicated that there may well have been a peak in the star formation rate near z ~ 2. This was the conclusion reached by Bowens & Illingworth (2006) and is illustrated in Figure 2.
Fig 2.
Fig 2. Star formation rate at 1,900 Angstroms as a function of resdhift (Bouwens & Illingworth, 2006).
Morphology
Another consequence of the evolution of galaxies is that morphologies will change as galaxies evolve. While morphologies can dramatically change due to interactions mangling structure, morphology can also be driven by more quiescent processes, such as the location of star formation. Such an investigation was also carried out by Dahlen et al (2007). They discovered that the number of galaxies with structure dominated by their bulges drops, approaching present time, from an average of ~10% of galaxies at z ~ 0.5 to ~30% at a redshift of 2.2. They also find that the overall size of galaxies has been increasing towards the present, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Fig 3.
Fig 3. Size - redshift relation for disk galaxies selected by absolute magnitude. Blue dots show the median value in each redshift bin used. The solid line shows the best-fitting size evolution (1+z)<sup>1+m</sup>, where m = 1.1. Also shown are theoretical curves if sizes evolve as r is proportional to H(z)<sup>-1</sup> (dashed line) and r proportional to H(z)<sup>-2/3</sup> (dotted line). (Dahlen et al, 2007).
Meanwhile, in the arena of morphological evolution, there seems to be a more questionable relation to mass and limits of evolution. According to Conselice et al (2007), galaxies with masses of 10^11 solar masses are observed to have a consistent fraction of ellipticals (~70-90%). Other studies, such as that of Cresci et al (2006), have also indicated that massive galaxy morphology may be more stable over long periods. However, for galaxies above 10^11.5 solar masses they discovered that there has been a ~20% increase in frequency of such galaxies since z = 1.2. Additionally, there has also been an increase in the frequency of the 10^10 solar masses spiral galaxies since the same time, where peculiar galaxies of that sort have decreased in commonality. These findings are shown in Figure 4.
Fig 4.
Fig 4. Frequencies of various types of galaxies vs. redshift for two binnings of mass. (Conselice et al, 2007).
It should also be noted that there is a strong correlation between galaxy morphology and the number of other galaxies in near proximity. Galaxies in clusters are significantly more likely to be of the “early type” (elliptical and lenticular) than a typical field galaxy (Smith et al, 2005). As with most other properties, we may ask whether this correlation also evolves. The findings of Smith et al (2005) suggested that for most clusters, the likelihood of a particular galaxy being early type is roughly constant over the past 7 Gyr. Only the densest clusters they studied showed strong evidence of any evolution of frequency.
Chemical Evolution
As stars are formed and die, they inherently enrich their host galaxies. From my review of the literature, it appears that most of the investigation into this topic has come in the form of modeling and very little has been applied in the way of constraints. One of the few studies that does make this attempt is that of Fritze, et al (2002). They applied observations of Damped Lyman α Absorber (DLA) galaxies to various models for the chemical evolution of spiral galaxies. They concluded that these early DLA galaxies followed the general trend set forth by models, suggesting that they may well be progenitors of spiral galaxies we see in the universe today.
Conclusions
In this post we have investigated four major galactic properties as a function of redshift in order to infer the manner by which galaxies evolve with the universe. It was shown that the number of galaxies in close pairs has been decreasing as the universe has aged. Star formation has also been decreasing in recent cosmological times, after apparently having a peak near a redshift of z ~ 2. The issue of morphology tends to be somewhat more difficult to untangle, as many factors seem to have an effect on this property. In general, galaxies around 10^11 solar masses seem to be somewhat resistant to morphological evolution, although more massive galaxies seem to be susceptible. While chemical evolution also undoubtedly occurs, little seems to be available in the literature as to how this has related to redshift for various types of systems.
In general, evolution is an important a force in the universe at large as it is for life on Earth. It sculpts galaxies and makes them shine.
-Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., 2006, Nature, 443, 189.
-Bower, R. G., Lucey, J. R., Ellis, R. S., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601.
-Conselice, C. J., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 962.
-Cresci, G., et al, 2006, preprint, arXiv:astro-ph/06072212v2.
-Dahlen, et al., 2007, ApJ, 654, 172.
-Fritze, U., Alvensleben, V., Linder, U., Fricke, K. J., 2002, Cosmic chemical evolution. Proceedings of the 187th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union, held at Kyoto, Japan, 26-30 August 1997, 147.
-Kartaltepe, J. S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 172, 320.
-Netzer, H., Trakhtenbrot, B., 2007, ApJ, 654, 754.
-Smith, G. P., et al, 2005, ApJ, 620, 78.
-Trujillo, I., et al, 2007, MNRAS, 382, 109.
-Wiklind, T., et al, 2007, preprint, arXiv:0710.0406v1
AnarchoManiac
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:36:41 +0000
BETCH!
Why didn't you bump this thread before my exams?!
scream
Why didn't you bump this thread before my exams?!
scream
VoijaRisa
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:13:06 +0000
AnarchoManiac
BETCH!
Why didn't you bump this thread before my exams?!
scream
Why didn't you bump this thread before my exams?!
scream
Lynseed
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:12:54 +0000
I love you for posting this thread.
Faroresama
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:18:22 +0000
(saw this linked in a thread on the first page) As a first-year astrophysics student, I think it's awesome you made this thread. TONS of great information and analysis. Also the most level-headed discussion of Pluto's status change I've ever seen (I can't stand the nostalgia thing either). Unfortunately I probably won't take my first astro class until next year sad
Fuwa_Fuwa_Kitty
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:16:35 +0000
Absoloutely Fascinating!
Thank You So Much 3nodding
Thank You So Much 3nodding
Lexarun
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:19:08 +0000
Very nice! Thanks! 4laugh
Fe1ix
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:52:57 +0000
*adds this to subscribed threads* good work very fascinating info
[-^Poisorific^-]
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:53:10 +0000
I approve.
geodesic42
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:07:22 +0000
Voija, in virtually everything you post you become my hero. Excellent thread! *claps* biggrin
BrainwasherDetectiveHisui
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:12:03 +0000
Ever since I was a kid I was always fascinated by the starry sky overhead. This thread rocks. I have subscribed and can't wait for you next addition.
VoijaRisa
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:37:37 +0000
Supernovae products
Most people are familiar with Carl Sagan's famous reminder that we are all made of "star stuff". In a previous post I discussed a 1957 paper from Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle which detailed the mechanism by which heavy elements are built up in supernovae. In that post, I concentrated on how the elements are made, but what I didn't mention is just how much of them are produced or why it's important.
Aside from the obvious reason it's important that I opened with, the elements produced also allow us to understand something about the supernovae that produce them. If you've never seen a light curve for a supernova, it rises to a peak brightness within a few days, followed by a period of rapid decay, which then shallows becoming less steep after another few days.
The change in brightness is a bit odd and can't be explained by just expansion and cooling. Instead, the light that is still being given off is a result of decay of the radioactive isotopes that are built up during the supernova. In these supernovae, a large amount of the isotope 56Ni is created. It then decays to 56Cobalt, and finally to 56Fe as (partially) illustrated in this image.
However, this is just a rough sketch. While the amount time each phase lasts is dictated by the half life of the elements, what's not fixed is the change in brightness. This will depend on how much of the 56Ni is created. Knowing how much can be made is especially important since two recent supernovae have been a bit... odd. For a typical core collapse supernova, the amount of Ni required is less than ~15% the mass of the Sun. But, supernovae 1999as and 2006gy were both much brighter than the average supernova which would obviously require that these stars be extra massive and produce a substantial amount of 56Ni to get the ball rolling. 1999as would require at least 4 times the mass of the Sun to be able to explain the light curve, and 2006gy would need at least 13 solar masses!
But can massive progenitor stars really produce that much 56Ni, especially given that there's a theoretical upper limit to how big the progenitor star can be?
This is the question posed by a recent paper published at the beginning of the month in the ApJ. Using their model, they looked at how much could be produced for different progenitor masses.
It turns out that getting the 4 solar masses required for SN 1999as isn't all that difficult. It takes a really massive star to do it, but nothing unrealistically large. Depending on just how efficient the explosion was and how much energy it gave off, it could be done with as little as ~34 solar masses. This may seem like a lot, but keep in mind there are far larger beats out there like Eta Carinae which is somewhere over 100 solar masses.
However, to get the amount of material required for 2006gy was much harder. From their model, the progenitor star would have to beat at least 200 solar masses! So what's up with this? There's several different options at this point (sorry creationists, "Magic man" isn't one of them). It could be that this supernova wasn't the typical kind we understand really well. The authors suggest that if the core were instead composed primarily Carbon and Oxygen just before collapse, the larger amount of Ni could be produced with as little as 60 times the mass of the Sun. It could also be possible that two massive stars merged. Or perhaps the theoretical upper limit isn't really there and such gigantic monsters really did exist. And of course, the possibility is always out there that the model they're using could be flat out wrong.
At this point, it doesn't look like much work has been done on figuring out 2006gy, but given how exceptional it was, being the brightest supernova yet recorded, I expect we'll see more on this beastly blast in upcoming years.
Meanwhile, it's certainly true that supernovae are very good at those enriched elements, it's certainly not all they can make.
Aside from making all the heavy elements, they make a smattering of lighter ones as well. Just after the supernova, the gas is still extremely hot and ionized. But as it cools, the electrons settle back down in their oribitals, and eventually, even complex molecules can form. These molecules are typically called "dust" although they can also take the form of organic compounds (note: "organic compounds" just refer to molecules with covalently bonded carbon and don't imply life).
Although hundreds of supernovae are discovered each year, they're almost all extremely far away. Supernova 2005X was big news in the astronomical community because it was in the relatively nearby galaxy M100. But even that is so far away that studying the expanding shell is impossible.
The last really good one that we could study was supernova 1987A which happened in the Large Magellanic Cloud (a satellite galaxy to our own). This supernova has been suggested to have begun to form dust. Additionally, a supernova that was first observed in the 1671 in the constellation of Cassiopeia (called Cas A) is also thought to be forming dust. Although there was a claim in 2003 to have located this dust, it was refuted in a Nature paper in 2004, which suggested that the dust the 2003 observers detected was actually just a large cloud between Cas A and the Earth.
But a paper that came out in January suggests that the long sought after dust from Cas A may have finally been detected.
By looking at the spectra of several regions of the nebula. Several unique spectra were found, which left the researchers to try to figure out what was causing them. Although I painted a nice rosy picture of determining chemical composition in my post on spectra, the picture becomes much more complicated when molecules get involved because photons don't only come from transitions between orbitals, but energy can also come from vibrational and rotational modes in molecules. Additionally, there's way more types of molecules than elements.
So trying to figure out what the dust is made of is no easy task. To do it, astronomers start with what elements we know are common, and try to figure out what sorts of molecules they're likely to form. By adding the emissions from several different common species together via superposition, they attempt to recreate the observed spectra through modeling. Of course, not only do they have to figure in the chemical makeup of the dust, but they also need to try to determine the temperature since molecules act as (imperfect) blackbodies.
By fitting these spectral models to the observed spectra, it was determined that the dust formed in Cas A suggested that it has formed SiO_2, Mg protosilicates, and FeO in the inner region. Further out, they found Al_2O_3 and carbon grains. Towards the edge, they determined that the remnant had formed MgSiO_3, and either Al_2O_3 or Fe grains.
The total mass of all this junk? About 2-5% the mass of the Sun. That doesn't sound like a whole lot, until you remember that the entire mass of the Earth is only 0.00025% the mass of the Sun. So one supernova can produce enough dust to make an entire solar system worth of planets!
But the real question the paper asks is whether or not supernovae like this could produce enough dust to explain observations in distant, dust filled galaxies. They concluded that the amount of dust that supernovae like Cas A aren't nearly sufficient. In fact, they're about an order of magnitude too small. Thus, to really explain all that dust will likely require a different explanation.
Given that stars in the distant universe were much more massive than ones today, it's not unreasonable to assume that the supernovae resulting from these stars would produce much more dust as well. Unfortunately for astronomers but fortunately for all life on Earth, no such giants have exploded near us recently to be able to figure out just how much dust more massive supernovae would really produce.
Most people are familiar with Carl Sagan's famous reminder that we are all made of "star stuff". In a previous post I discussed a 1957 paper from Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle which detailed the mechanism by which heavy elements are built up in supernovae. In that post, I concentrated on how the elements are made, but what I didn't mention is just how much of them are produced or why it's important.
Aside from the obvious reason it's important that I opened with, the elements produced also allow us to understand something about the supernovae that produce them. If you've never seen a light curve for a supernova, it rises to a peak brightness within a few days, followed by a period of rapid decay, which then shallows becoming less steep after another few days.
The change in brightness is a bit odd and can't be explained by just expansion and cooling. Instead, the light that is still being given off is a result of decay of the radioactive isotopes that are built up during the supernova. In these supernovae, a large amount of the isotope 56Ni is created. It then decays to 56Cobalt, and finally to 56Fe as (partially) illustrated in this image.
However, this is just a rough sketch. While the amount time each phase lasts is dictated by the half life of the elements, what's not fixed is the change in brightness. This will depend on how much of the 56Ni is created. Knowing how much can be made is especially important since two recent supernovae have been a bit... odd. For a typical core collapse supernova, the amount of Ni required is less than ~15% the mass of the Sun. But, supernovae 1999as and 2006gy were both much brighter than the average supernova which would obviously require that these stars be extra massive and produce a substantial amount of 56Ni to get the ball rolling. 1999as would require at least 4 times the mass of the Sun to be able to explain the light curve, and 2006gy would need at least 13 solar masses!
But can massive progenitor stars really produce that much 56Ni, especially given that there's a theoretical upper limit to how big the progenitor star can be?
This is the question posed by a recent paper published at the beginning of the month in the ApJ. Using their model, they looked at how much could be produced for different progenitor masses.
It turns out that getting the 4 solar masses required for SN 1999as isn't all that difficult. It takes a really massive star to do it, but nothing unrealistically large. Depending on just how efficient the explosion was and how much energy it gave off, it could be done with as little as ~34 solar masses. This may seem like a lot, but keep in mind there are far larger beats out there like Eta Carinae which is somewhere over 100 solar masses.
However, to get the amount of material required for 2006gy was much harder. From their model, the progenitor star would have to beat at least 200 solar masses! So what's up with this? There's several different options at this point (sorry creationists, "Magic man" isn't one of them). It could be that this supernova wasn't the typical kind we understand really well. The authors suggest that if the core were instead composed primarily Carbon and Oxygen just before collapse, the larger amount of Ni could be produced with as little as 60 times the mass of the Sun. It could also be possible that two massive stars merged. Or perhaps the theoretical upper limit isn't really there and such gigantic monsters really did exist. And of course, the possibility is always out there that the model they're using could be flat out wrong.
At this point, it doesn't look like much work has been done on figuring out 2006gy, but given how exceptional it was, being the brightest supernova yet recorded, I expect we'll see more on this beastly blast in upcoming years.
Meanwhile, it's certainly true that supernovae are very good at those enriched elements, it's certainly not all they can make.
Aside from making all the heavy elements, they make a smattering of lighter ones as well. Just after the supernova, the gas is still extremely hot and ionized. But as it cools, the electrons settle back down in their oribitals, and eventually, even complex molecules can form. These molecules are typically called "dust" although they can also take the form of organic compounds (note: "organic compounds" just refer to molecules with covalently bonded carbon and don't imply life).
Although hundreds of supernovae are discovered each year, they're almost all extremely far away. Supernova 2005X was big news in the astronomical community because it was in the relatively nearby galaxy M100. But even that is so far away that studying the expanding shell is impossible.
The last really good one that we could study was supernova 1987A which happened in the Large Magellanic Cloud (a satellite galaxy to our own). This supernova has been suggested to have begun to form dust. Additionally, a supernova that was first observed in the 1671 in the constellation of Cassiopeia (called Cas A) is also thought to be forming dust. Although there was a claim in 2003 to have located this dust, it was refuted in a Nature paper in 2004, which suggested that the dust the 2003 observers detected was actually just a large cloud between Cas A and the Earth.
But a paper that came out in January suggests that the long sought after dust from Cas A may have finally been detected.
By looking at the spectra of several regions of the nebula. Several unique spectra were found, which left the researchers to try to figure out what was causing them. Although I painted a nice rosy picture of determining chemical composition in my post on spectra, the picture becomes much more complicated when molecules get involved because photons don't only come from transitions between orbitals, but energy can also come from vibrational and rotational modes in molecules. Additionally, there's way more types of molecules than elements.
So trying to figure out what the dust is made of is no easy task. To do it, astronomers start with what elements we know are common, and try to figure out what sorts of molecules they're likely to form. By adding the emissions from several different common species together via superposition, they attempt to recreate the observed spectra through modeling. Of course, not only do they have to figure in the chemical makeup of the dust, but they also need to try to determine the temperature since molecules act as (imperfect) blackbodies.
By fitting these spectral models to the observed spectra, it was determined that the dust formed in Cas A suggested that it has formed SiO_2, Mg protosilicates, and FeO in the inner region. Further out, they found Al_2O_3 and carbon grains. Towards the edge, they determined that the remnant had formed MgSiO_3, and either Al_2O_3 or Fe grains.
The total mass of all this junk? About 2-5% the mass of the Sun. That doesn't sound like a whole lot, until you remember that the entire mass of the Earth is only 0.00025% the mass of the Sun. So one supernova can produce enough dust to make an entire solar system worth of planets!
But the real question the paper asks is whether or not supernovae like this could produce enough dust to explain observations in distant, dust filled galaxies. They concluded that the amount of dust that supernovae like Cas A aren't nearly sufficient. In fact, they're about an order of magnitude too small. Thus, to really explain all that dust will likely require a different explanation.
Given that stars in the distant universe were much more massive than ones today, it's not unreasonable to assume that the supernovae resulting from these stars would produce much more dust as well. Unfortunately for astronomers but fortunately for all life on Earth, no such giants have exploded near us recently to be able to figure out just how much dust more massive supernovae would really produce.
BrainwasherDetectiveHisui
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:16:01 +0000
I'm also going to add a link to this thread in my Guild as well. biggrin
Pride The Homunculus
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:35:07 +0000
I'm subscribing to this thread.
This infomation will be very useful to me.
Thanks for posting! smile
This infomation will be very useful to me.
Thanks for posting! smile