The Spitzer Space Telescope discovers that our galaxy, the Milky Way, has only two arms and not four. Assembling an accurate galactic map will make it possible to sort the clumps into the relevant arms and crack the secrets of the Milky Way
For hundreds of years astronomers didn't know exactly what the Milky Way galaxy looks like, after all the solar system is located inside the galaxy so we can't photograph it from the outside. But now, new images from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shed new light on the structure of the Milky Way and reveal that our galaxy only has two arms and not four as we first thought.
"The Spitzer Space Telescope has given us a new starting point that reconsiders the structure of the Milky Way galaxy," said Robert Benjamin of the University of Wisconsin at the press conference of the 212th meeting of the American Astronomical Society. "We will continue to improve our maps in the same way as the first explorers improved their maps."
Since the 50s, astronomers have been compiling maps of the Milky Way. The first models were based on radio observations that measured the gas in the galaxy and they proposed a spiral structure with four main arms called Norma, Centauri (Scutum-Centaurus), Sagittarius and Perseus. In addition to them, clumps of gas, star dust, and two small arms were found, on one of which - the Orion arm - the solar system is located.
The problem with the initial model was that it did not always agree with later observations, and on the other hand there was not much certainty about its correctness since it is similar to sketching the human body as seen from inside the stomach. At the same time, over the years, models and measurement tools were improved, and in the 90s, large-scale sky surveys were carried out in the infrared spectrum, which increased our knowledge about the galaxy.
Over time, large clusters of stars were discovered in the center of the galaxy, the use of infrared revealed the hidden secrets of the center of the galaxy, and the Spitzer Space Telescope discovered that the galaxy is much wider than we first thought. Today, astronomers have access to new images in the infrared spectrum taken with the help of Spitzer, the current map of the galaxy consists of 800,000 images and includes over 110 million stars above and below the galactic plane.
Benjamin developed software that counts the stars and measures the interstellar density. When his team counted the number of stars in the Centauri arm, they found that there was an increase in the number of stars, and when they counted the number of stars in the Sagittarius and Norma arms, they found no change in the number of stars. The fourth arm, Perseus, orbits the galaxy from the outside and is not visible in Spitzer's new images because it is hidden by the galactic center.
The findings confirm previous claims that the Milky Way has 2 main spiral arms, a common structure for galaxies of its type. The main arms - Centauri and Perseus - have the highest density of bright young stars and old stars known as red giants. The two smaller arms - Sagittarius and Norma - are full of gas and pockets of young stars.
According to Benjamin, the large arms start in the center of the galaxy and extend to the edges of the galaxy in a circular fashion. Now the astronomers can put together the galactic map, and for the first time connect all the pieces of the puzzle to its arm. Previous infrared observations also indicated a galaxy with two main arms, but the findings were ambiguous because the location and width of the arms were unknown.
Although the arms of the galaxy appear intact, the stars that make them up are constantly moving in and out during their galactic journey around the galactic center, much like cars going in and out of a roundabout. It is possible that our sun lived in another arm, since it was formed 4 billion years ago it circled the galactic center 16 times.
20 תגובות
Hezi you are a very, very person! dumb…
This is your problem
Lehazi, just from your responses to the usual questions that Michael asks, it is possible to understand what kind of thinking we have here. From this you also immediately understand that the chance that what you say will be true tends to zero and is not worth the effort of reading at all.
Ok Hazi - but in this case why did you even respond?
Michael,
I'm sorry I have no interest in convincing anyone.
if I remember correctly,
There are links to websites in English that explain this.
If not yet which sites have been changed.
Michael,
Don't take my cool response personally.
I just have no interest in "discussions"...
Chest:
I repeat and ask:
In your theory there is no explanation for the reason for the rotation of the black hole and since we cannot see it we cannot see that it is rotating.
Explain to me, then, why do you think the black hole is spinning at all (and at a huge speed.
Also explain to me, as I asked before, why the axes of the cones are separate and different from the axis of rotation of the black hole.
You can again claim that you are not entering into the discussion, but this is not a discussion - I am simply asking a question - you did not raise the issue to keep it a secret.
At the same time, he also explained to me the origin of the material in the jets of matter and how it manages to be ejected from the black hole and how the fact that the holes are surrounded by an adsorption ring is explained (which, according to existing theories, is partly sucked into the black hole and partly feeds the jets of matter ejected from it).
There is more to emphasize:
According to my theory,
Not only is our galaxy made up of two arms,
All galaxies in the universe are made up of two arms,
Even if it is not always possible to notice it from great distances.
In many cases, there is a split of the two arms,
Already close to the center, and the impression is created of more than two.
Hezi
On the face of it, the material you sent.. is familiar to us.. I haven't gone into the details yet.. I need the time
For that..I saved..thanks.
Chest:
Speak for yourself.
You say, for example, that we have no idea why it is spinning at an enormous speed, even though it is exactly the opposite of reality:
We don't see it and therefore we claim that it is spinning at a huge speed only based on the concept we have of the law of conservation of angular momentum which requires it to spin at a huge speed.
The concept you claim we don't have is the only knowledge we have about the rotation! If it weren't for that concept, we wouldn't have any reason to claim that he's spinning!
You tell me: how do you know he's spinning?
to the 'not noble' chest,
It sounds more like "oh oh oh.. no one understands me.. the whole world is against me trying to create malicious discussions with the aim of putting me down.. Amala.. I don't want to answer questions.. I like to repeat the same words like a parrot already 5 years"
In short.. either you are here or you are a coward, you decide
Michael,
I emphasize again that I am not entering into a "discussion".
I would like to make two comments:
1- There is no other theory that can explain in any way the miraculous symmetry of galaxies.
2- the so-called "super-massive black hole" found in the centers of galaxies,
is not a black hole, as we know it.
It's a completely different "production" that doesn't have a name yet,
And in the absence of a closer idea, they called him by this temporary nickname.
We still have no idea what its properties are, how it was formed, why it is spinning at enormous speed,
And why does it emit mass.
Chest:
Your impression is wrong but if you don't want to deal with my words and if you accuse all scientists of being opaque then I'd rather not discuss with you either.
I have no doubt that I understood your words.
More than that - unlike others, I think there can be something in them other than mistakes.
You reject my outstretched hand.
That's your right.
I won't reach her again.
Michael,
I haven't participated in "discussions" for a long time.
The scientific establishment is locked on false theories,
which is not ready to renounce them.
I expect that new discoveries, such as the one that has just been made,
More eyes will be opened to see the truth...
I don't mean to "discuss" or argue about theory.
I still have the impression that you don't understand her...
Chest:
I repeat and ask - please read the things and delve into them.
I looked up your name on the internet and saw a lot of discussions where you were fed straw with this theory.
I treated you differently and tried to save her main idea, but it seems that the bitterness fed to you by others translates into an irrelevant treatment of my words.
Chest:
I understood exactly.
Try not to get hurt and treat things fully.
For reasons of symmetry, the axis of the cone should coincide with the axis of rotation.
This is not the situation you describe and the fact that you don't describe things that way shows that you understand that your explanation will not work out that way.
I tried to give an explanation that derives something from your idea but is consistent with logic.
Please read again and respond without arguing and without regrets and without giving me hasty marks.
Michael,
beginning,
I'm sorry you didn't understand the theory.
Your long response proves it.
The whole idea is based on the emission of material from two ends of a "rotating cone".
Try again to understand.
Hezi
===========
Hazy Atzil:
Unfortunately, I do not see your theory as an explanation for the phenomena and I do not see the current finding as a reinforcement of your theory.
It is not clear to me how you suggest that the jets of matter fired from the black hole will have a tendency to fall in a specific direction (in opposite directions on both sides of the black hole) and why the matter will not be thrown around in a more or less uniform way or split into a larger number of arms. You have, without any justification, a drawing in which the jet of matter rotates in a place that is different from the abode of the rotation axis of the black hole.
To be honest, if symmetry breaking is required then one arm sounds much more likely than two because it makes more sense for the matter to be attracted to a place where there is already matter thrown from the other side of the black hole.
but!!!:
Although the hole is black, not everything is black and your ideas have sparked a certain thought in me that I would love to hear your thoughts on.
Before I detail it, I would like to say that I must disagree with your conclusion that the galaxy was formed by the black hole because the material had to arrive (and it continues to arrive) from the galaxy to the black hole and only after the formation of the black hole could the process continue, when then it seems possible to me that the behavior of the black hole had an effect over the years on the structure of the entire galaxy.
So what was the thought that came to my mind?
Every star that rotates around its axis has a precession - ie - a cycle in which the axis of rotation of the star rotates on its own.
That is, the axis itself is not in a fixed direction - it is always at a certain inclination in relation to the "average" axis. This can already cause the material to be ejected in opposite directions on both sides of the black hole.
What else?
At least in normal stars the precession of the axis is actually in the opposite direction to the direction of rotation of the star.
I don't know at the moment what your assertion is based on that the direction of rotation of the galaxy is the same as the direction of rotation of the black hole. It is indeed probable, but this probability stems precisely from the assumption that the galaxy is the one that creates the black hole and not the other way around.
However, I don't think it really matters.
Although the precession exists, I think that the ejected material jet should not be considered as a rotating body.
Each particle is thrown in a certain direction and continues in that direction regardless of the others.
Since the particles thrown with more force land in the plane of the galaxy later they simply accumulate more lag relative to the rotation of the overall structure of the galaxy (actually this is the Coriolis acceleration acting on a body moving away from the center of rotation).
This.
I tried to "flow" with the idea you brought up and make some corrections in it so that it fits better with the logic.
I don't know if the result is correct, but it seems more reasonable to me than your original proposal.
What do you think?
Where are we in the galaxy?
I predicted this back in 2003.
This strengthens my theory about galaxy formation.