Astronomers discover new quiescent galaxy
phys.org
phys.org
The observations found that COSMOS-1047519 has a mass of about 60 billion solar masses and a star-formation rate (SFR) at a level of only 10 solar masses per year. The galaxy's stellar age is estimated to be 180 million years.
Trying to find the physical processes responsible for the suppression of star formation in COSMOS-1047519, the authors of the paper propose the most plausible hypothesis.
"These findings suggest that gas depletion due to the starburst and/or AGN feedback triggered by galaxy-galaxy interactions or mergers may be responsible for quenching,"
Amazing how at a certain distance, a galaxy starts looking a lot like a living organism
Same for planets, or at least what astronauts say about Earth after seeing it from space
Even just a single cell is made up of millions of smaller particles, all moving around
Everything is always either forming/growing or decaying
Yowza.
Most surprisingly, it seems there's a formal paradox in the thermodynamics of self-gravitating systems. As Piet Hut (of Barnes-Hut fame) at the IAS says:
"A thermodynamic treatment of self-gravitating systems is fraught with peril: from a formal point of view, it cannot even be defined, because there is no thermodynamic limit." - Hut, Gravitational Thermodynamics [1]
Also surprising, thanks to JWST, we can now see clearly into the center of the Milky Way, and there's CO ice![2] Probably more types, but JSWT doesn't have the instrument for this.
This is related because that means it's colder than expected, but also quite full of gas (that was obscuring our view until JWST and near microwave). But cold dense gas should collapse to form stars, and we're not seeing nearly what we should.
Both suggest we're missing something about the grav/thermo relationship, and what's called the Jeans Mass[3]. If you go digging, you'll find our Sun should have taken a planetary nebula about 20x larger than what we have. This in turns suggests that simple static models are maybe misleading, as there's usually dynamics almost everywhere we see large gas clouds. And then this in turn begs the question of why gravitational collapse is needed if there's already large kinetic flows involved, slamming mass together.
Anyways, I'm a total amateur and quite possibly have all this wrong. Just dropping in case anyone's interested!
[1] https://www.ias.edu/ids/~piet/act/phys/thermo
Maybe the specific claim was that wavelength at a resolution good enough to resolve individual stars, or a star per pixel often enough
In most circumstances we get away with it, allowing us to assign temperatures to small objects or even locations in space but it's not surprising that these laws stop working at the extremes.
Not much to see on visible spectrum compared to usual galaxies, other spectra will look better (but still probably quite faint).
Could someone explain a bit more what this means? Is it that those galaxies were "born" out of the quiet galaxies, or shaped into ellipses because of them?
More generally, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution.
[Edit] A progenitor is literally an ancestor; I answered GP's question. It's "progenitor" that should instead be "precursor", in the featured article.