Apr. 25, 2011 A study of spiral patterns found in galaxies like our Milky Way could overturn the theory of how the spiral arm features form and evolve.
The results were presented by postgraduate student, Robert Grand, at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales.
Since 1960s, the most widely accepted explanation has been that the spiral arm features move like a Mexican wave in a crowd, passing through a population of stars that then return to their original position. Instead, computer simulations run by Grand and his colleagues at University College London's Mullard Space Science Laboratory (MSSL) suggest that the stars actually rotate with the arms. In addition, rather than being permanent features the arms are transient, breaking up and new arms forming over a period of about 80-100 million years.
"We have found it impossible to reproduce the traditional theory, but stars move with the spiral pattern in our simulations at the same speed. We simulated the evolution of spiral arms for a galaxy with five million stars over a period of 6 billion years. We found that stars are able to migrate much more efficiently than anyone previously thought. The stars are trapped and move along the arm by their gravitational influence, but we think that eventually the arm breaks up due to the shear forces," said Grand.
In the simulations, Grand found that some stars gradually move outwards and inwards along the spiral arms. Stars traveling at the leading side of the spiral arm slide in towards the center of the disc, whereas the stars traveling at the trailing side are kicked out to the edges.
"This research has many potential implications for future observational astronomy, like the European Space Agency's next corner stone mission, Gaia, which MSSL is also heavily involved in. As well as helping us understand the evolution of our own galaxy, it may have applications for regions of star formation," said Grand.
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.