×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Green' Galaxy Recycles Gas, Supercharges Star Birth

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the has-been-offered-federal-subsidy dept.

Space 36

astroengine writes "In a galaxy, far, far away (6 billion light-years away to be precise), the most efficient star 'factory' has been discovered. Called SDSSJ1506+54, this galaxy generates a huge quantity of infrared radiation, the majority being generated by a compact region at its core. NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer first spotted the galactic oddity and Hubble confirmed the maelstrom of stellar birthing near its core. But the most amazing thing? This galaxy is the 'greenest' factory yet discovered — it uses 100 percent of all the available hydrogen to supply the protostars, leaving no waste. 'This galaxy is remarkably efficient,' said lead scientist Jim Geach of McGill University in a NASA news release. 'It's converting its gas supply into new stars at the maximum rate thought possible.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

36 comments

Galactic engineer (1)

eltardo (160932) | about a year ago | (#43533881)

I always knew that degree in Galactic Engineering would pay off.

Re:Galactic engineer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43534721)

Aliens couldn't get controlled fusion to work, so they decided that the best way was to shove all the hydrogen into stars and use solar panels.

100% efficiency ? (4, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#43533961)

When I read the "100%" I had to go to TFA and read the whole thing ...

The Nasa article ( http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-144 [nasa.gov] ) says " ... with almost 100-percent efficiency " but the submit uses the hyperbole "... it uses 100 percent of all the available hydrogen to supply the protostars, leaving no waste ."

Re:100% efficiency ? (3, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43534115)

When I read the "100%" I had to go to TFA and read the whole thing ...

The Nasa article ( http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-144 [nasa.gov] ) says " ... with almost 100-percent efficiency " but the submit uses the hyperbole "... it uses 100 percent of all the available hydrogen to supply the protostars, leaving no waste ."

Imagine if it were as efficient as Slashdot:
The SlashStar Galaxy would recycle things so efficiently that it wouldn't need to produce any light of its own -- feeding only from the energy of other nearby systems. It would sometimes appear to have two of the same starticles in the same region, not due to gravitational lensing, but due to not caring enough about how it looks enough to even notice it had already processed the same material earlier. Every entity responsible for the formation of the SlashStar Galaxy itself would be either an invisible blacktroll of negativity or a nebulous "dark matter" hidden in its shadowy basements. Any direct observation would be near worthless without extensive research to discern what the measurements actually meant, but spending time on such a thing would be frowned upon -- Merely seeing what system it passed in front of next being the prime interest of the scientific community. Though you could not observe the individual components that make up the SlashStar Galaxy, you could measure their collective effect on their surroundings: Occasionally the maelstrom of minutia would align in a catastrophic conjunction causing a great funnel of forces that eject great streams of individual energetic particles, obliterating any unfortunate system in its path -- The SlashStar effect.

The SlashStar Galaxy: Dark energy from Nerds, Stuff made of strange matter.

assimulate me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43534181)

this sounds like borg space

SSJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43534201)

The legend about Super Saiya-jin was true.

Why the fuck (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43534303)

does every thing has to be green? how about a more sensible title

'Efficient' Galaxy Recycles Gas, Supercharges Star Birth

Re:Why the fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43536813)

right. they're made of gas, not grass. silly writers.

Re:Why the fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539639)

does every thing has to be green? how about a more sensible title

'Efficient' Galaxy Recycles Gas, Supercharges Star Birth

Sensible titles don't get readership.

But....but...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43534381)

... is it paying all its Carbon Credit taxation points?

And is the conversion renewable?

What will happen when it hits Peak Hydrogen?

I think that we ought to send a deputation of green activists there to make it conform to what our idea of a politically-correct natural phenomenon is.

Preferably, all of them....

Just wait until they discover... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#43534695)

The Yellow Gas that feeds off of everbody's fear and consumes movie viewers money with bad acting and horrible plot lines. Seriously, I think these guys have been watching too much Science Fiction lately.

Nice design (2)

GlobalEcho (26240) | about a year ago | (#43534863)

It we be very cool (and intimidating as hell) if it turns out that galaxy has been engineered this way by some advanced alien entity. I guess we'll know in a few thens of millions of years when it does (or doesn't) turn elliptical.

Re:Nice design (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43535475)

I was wandering exactly same thing while reading it, and that would be Type III civilization on Kardashev scale.

Re:Nice design (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#43538741)

It we be very cool (and intimidating as hell) if it turns out that galaxy has been engineered this way by some advanced alien entity. I guess we'll know in a few thens of millions of years when it does (or doesn't) turn elliptical.

I was wandering exactly same thing while reading it, and that would be Type III civilization on Kardashev scale.

Careful. Around here, talk like that can get you labeled as a "crazy creationist" or a "sky god worshiper". Of course compared to our tech, being able to create something like that seems pretty deserving of the title "sky god".

Re:Nice design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539101)

Awww, the poor widdle Abrahamic theist has his feewings hurt? There there...the big bad atheist won't hurt you. He doesn't even notice you.

Now sit back, relax, close your eyes, and chant: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

PS: why Yahweh? I'm a deist. I believe in a God, it's just not that genocidal canaanite holdover from the Bible. Try deism; it's the best of both worlds plus it isn't, you know, actively disproven at every term.

Re:Nice design (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#43539745)

Now sit back, relax, close your eyes, and chant: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Isn't that essentially the same thing I stated in my last sentence. Or are you too much of a sniveling retard to read past one sentence?

I'm a deist. I believe in a God, it's just not that genocidal canaanite holdover from the Bible.

I'd guess I fall somewhere into that category too.

Try deism; it's the best of both worlds plus it isn't, you know, actively disproven at every term.

Sorry, but that's no different to many atheist's. Allah, (the Christian)God, Zeus, etc. Most atheists seem to be equally offended by anything they can't see or measure with the current level of technology.

Awww, the poor widdle Abrahamic theist has his feewings hurt? There there...the big bad atheist won't hurt you. He doesn't even notice you.

I'm not even sure what the hell you are trying to say. This is why I generally don't respond to an AC.

Maximum energy consumption is Green? (1)

AlecC (512609) | about a year ago | (#43534979)

I am not sure I would describe this as "Green". Using up all available resources in one massive burst, leaving nothing for future generations. Efficient, yea - in the way a nuclear bomb is efficient. But basically a cheap headline to draw attention to what is, yes, an interesting bit of astronomy.

Re:Maximum energy consumption is Green? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43535165)

> in the way a nuclear bomb is efficient

Actually only a fairly small part of the fuel in a nuclear bomb actually undergoes fission.

It's worth keeping in mind that the universe is still expanding, so any hydrogen that 'escapes' will be less and less likely to ever become part of a star again as the universe ages. This galaxy is efficient in that it gets the maximum amount of energy from its available hydrogen.

Re:Maximum energy consumption is Green? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43535287)

Not counting on a steady-state universe for example. As each "bubble" implodes the next bubble gets added to... until the mass is great enough to restart the basic universe all over again. Too me that sounds as each star is a universe unto its own, and each star, Must acquire the resourses to light, expand and die.
But if the bubbles were larger, say our "universe" or dimension, or whatever the name for all the visable area, and the next dimension is the next bubble, ... ibelieve that was from the "city in flight" series..

Re:Maximum energy consumption is Green? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | about a year ago | (#43535357)

If a nuclear bomb were 100% efficient it would have no fallout. So that's kind of green. A dirty bomb doesn't undergo nuclear chain reaction at all, so it has maximum amount of fallout that makes dirty.

Re:Maximum energy consumption is Green? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537199)

I am not sure I would describe this as "Green". Using up all available resources in one massive burst, leaving nothing for future generations. Efficient, yea - in the way a nuclear bomb is efficient. But basically a cheap headline to draw attention to what is, yes, an interesting bit of astronomy.

Yeah, I'm glad to see the scientists didn't call it "green", just some stupid science reporter. Every direct quote from the scientists says "efficient". Sadly, it looks like the one who started this "green" crap is Whitney Clavin a PR person at JPL. That's the byline on the JPL press release.

Our great alchemist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43535315)

of the universe (some would say god) is low on fuel!?

Pikers! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#43535485)

I thought the most efficient star factory was in Hollywood, where they efficiently turn no-talent chumps into overnight sensations using only skimpy clothes, hype and recycled plotlines, leaving behind only a trail of burned-out losers that the tabloids follow around for the remainder of their pathetic lines to show you how fat and out of shape they've gotten.

But this does seem better.

these words you keep using... (1)

odigity (266563) | about a year ago | (#43535863)

"This galaxy is the 'greenest' factory yet discovered... ...leaving no waste."

Green? Waste?

I keep seeing humans applying these fuzzy concepts with apparent emotional significance to inanimate objects and natural processes. What's green about turning hydrogen into stars? Green is suppose to be good, right? Is loose hydrogen bad? Don't stars use fusion to produce radiation? Don't the same people that talk about 'green' incessantly also speak badly of nuclear fusion and radiation? Isn't that called toxic waste when it's on this spinning rock? Speaking of waste, why is hydrogen that's not turned into stars considered waste? That seems highly subjective. Maybe I like scattered hydrogren gas...

Center of the Universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43537133)

Something about OA.....

It was a long time ago, too. (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about a year ago | (#43537783)

"In a galaxy, far, far away (6 billion light-years away to be precise)..."

Just pointing out that if we're observing it it must've happened 6 billion years ago as well. If you're gonna go for the Star Wars quote, might as well go all the way.

Re:It was a long time ago, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43538167)

6 billion years ago to observers on Earth or 6 billion years ago to observers at the galaxy? Do you think it would be the same to both observers?

Re:It was a long time ago, too. (1)

Urkki (668283) | about a year ago | (#43548679)

6 billion years ago to observers on Earth or 6 billion years ago to observers at the galaxy? Do you think it would be the same to both observers?

The time==distance for those photons to travel from there to here is almost same in both reference frames, ours and the reference frame of a similar planet in that other galaxy.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...