New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Ghostly Galaxies Appear in the Coma Cluster

Thinly spread galaxies caught on camera

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The word “galaxy” derives from the Greek for “milky,” but some such celestial systems look more like extremely skim milk. A new array of small telescopes has serendipitously discovered 47 “ultradiffuse” galaxies whose stars are so spread out from one another that they appear ghostly pale. Several of them are as large as our own, but each is much fainter, bearing roughly 1,000th as many stars as the Milky Way. No one knows how such odd galaxies originated.

The phantom galaxies materialized to astronomers after they deployed Dragonfly, an array in New Mexico composed of eight Canon telephoto lenses. “We just couldn't resist looking at Coma,” says Roberto Abraham, an astronomer at the University of Toronto, referring to a rich galaxy cluster in the constellation Coma Berenices. The cluster houses thousands of galaxies 340 million light-years from Earth and has a storied legacy: in the 1930s astronomers first detected dark matter there.

Dragonfly's Coma image did not disappoint. On it, Abraham and his colleagues saw faint smudges indicative of large, diffuse galaxies. By luck, the Hubble Space Telescope had captured one of them during an unrelated observation, providing more detail. The galaxies, it reveals, look nothing like our own. Instead they are smooth, round and devoid of any gas to form new stars, and although the objects resemble diffuse galaxies known as dwarf spheroidals, they are anything but small. The discovery is described in a January issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


How did such bizarre and difficult-to-detect galaxies arise? Team member Pieter van Dokkum, an astronomer at Yale University, suspects the galaxies may be failed Milky Ways—big galaxies that were headed for brilliance but lost their gas before forming many stars, perhaps because supernova explosions catapulted gas out of the galaxies and into the parent Coma cluster. They also must harbor lots of dark matter to hold together; otherwise the gravitational pull of other galaxies in the cluster would rip them apart.

Exactly how much dark matter they possess is unknown because no one has yet achieved the feat of measuring their mass. Nevertheless, “they're great dark matter labs,” says Chris Impey, an astronomer at the University of Arizona. If dark matter emits radiation, these galaxies could be the place to see it.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 312 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Galactic Ghosts” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 312 No. 4 (), p. 22
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0415-22

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe