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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe