Milky Way X-ray Mystery Deepens

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Astronomers have long puzzled over the origin of the x-ray glow in the middle of our Milky Way galaxy. Previous spectral measurements have hinted at the source of the diffuse light, but the data were inconclusive. Recently, observers spent 170 hours pointing NASA's Chandra x-ray telescope at a 100-light-year-wide region around the galactic center in hopes of elucidating matters. The results raise as many questions as they answer.

To study the diffuse x-ray emission, Michael Muno of UCLA and his collaborators removed from the Chandra image 2,357 bright points that came from obvious x-ray sources, like white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes, as well as distant galaxies lying behind the Milky Way. The remaining sources in the image were too faint to identify. But the researchers determined that these unresolved sources could not account for all of the remaining x-rays. In fact, they estimated that the galactic center would have to contain 200,000 of the known x-ray objects--10 times more than are predicted to exist--in order to generate the leftover light in the image.

Instead the majority of the galactic center's ghostlike x-ray emission appears to be coming from two bodies of hot ionized gas, or plasma. The two plasmas occupy essentially the same volume, but one has a temperature of 10 million degrees Celsius and the other about 100 million degrees C. The cooler gas is most likely gas blown off during the violent deaths of massive stars.


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.


But the origin of the hotter gas remains an enigma. It is so hot that the galaxy's gravity cannot keep it from boiling off into intergalactic space. Supernovae and stellar winds could replenish the gas, but their typical energy is not enough to produce a 100-million-degree plasma. As an explanation, the researchers posit that cosmic rays, magnetic fields and excess supernovae could provide additional heat, but they note that none of these theories are entirely successful.

The heating problem may call into question some of the basic understanding of the composition of the interstellar medium. "I think it deepens the mystery more than anything," Muno remarks. The answer, he thinks, may come when the Japanese satellite Astro-E2 is launched. Its ability to distinguish features in the x-ray spectrum will complement Chandra's ability to distinguish objects in the sky, Muno explains: "I think that should really nail it down." The team's findings are slated for the September 20 Astrophysical Journal.

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