New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Something extremely weird is happening to our galactic neighbor. Scientists think they know why

The stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud aren’t behaving the way they should. A cataclysmic collision with another nearby galaxy may be the culprit

Two panels showing before and during a collision between two galaxies.

Himansh Rathore/University of Arizona

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Astronomers may have finally explained why the Small Magellanic Cloud isn’t spinning like it should. The cause: it’s still reeling from an ancient run-in with its big sister, the Large Magellanic Cloud.

In a new study published on Monday in the Astrophysical Journal, researchers used computers to simulate the two dwarf galaxies’ 100-million-year-long collision. They charted the Large Magellanic Cloud’s impact on its smaller sibling to answer the long-standing question of why the latter’s stars aren’t orbiting as fast as they should.

“Understanding of the inner structure and dynamical state of the Small Magellanic Cloud is a long-standing struggle in the field,” says Michele De Leo, an astronomer at the University of Bologna in Italy, who wasn’t involved in the new paper. Any study to help explain this “is a step in the direction of solving the puzzle of complex interactions between galaxies.”


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.


Galaxies contain hundreds of millions of stars and are suffused in sparse, ambient clouds of gas and dust as well. For a galaxy with a given size and brightness, the rotation of both the stars and the disk of gas follow a reliable pattern.

Three images of before, during, and after a collision between two galaxies.

A simulated collision between the Small Magellanic Cloud and the Large Magellanic Cloud that was used in a new study to explain why stars in the former are not rotating as fast as they should be.

Himansh Rathore/University of Arizona

The Small Magellanic Cloud is a conspicuous exception. It’s a small, elongated galaxy that people in the Southern Hemisphere can see regularly in the night sky—20 degrees from its neighbor, the Large Magellanic Cloud. (The two galaxies are named after Ferdinand Magellan, even though it was actually one of his crew who reported them, and he wasn’t the first European to see the objects.)

In the past few decades, astronomers have noticed that the stars in the smaller galaxy aren’t swirling around its center as fast as they should be, especially when compared with the rotation of its disk of gas. To explain this, they’ve floated the idea that we’re looking at the Small Magellanic Cloud after it ripped through the Large Magellanic Cloud, disrupting the former’s rotation.

To test this, a team of four scientists built a computer simulation of this hypothetical collision. It produced snapshots of the two galaxies before, during and after the crash, a time frame that spanned hundreds of millions of years. The violence, they found, left the smaller galaxy in disarray, with its stars and gas rotating far less than before.

The Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) is often used as a comparison point for galaxies in the early universe because it’s poor in heavy metals. So this dramatic update to its cosmic history might lead astronomers to revisit those comparisons.

“The SMC went through a catastrophic crash that injected a lot of energy into the system,” says Gurtina Besla, an astronomer at Steward Observatory and a co-author of the study. “It is not a ‘normal’ galaxy by any means.”

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