Why Dwarf Galaxies Lack Star Power

In a study in the journal Nature, researchers show that the relative lack of star density in dwarf galaxies need not conflict with standard cosmological models if you include the blast effects of supernovae. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For astronomers who study the large-scale structure of the universe, dwarf galaxies have proven quite vexing. Because the leading model of cosmology has been unable to account for their relative lack of substance. Now scientists writing in the journal Nature show that the current model can actually generate dwarf galaxies just fine. You just need to look at the stars.

There are two types of matter in the universe: ordinary matter, including the material that makes up stars. And dark matter: that mysterious stuff we can’t see but that clearly affects ordinary matter. It’s the presence of cold dark matter that explains how the young universe went from being smooth to being lumpy, as ordinary matter coalesced first into stars and then into galaxies. The problem is that dwarf galaxies are not as dense as the cold dark matter model says they should be.

Now an international team of astronomers says you can blame gusts of stellar wind. Because in the roiling cauldron of activity that governs galaxy formation, some stars go supernova. Those spectacular explosions literally blow matter away, and you’re left with a dwarf galaxy that’s a lot like most independent films: a bit light on stars.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]


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.


[Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]

 

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