http://light-years.net/resources/Bar Spiral Galaxy.lg.jpg Im sure we have all seen a picture like this. A beautiful picture of a two armed bar galaxy. About three weeks ago, I posted a thread as to why galaxies are disc shaped (Thank you again Grumpy for the amazing answer). Today, however, my friend has a new question that seems even harder to answer. The question is how and why do bar galaxies keep their prominent bar in the center? I can see why he has this question, because for the galaxy to keep the bar, the stars at the ends of it would have to orbit faster than the stars near the center so they all can stay in somewhat of a line. Even the gases form a line.:shrug: Anyone have any ideas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barred_spiral_galaxy Not exactly the answer to your question, but a good starting point.
I think that wiki answers it pretty well. Remember that the structures of a galaxy, the bars and arms, are not fixed items, but fluctuate as stars move in and out of them.
Thank you Walter, Wikipedia is a lot better than most people say. But youre right, not exactly what Im looking for.
Lets say that a galaxy as a whole, has, like the earth, an electric field pointing inward. This would mean that any particles that bear a positive charge would migrate toward the galactic center. In our galaxy, this could set a proton upon as much as a fifty-thousand light year journey. Once it gets into the last leg of its journey, it would be closing in upon a group of other protons with the same travel orders. It seems that it would find its counterparts arrayed into a growing hollow ball formation that by now boasted a radius of a few light years. Within this ball, an electric field pointing outward would be sending electrons instead of protons inwardly, not toward the super-massive black hole at the center, but toward the rotational axis of the great accretion disk that surrounds the center. The distinction between "sphere" and "disk" bears a little latitude: A globe can evolve into a disk due to rotational factors, and a disk can puff out due to electrostatic factors. As the proton ball or disk expands due to continuous immigration, it can reach existing stars and planets and tear them all to hell. As it draws electrons out of the captured orbs, all molecular bonds become history. If the disk is flat enough, those stolen electrons align themselves with the rotational axis and repel outwards along that axis away from the SMBH which has so many electrons that its electrical repulsion for them has equaled its attraction for them. Any proton without neutron ballast joins the invading proton ball, and all denser matter decelerates against wreckage that is presented before it: less due to orbital velocity and more due to repulsion due to confinement within a domain bearing an upward-pointing electric field. The glow of the bar within a galactic bulge is not from stars, but from star-wreckage heated by collisions with junk aloft nearly devoid of orbital travel. That galactic bulge is but the jaws of the SMBH which is eating the galaxy from inside out. It won't reach Sol for a very long time. There is more to say, but right now I have got do do my chores.
So why are there still stars in the center of our galaxy, if there's some wave of destructiveness heading outward? The only stars that are in danger from the galactic black hole are ones whose orbits drift too close to the event horizon. The arms and bars of galaxies are simply density waves.
I never said that the bar is made up of stars. I believe them to be the inevitable debris of stellar system destruction taken out of orbit by a cloud of positively charged particles so that they then fall almost directly toward the SMBH that was created by the galaxy itself. It is not surprising to hear from people who have read of alternative theories to mine because this is my first disclosure of my theory outside of my blog. My theory takes us from the first proton to reach the center of a galaxy, through the growth of a hollow ball of protons, to the gravitation of neutral particles to the center of that ball. Since this thread was started with an invitation to ideas about what the bar within the central bulge was all about, and I am satisfied that a systematic study of the subject has yielded insightful theory that I say stacks up, I advanced the theory without consulting Wikipedia. I understand that Wikipedia follows the crowd to restrict their information to that which is of popular consensus. It is not my calling to announce suppositions that are already in the public domain. Follow the crowd. There is safety in numbers, but slow down if you find yourself amid a bunch of lemmings. By the way, though, have you noticed that the illumination from galactic bulges differs from what we would agree is starlight? Why does the central bulge bulge when is so fat we could think it a globe? The bulge might be caused by a lesser spin velocity. It might also be due to electrostatic repulsion. Some comical sources of information explain the bulges to be made up of stars in random orbits! How do you know if writers of contrary theories are not even dumber than the one you just picked out to pick on?
What you believe carries very little weight and further this belief of yours is nonsensical. Positively charged particles are destroying star systems by somehow sending them to the galaxies central BH? Rather proposterous! Is the even the slightest hint of evidence or is this just your beilief. How do you propose that a hollow ball of protons could exist. What new physics are required for this to occur? In the science section it is generally frowned upon to just make up wild as guesses to answer legitimate questions.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The most developed theory is that the bars are transient structures due to density waves. Here's a simplified pic demonstrating the concept: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here you can see it in action. The bar is not very pronounced, but if you watch stars carefully, you can see how stars move in and out of the dense arms and bars. And here is a brief description of it. This is really more about spiral arms, but the point is, you can see how bars are just another virtual structure formed by the same processes.
origin, you seem to have been hounding me with an alarming persistence. Frown all you want. An idea was invited and I presented mine. With all due respect, it seems as though, either I am always wrong, or else anything I have to say is just a little over your head. You have already confessed that you consider it somehow your obligation to protect young innocent visitors to the site from misinformation with which their gullible little minds could never cope. You have appointed yourself doorkeeper for this forum to pass judgement on all whom you survey. You're tiresome practice of calling anything I assert as a conjecture or a wild guess never seems to suggest that you cant address the issues no matter how simple they might be. Your insulting generalities deny me opportunity to present specific defense. Hence, it seems to me that I am being attacked by someone seeking personal safety while dealing out abuse to others. It is not your place to pass judgement on me. Please leave me alone. I am not here to be your punching bag.
This is the astro and cosmo forum. You are welcome to post your hypotheses* in the Alternative Theories Forum. Posting outside there risks getting you banned. The best way to avoid him calling your assertions conjecture and wild guessing is ... to not assert things that are conjecture and wild guessing. As he says, there is no evidence of the structures you mention. That would make it conjectural. He is not passing judgement on you; he is passing judgement on the argument presented and poking holes in it. He gets to do that. If you want to be left alone, don't post publicly. You have every right to post, but you do not have the right to have it go unchallenged, especially when it is in the wrong forum.
I do not want to upset you, so I will make a deal with you. I will not comment on your posts in the Fringe sections. However, in the science section if you make comments that are not in keeping with science I will comment. You of course are free to comment on anything I write.
Since I am unaware of any other plausible theory presented anywhere about what those bars are, then my theory can hardly be called an alternative theory. I did not start the thread, so I cannot answer a question found in this forum by dragging it somewhere else first. I do concede that I let my enthusiasm for the subject show. That just wasn't British, and I sorrow for the disgrace that brings down onto me. This is a scientific forum. Casting generalized slurs does not narrow the rationale down to the constructive thought practice that would validate objections to the theory under attack. He or you could avoid the appearance of being trolls by thinking about how unpleasant your public bickering is to your victim and possibly to some of the other readers. You show no evidence that there is no evidence of any structures that I mention. Do you insist upon a reference to Wikipedia? Name one structure not in evidence so that I can accommodate you with evidence or else an explanation. This is an astrophysics forum: we do not drag everything into a laboratory and fashion working models of everything before we even think about it. Believe me, it is OK to think. Tell that to your friend. What holes does he poke? He launches a totally nontechnical assault. None of his taunts address any specific shortcoming in my logic. He said "What you believe carries very little weight and further this belief of yours is nonsensical." Oh my! How clever. He really outwitted me there. He said " Positively charged particles are destroying star systems by somehow sending them to the galaxies (sic) central BH? Rather proposterous! (sic)" That last big word certainly puts me to shame. And we know dam well that he did not just copy it out of the dictionary. How can I survive such an eloquent critique long enough to explain that a downward-pointing electric field can be expected for the visible outer portion of our galaxy, and consequential migration of positive particles already within the galaxy to its center. The more I defer to a fringe forum the better or I would go on. He said: " How do you propose that a hollow ball of protons could exist. What new physics are required for this to occur?" He does not establish here that he has any concept of what content present physics has acquired. I suspect that lack of technical acumen might be due to preoccupation with Roget's Thesaurus. He shows no evidence so far that he has what it takes to comprehend anything I have to say.
Dale, I appreciate your dedication on trying to answer this question of mine, but even for a highschooler like me with somewhat limited knowledge on advanced astronomy can even tell that your answer is a little "out there". Your answer sounds like (to me anyway) that your trying to make a connection with 2 areas of physics that are completely incompatible: General Reletivity and Quantum Mechanics. Anyone with even the least amount of knowledge of these know that they are practically at war with each other (at least in physicists minds). However, as for the "trolling", I actually somewhat agree with you. People, you can lay off a little bit. I have seen some of the virtual fist fights on this forum.
So sorry you find my horrendous spelling to be a problem, I happen find your child like ignorance of physics annoying Really? The fair weather electric field is a consequence of the atmosphere, are you proposing that the galaxy has an atmosphere, I wouldn't put it past you to believe that! By the way it is spelled damn not dam.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Gee, that's a tough one. How about electrostatic repulsion? What possible force would over come the electrostatic replusion of protons to have them form a hollow sphere? The idea is (I can spell this) stupid.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I understand what you are saying, all I have to do is block out my education and reason to do it. I also understand what you are saying is utterly ignorant, uninformed, unevidenced fantasy.
In other words, "Thanks but no thanks." At least you responded. I commend your ability to formulate the question and celebrate your interest in science early in life. You asked for ideas but are young enough to still be impressed by the broadly accepted view of science. Am sorry to be found knowing less than even the least of knowledge about almost any subject. Am not a quantum mechanic and enjoy easy problems to the extent that relativity and I get along by not bothering each other. I don't follow anyone and find that the best way to the truth. To avenge your premature dismissal I should council you to follow the crowd. By the way, have you noticed how the trolls do not offer whatever contrary rationale they might have to refute a posting they attack. A cowardly bully prefers a helpless victim. To harm their betters, they strike from behind. The hyperbole for them is "backstabber". They never seek a fair fight. Hence, they avoid exposure by simply hurling slurs. Didn't I originally tell you that I did have more to say? Well, just for that, I won't.
