Astronomers discover strange new celestial object in our Milky Way galaxy
Located 15,000 light-years away in a region of the Milky Way brimming with stars, gas and dust, this object could be a highly magnetized dead star like a neutron or white dwarf, Curtin University's Ziteng Andy Wang said in an email from Australia.
Or it could be 'something exotic' and unknown, said Wang, lead author of the study published in the journal Nature.
NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory spotted the X-ray emissions by chance last year while focusing on a supernova remnant, or the remains of an exploded star. Wang said it was the first time X-rays had been seen coming from a so-called long-period radio transient, a rare object that cycles through radio signals over tens of minutes.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Given the uncertain distance, astronomers can't tell if the weird object is associated with the supernova remnant or not. A single light-year is 5.8 trillion miles.
Advertisement
The hyperactive phase of this object — designated ASKAP J1832−091 — appeared to last about a month. Outside of that period, the star did not emit any noticeable X-rays. That could mean more of these objects may be out there, scientists said.
'While our discovery doesn't yet solve the mystery of what these objects are and may even deepen it, studying them brings us closer to two possibilities,' Wang said. 'Either we are uncovering something entirely new, or we're seeing a known type of object emitting radio and X-ray waves in a way we've never observed before.'
Advertisement
Launched in 1999, Chandra orbits tens of thousands of miles (kilometers) above Earth, observing some of the hottest, high-energy objects in the universe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
A Rogue Star Could Hurl Earth Into Deep Space, Study Warns
Mars is not safe either. Billions of years from now, the Sun will swell into a red giant, swallowing Mercury, Venus, and Earth. But that's not the only way our planet could meet its demise. A new simulation points to the menacing threat of a passing field star that could cause the planets in the solar system to collide or fling Earth far from the Sun. When attempting to model the evolution of the solar system, astronomers have often treated our host star and its orbiting planets as an isolated system. In reality, however, the Milky Way is teeming with stars that may get too close and threaten the stability of the solar system. A new study, published in the journal Icarus, suggests that stars passing close to the solar system will likely influence the orbits of the planets, causing another planet to smack into Earth or send our home planet flying. In most cases, passing stars are inconsequential, but one could trigger chaos in the solar system—mainly because of a single planet. The closest planet to the Sun, Mercury, is prone to instability as its orbit can become more elliptical. Astronomers believe that this increasing eccentricity could destabilize Mercury's orbit, potentially leading it to collide with Venus or the Sun. If a star happens to be nearby, it would only make things worse. The researchers ran 2,000 simulations using NASA's Horizons System, a tool from the Solar System Dynamics Group that precisely tracks the positions of objects in our solar system. They then inserted scenarios involving passing stars and found that stellar flybys over the next 5 billion years could make the solar system about 50% less stable. With passing stars, Pluto has a 3.9% chance of being ejected from the solar system, while Mercury and Mars are the two planets most often lost after a stellar flyby. Earth's instability rate is lower, but it has a higher chance of its orbit becoming unstable if another planet crashes into it. 'In addition, we find that the nature of stellar-driven instabilities is more violent than internally driven ones,' the researchers wrote in the paper. 'The loss of multiple planets in stellar-driven instabilities is common and occurs about 50% of the time, whereas it appears quite rare for internally driven instabilities.' The probability of Earth's orbit becoming unstable is hundreds of times larger than prior estimates, according to the study. Well, that just gives us one more thing to worry about.
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Cicada invasion begins as Brood XIV swarms parts of U.S. See photos.
This year's cicada invasion has started as Brood XIV emerges from underground and swarms parts of the U.S. The insects are expected to be concentrated in Kentucky and Tennessee, and show up in parts of Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, as well as in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, central Pennsylvania and Long Island, New York. It is a one-in-17-year event for Brood XIV, which digs its way up from the soil as it warms and descends on neighborhoods in the billions. The brood, however, is the only group emerging this spring, meaning there likely won't be as many cicadas as last year when multiple broods surfaced simultaneously. Cicada nymphs develop in the soil over a long period and surface when the ground hits 64 degrees Fahrenheit. They can be heard crunching through the grass to climb up trees, plants, people or any vertical surface, with a forceful quality about it. Experts say they're not dangerous to pets or humans, and they don't sting or bite — and aren't poisonous or venomous. Instead, cicadas are also largely beneficial to the ecosystem, serving as a source of food source for birds and other predators. They can aerate soil and provide nutrients for trees when they decompose. Photos show this year's invasion beginning. Periodical cicada nymphs climb the trunk of a maple tree to shed their nymphal skins after a heavy rain, May 16, 2025, in Cincinnati. Carolyn Kaster/AP A periodical cicada nymph climbs to the end of a fern frond, May 16, 2025, in Cincinnati. Carolyn Kaster/AP Periodical cicada nymphs and adults are seen on the underside of a begonia plant after a heavy rain, Friday, May 16, 2025, in Cincinnati. Carolyn Kaster/AP An adult periodical cicada, in the process of shedding its nymphal skin, is seen on May 20, 2025, in Cincinnati. There are two large compound eyes, which are used to visually perceive the world around them, and three small, jewel-like, simple eyes called ocelli center. Carolyn Kaster/AP A periodical cicada flies up from the grass pursued by a cardinal, May 23, 2025, in Cincinnati. Carolyn Kaster/AP A female bluebird picks a periodical cicada from the grass, May 23, 2025, in Cincinnati. Carolyn Kaster/AP and contributed to this report.
Scientific American
4 hours ago
- Scientific American
Why Do We Launch Space Telescopes?
On April 24, 1990, NASA and the European Space Agency launched an astronomical revolution. When the Space Shuttle Discovery roared into the sky on that day, it carried the Hubble Space Telescope in its payload bay, and the astronauts aboard deployed it into low-Earth orbit soon thereafter. Hubble is not the largest telescope ever built—in fact, with a 2.4-meter mirror, it's actually considered by astronomers to be small—but it has a huge advantage over its earthbound siblings: it's above essentially all of our planet's atmosphere. That lofty perch makes Hubble's views sharper and deeper—and even broader, by allowing the telescope to gather types of light invisible to human eyes and otherwise blocked by Earth's air. And, after 35 years in orbit, Hubble is still delivering incredible science and cosmic vistas of breathtaking beauty. Launching telescopes into space takes much more effort and money than building them on the ground, though. Space telescopes also tend to be smaller than ground-based ones; they have to fit into the payload housing of a rocket, limiting their size. That restriction can be minimized by designing an observatory to launch in a folded-up form that then unfurls in space, as with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) —but this approach almost inevitably piles on more risk, complexity and cost. Given those considerable obstacles, one might ask whether space telescopes are ever really worth the hassle. 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. The short answer is: Yes, of course! For astronomical observations, getting above Earth's atmosphere brings three very basic but extremely powerful advantages. The first is that the sky is much darker in space. We tend to think of our atmosphere as being transparent, at least when it's cloudless. But unwanted light still suffuses Earth's air, even on the clearest night at the planet's darkest spot. Light pollution—unneeded illumination cast up into the sky instead of down to the ground—accounts for some of this, but the air also contains sunlight-energized molecules that slowly release this energy as a feeble trickle of visible light. This 'airglow' is dim but, even at night, outshines very faint celestial objects, limiting what ground-based telescopes can see. It's a problem of contrast, like trying to hear a whisper in a crowded restaurant. The quieter the background noise level, the better you can hear faint sounds. It's the same with the sky: a darker sky allows fainter objects to be seen. The second advantage to observing from space is that this escapes the inherent unsteadiness of our air. Turbulence in the atmosphere is the reason stars twinkle. That's anathema to astronomers; the twinkling of a star smears out its light during an observation, blurring small structures together and limiting a ground-based telescope's effective resolution (that is, how well it can distinguish between two closely spaced objects). This also makes faint objects even dimmer and harder to detect because their light isn't concentrated into a single spot and is instead diffused. Above the atmosphere, the stars and nebulas and galaxies appear crisp and unwavering, allowing us to capture far greater detail. The third reason to slip the surly bonds of Earth is that our air is extremely good at shielding us from many wavelengths of light our eyes cannot see. Ultraviolet light has wavelengths shorter than visible light (the kind our eyes detect), and while some of it reaches Earth's surface from space—enough from the sun, at least, to cause sunburns—a lot of it is instead absorbed by the air. In fact, light with a wavelength shorter than about 0.3 micron is absorbed completely. (That's a bit shorter than that of violet light, the shortest we can see, at about 0.38 micron.) So any sufficiently shortwave light—not just ultraviolet, but also even more cell-damaging x-rays and gamma rays—is sopped up by molecules in the air. That's good for human health but not great for observations of astronomical phenomena that emit light in these regimes. This happens with longer wavelengths, too. Carbon dioxide and water are excellent absorbers of infrared light, preventing astronomers on the ground from seeing most of those emissions from cosmic objects, too. As we've learned with JWST, observations in infrared can show us much about the universe that would otherwise lie beyond our own limited visual range. As just one example, the light from extremely distant galaxies is redshifted by the cosmic expansion into infrared wavelengths, where JWST excels. In fact, space telescopes that can see in different wavelengths have been crucial for discovering all sorts of surprising celestial objects and events. X-rays were critical in finding the first black holes, whose accretion disks generate high-energy light as the matter within them falls inward. Gamma-ray bursts, immensely powerful explosions, were initially detected via space-based observations. Brown dwarfs (which are essentially failed stars) emit very little visible light but are bright enough in the infrared that we now count them by the thousands in our catalogs. Observing in these other kinds of light is critical for unveiling important details about the underlying astrophysics of these and other phenomena. It's only by combining observations across the electromagnetic spectrum that we can truly understand how the universe works. Still, launching telescopes into space is a lot of trouble and expense. Official work on Hubble started in the 1970s, but delays kept it on the ground for decades. It also cost a lot of money: roughly $19.5 billion total between 1977 and 2021, in today's dollars. (Operational costs have been about $100 million per year in recent years, but Hubble is facing budget cuts.) JWST was $10 billion before it even launched, and running it adds about $170 million annually to the project's total price tag. Compare that with the European Southern Observatory's Extremely Large Telescope, or ELT, a 39-meter behemoth currently under construction that has an estimated budget of under $2 billion. Building on the ground is simpler, requires less testing and is more fault-tolerant, allowing much more bang for the buck. The capabilities of ground-based versus space-based telescopes are different, however. In general, big earthbound telescopes can collect a lot of light and see faint structures, but except for the ELT, they don't have the resolution of their space-based counterparts and can't see light outside the transparency window of our planet's air. Also, not every observation needs to be done from space; many can be done just fine from the ground, freeing up time on the more expensive and tightly scheduled space telescopes. Pitting these two kinds of facilities against each other—why have one when we can have the other?—is the wrong way to think about this. They don't compete; they complement. Together they provide a much clearer view of the cosmos than either can give by itself. Astronomy needs both.
