Astronomers saw one galaxy impale another. The damage was an eye-opener.
Two extremely distant galaxies appear to be ramming into each other over and over again at speeds of over 1 million mph.
The pair — dueling it out 11 billion light-years away in space — has given astronomers their first detailed look at a galaxy merger in which one impales another with intense radiation. The armed galaxy's lance is a quasar, a portmanteau for "quasi-stellar object."
"We hence call this system the 'cosmic joust,'" said Pasquier Noterdaeme, one of the researchers from the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, in a statement.
A quasar is a blindingly bright galaxy core — brighter than all of the galaxy's starlight combined, according to NASA. Through telescopes, these sometimes look like a single star in the sky, but they're actually beams of light from a feasting black hole at a galaxy's core. Scientists have suspected quasars may "turn on the lights" when two galaxies crash into each other. But finding direct proof has been challenging.
Not only did the new observations show how a cosmic collision helps a quasar light up, it also revealed that the quasar can be a weapon of mass destruction, snuffing out another galaxy's ability to form new stars. These findings, published in the journal Nature, may help scientists better understand how supermassive black holes can shape the fates of other entire galaxies.
SEE ALSO: Hubble spots a roaming black hole light-years from where it belongs
A galaxy's quasar, right, snuffs out another galaxy's ability to form new stars in this artist's rendering. Credit: ESO / M. Kornmesser illustration
When astronomer Maarten Schmidt found the first quasar in 1963, it looked like a star, though it was much too far away for that to have been the source. Scientists have since learned that quasars are relics of a much earlier time in the universe.
The nearest quasars to Earth are still several hundred million light-years away, meaning they are observed now as they were hundreds of millions of years ago. That quasars aren't found closer to home is a clue they existed when the universe was much younger. But scientists seek them out for studies because they may provide insight into the evolution of the universe.
Though the research team saw the collision as if it was happening now, it occurred long ago, when the universe was only 18 percent of its current age. That's possible because extremely distant light and other forms of radiation take time to reach our telescopes, meaning astronomers see their targets as they were in the past.
"We hence call this system the 'cosmic joust.'"
To conduct the study, an international team of astronomers used the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, or ALMA, and the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, both peering up at the sky from the Chilean desert.
Their research supports a long-held theory: that galaxy mergers can trigger quasars, and that the energy from them can alter their surroundings in powerful ways.
"Here we see for the first time the effect of a quasar's radiation directly on the internal structure of the gas in an otherwise regular galaxy," said co-author Sergei Balashev, a researcher at the Ioffe Institute in Russia, in a statement.
The gas that would usually feed star-making activity within the wounded galaxy was transformed: Rather than being dispersed evenly in large loose clouds, the quasar's radiation clumped the gas in super tiny, dense pockets, rendering it useless for star births. This suggests the quasar's energy effectively sterilized the galaxy — at least wherever the radiation hit.
Black holes in general are some of the most inscrutable things in the cosmos. Astronomers believe these invisible giants skulk at the center of virtually all galaxies. Falling into one is an automatic death sentence. Any cosmic stuff that wanders too close reaches a point of no return.
A wide view of the two galaxies on the verge of merging, dubbed "the cosmis joust," in the distant universe. Credit: DESI Legacy Survey
But scientists have observed something weird at the edge of black holes' accretion disks, the rings of rapidly spinning material around the holes: A tiny amount of the material can suddenly get rerouted. When this happens, high-energy particles get flung outward as a pair of jets, blasting in opposite directions, though astronomers haven't quite figured out how it all works. It's also still a mystery as to when exactly in cosmic history the universe started making them.
The quasar didn't just affect the other galaxy. The sparring apparently allowed new reserves of fuel to flow into the galaxy hosting the quasar, bringing fresh gas within reach of the supermassive black hole powering it. As the black hole eats the material, it perpetuates the violence.
"These mergers are thought to bring huge amounts of gas to supermassive black holes residing in galaxy centers," Balashev said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
New model helps to figure out which distant planets may host life
The search for life beyond Earth is a key driver of modern astronomy and planetary science. The U.S. is building multiple major telescopes and planetary probes to advance this search. However, the signs of life – called biosignatures – that scientists may find will likely be difficult to interpret. Figuring out where exactly to look also remains challenging. I am an astrophysicist and astrobiologist with over 20 years of experience studying extrasolar planets – which are planets beyond our solar system. My colleagues and I have developed a new approach that will identify the most interesting planets or moons to search for life and help interpret potential biosignatures. We do this by modeling how different organisms may fare in different environments, informed by studies of limits of life on Earth. Astronomers are developing plans and technology for increasingly powerful space telescopes. For instance, NASA is working on its proposed Habitable Worlds Observatory, which would take ultrasharp images that directly show the planets orbiting nearby stars. My colleagues and I are developing another concept, the Nautilus space telescope constellation, which is designed to study hundreds of potentially Earthlike planets as they pass in front of their host stars. These and other future telescopes aim to provide more sensitive studies of more alien worlds. Their development prompts two important questions: 'Where to look?' and 'Are the environments where we think we see signs of life actually habitable?' The strongly disputed claims of potential signs of life in the exoplanet K2-18b, announced in April 2025, and previous similar claims in Venus, show how difficult it is to conclusively identify the presence of life from remote-sensing data. Oxford Languages defines 'habitable' as 'suitable or good enough to live in.' But how do scientists know what is 'good enough to live in' for extraterrestrial organisms? Could alien microbes frolic in lakes of boiling acid or frigid liquid methane, or float in water droplets in Venus' upper atmosphere? To keep it simple, NASA's mantra has been 'follow the water.' This makes sense – water is essential for all Earth life we know of. A planet with liquid water would also have a temperate environment. It wouldn't be so cold that it slows down chemical reactions, nor would it be so hot that it destroys the complex molecules necessary for life. However, with astronomers' rapidly growing capabilities for characterizing alien worlds, astrobiologists need an approach that is more quantitative and nuanced than the water or no-water classification. As part of the NASA-funded Alien Earths project that I lead, astrobiologist Rory Barnes and I worked on this problem with a group of experts – astrobiologists, planetary scientists, exoplanet experts, ecologists, biologists and chemists – drawn from the largest network of exoplanet and astrobiology researchers, NASA's Nexus for Exoplanet System Science, or NExSS. Over a hundred colleagues provided us with ideas, and two questions came up often: First, how do we know what life needs, if we do not understand the full range of extraterrestrial life? Scientists know a lot about life on Earth, but most astrobiologists agree that more exotic types of life – perhaps based on different combinations of chemical elements and solvents – are possible. How do we determine what conditions those other types of life may require? Second, the approach has to work with incomplete data. Potential sites for life beyond Earth – 'extrasolar habitats' – are very difficult to study directly, and often impossible to visit and sample. For example, the Martian subsurface remains mostly out of our reach. Places like Jupiter's moon Europa's and Saturn's Moon Enceladus' subsurface oceans and all extrasolar planets remain practically unreachable. Scientists study them indirectly, often only using remote observations. These measurements can't tell you as much as actual samples would. To make matters worse, measurements often have uncertainties. For example, we may be only 88% confident that water vapor is present in an exoplanet's atmosphere. Our framework has to be able to work with small amounts of data and handle uncertainties. And, we need to accept that the answers will often not be black or white. The new approach, called the quantitative habitability framework, has two distinguishing features: First, we moved away from trying to answer the vague 'habitable to life' question and narrowed it to a more specific and practically answerable question: Would the conditions in the habitat – as we know them – allow a specific (known or yet unknown) species or ecosystem to survive? Even on Earth, organisms require different conditions to survive – there are no camels in Antarctica. By talking about specific organisms, we made the question easier to answer. Second, the quantitative habitability framework does not insist on black-or-white answers. It compares computer models to calculate a probabilistic answer. Instead of assuming that liquid water is a key limiting factor, we compare our understanding of the conditions an organism requires (the 'organism model') with our understanding of the conditions present in the environment (the 'habitat model'). Both have uncertainties. Our understanding of each can be incomplete. Yet, we can handle the uncertainties mathematically. By comparing the two models, we can determine the probability that an organism and a habitat are compatible. As a simplistic example, our habitat model for Antarctica may state that temperatures are often below freezing. And our organism model for a camel may state that it does not survive long in cold temperatures. Unsurprisingly, we would correctly predict a near-zero probability that Antarctica is a good habitat for camels. We had a blast working on this project. To study the limits of life, we collected literature data on extreme organisms, from insects that live in the Himalayas at high altitudes and low temperatures to microorganisms that flourish in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor and feed on chemical energy. We explored, via our models, whether they may survive in the Martian subsurface or in Europa's oceans. We also investigated if marine bacteria that produce oxygen in Earth's oceans could potentially survive on known extrasolar planets. Although comprehensive and detailed, this approach makes important simplifications. For example, it does not yet model how life may shape the planet, nor does it account for the full array of nutrients organisms may need. These simplifications are by design. In most of the environments we currently study, we know too little about the conditions to meaningfully attempt such models – except for some solar system bodies, such as Saturn's Enceladus. The quantitative habitability framework allows my team to answer questions like whether astrobiologists might be interested in a subsurface location on Mars, given the available data, or whether astronomers should turn their telescopes to planet A or planet B while searching for life. Our framework is available as an open-source computer model, which astrobiologists can now readily use and further develop to help with current and future projects. If scientists do detect a potential signature of life, this approach can help assess if the environment where it is detected can actually support the type of life that leads to the signature detected. Our next steps will be to build a database of terrestrial organisms that live in extreme environments and represent the limits of life. To this data, we can also add models for hypothetical alien life. By integrating those into the quantitative habitability framework, we will be able to work out scenarios, interpret new data coming from other worlds and guide the search for signatures of life beyond Earth – in our solar system and beyond. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Apai, University of Arizona Read more: Are we alone in the universe? 4 essential reads on potential contact with aliens 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' − an astronomer explains how much evidence scientists need to claim discoveries like extraterrestrial life Extraterrestrial life may look nothing like life on Earth − so astrobiologists are coming up with a framework to study how complex systems evolve Daniel Apai receives funding from NASA, Heising-Simons Foundation, Department of Defense, Space Telescope Science Institute, and the University of Arizona, and leads the NASA-funded Alien Earths astrobiology research team that developed the framework described here. He is affiliated with the Steward Observatory and Lunar and Planetary Laboratory of The University of Arizona.


San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Book Review: Taylor Jenkins Reid's ‘Atmosphere' plays out amid the 1980s politics of NASA
Is there a popular fiction writer alive who conveys falling in love better than Taylor Jenkins Reid? Consider these lines between the two central characters of her new love story, 'Atmosphere,' set in the 1980s as two NASA astronauts in the space shuttle program fall for each other: 'I feel like I could know you forever and still be curious about what you're going to say next' and 'I want to show you every good thing I've ever found' and 'You're the first woman I've ever met who I feel like understands things about me before I even say them.' Of course, Houston, we have a problem. The characters — Joan and Vanessa — are gay. Forced to hide their love for one another in public for fear of losing a ride on the shuttle, the pair meet up away from NASA for trysts and are careful at the frequent astronaut get togethers that make for perfect set pieces in the novel. It would all feel a little passé if it wasn't so well told. Taylor Jenkins Reid is great at creating characters that while they fit a stereotype, exist on the page as comfortably (or awkwardly) as readers imagine they would in real life. There's mission specialist Lydia, who Joan clocks as 'terrifyingly invincible,' navigating the NASA campus 'as if enjoying the walk would threaten to waste her time,' and Hank, the Top Gun pilot, 'tall and broad-shouldered,' who 'wore dark-tinted aviators that made him look like a movie star.' Outside of the astronaut corps, we meet Barbara and Frances, the sister and niece of Joan, who complicate her life but also help her sort out what truly matters. Some of the best moments in the book are musings between Joan and Vanessa about the stars, God and their shared love of space exploration. 'It seemed so clear to Joan, as crazy as it might be, that the meaning of life had to be up there, somewhere,' writes Reid. If there's any nit to pick, it's the pacing toward the end, as major life events seem to happen quickly before the ultimate do-or-die sequence between Mission Control and the astronauts aboard STS-LR9. Beyond that, the plot of the novel doesn't really need much sketching. These are astronauts, after all, willing to risk an awful lot to join the exclusive club of humanity that has ventured into orbit. But are they willing to risk true love? That's the elevator pitch, and it's one Laika Studios has already swung at, hiring 'Captain Marvel' directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck to adapt the novel into a film. ___


Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Book Review: Taylor Jenkins Reid's ‘Atmosphere' plays out amid the 1980s politics of NASA
Is there a popular fiction writer alive who conveys falling in love better than Taylor Jenkins Reid? Consider these lines between the two central characters of her new love story, 'Atmosphere,' set in the 1980s as two NASA astronauts in the space shuttle program fall for each other: 'I feel like I could know you forever and still be curious about what you're going to say next' and 'I want to show you every good thing I've ever found' and 'You're the first woman I've ever met who I feel like understands things about me before I even say them.' Of course, Houston, we have a problem. The characters — Joan and Vanessa — are gay. Forced to hide their love for one another in public for fear of losing a ride on the shuttle, the pair meet up away from NASA for trysts and are careful at the frequent astronaut get togethers that make for perfect set pieces in the novel. It would all feel a little passé if it wasn't so well told. Taylor Jenkins Reid is great at creating characters that while they fit a stereotype, exist on the page as comfortably (or awkwardly) as readers imagine they would in real life. There's mission specialist Lydia, who Joan clocks as 'terrifyingly invincible,' navigating the NASA campus 'as if enjoying the walk would threaten to waste her time,' and Hank, the Top Gun pilot, 'tall and broad-shouldered,' who 'wore dark-tinted aviators that made him look like a movie star.' Outside of the astronaut corps, we meet Barbara and Frances, the sister and niece of Joan, who complicate her life but also help her sort out what truly matters. Some of the best moments in the book are musings between Joan and Vanessa about the stars, God and their shared love of space exploration. 'It seemed so clear to Joan, as crazy as it might be, that the meaning of life had to be up there, somewhere,' writes Reid. If there's any nit to pick, it's the pacing toward the end, as major life events seem to happen quickly before the ultimate do-or-die sequence between Mission Control and the astronauts aboard STS-LR9. Beyond that, the plot of the novel doesn't really need much sketching. These are astronauts, after all, willing to risk an awful lot to join the exclusive club of humanity that has ventured into orbit. But are they willing to risk true love? That's the elevator pitch, and it's one Laika Studios has already swung at, hiring 'Captain Marvel' directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck to adapt the novel into a film. ___ AP book reviews: