3
$\begingroup$

Why do stars exist in groups like galaxies rather than individual stars, and why do galaxies exist as different entities without continuity and with large intergalactic spaces?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand the question. What is a galaxy cluster if not a "group of galaxies"? $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Mar 11 '16 at 13:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think they're asking why isn't the universe just a flat distribution of stars. $\endgroup$ – Dean Mar 11 '16 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ That's it Dean, why isn't the universe just a flat distribution of stars? $\endgroup$ – Enock Kabibi Mar 14 '16 at 9:06
1
$\begingroup$

Stars exist in galaxies because a certain concentration of cool gas is required in order for the star formation process to proceed. Baryonic gas is drawn into potential wells that are created by pre-existing dark matter structures and it is these that determine the hierarchical structure that is seen in galaxies. The baryonic gas inflows are able to cool and condense sufficiently for the gas to collapse gravitationally, fragment and begin the process of star formation. Once star formation is sufficiently developed then we see this concentration of gas and stars (and dark matter) as a "galaxy". Further "concentration" is achieved through galactic mergers, where bigger galaxies are built up by the merger of smaller galaxies.

Stars could not be uniformly distributed through space because if the gas they form out of was uniformly distributed then it would be too sparse to be unstable to gravitational collapse.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Rob thanks for that help. Do you have any educative page I can follow? $\endgroup$ – Enock Kabibi Mar 15 '16 at 16:50
0
$\begingroup$

Because of gravity: every spread of matter tend to collapse to it's center of gravity, if there are not counterbalancy force (like pressure, inside a star, or inertia, when rotation is involved, comprising the one created by the beginning of the collapse).

In a perfectly symmetric universe, there would be no prefered direction to collapse, but it is a very instable equilibrium. In practice there are variations at all scales, which make it possible to collapse.

More generally about which win between expend or collapse, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Stars can be found grouped in galaxies because they were born there: galaxies first formed has a gravitational accretion of gas (hydrogen, helium) a couple hundred millions year after the Big Bang. The exact process of galaxy formation is still very not well known.

But many stars (maybe as much as half of all stars) are also found in intergalactic space, liberated from the attraction of their native galaxy, having been ejected via gravitational interactions (such as the ones used to get gravity assisted acceleration for robotic probes exploring the solar system) or during the collision of galaxies. As a side note, there are similarly many planets that are not bound anymore to the star system were they were born in and travel into interstellar space.

As for galaxies, they are distributed very differently in large structures as described by Husni Almoubayyed in his answer.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @RobJeffries. arxiv.org/abs/1105.3544 $\endgroup$ – Stéphane Rollandin Mar 12 '16 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ But apparently the microlensing observations are not yet capable of determining whether the planets are unbound or just at some distance from their parent star. arxiv.org/abs/1603.03773v1 $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Mar 15 '16 at 7:31
  • $\begingroup$ Though I understand the arguments for why a population of such objects is likely. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Mar 15 '16 at 7:45
  • $\begingroup$ @RobJeffries. I don't remember when I first read about this; there is an overview for laymen that seems serious enough at phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/13/… $\endgroup$ – Stéphane Rollandin Mar 15 '16 at 8:07
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose that is reasonably balanced (towards the end), but attaches excessive weight to comments by the likes of Neil de Grasse Tyson that simply aren't supportable by any data at present. There are plenty of reasons to suppose that there are lots of free floating planets, but almost no hard evidence that they do. None of the IR-discovered "rogue planets" that are mentioned (either close to the Sun - Liu et al. 2013) or in young star forming regions (Zapatero-Osorio et al. 2000) are anywhere near the the mass of Jupiter. They are small brown dwarfs. Anyway, we're off-topic. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Mar 15 '16 at 8:50
0
$\begingroup$

First let's put things into perspective: Stars are nowhere as close to each other as they seem. The nearest star to Earth aside from the sun, Alpha Centauri, is 4 light years away, or 250 thousand times the distance between the Earth and the Sun!

The cosmological principle assumes a homogeneous Universe. Structure formation in the Universe breaks down the homogeneity of the Universe when perturbed (due to e.g. a sound wave that changes the pressure enough to start gravitational collapse) to smaller entities that collapse onto each other forming structure. (For more on how this happens, see e.g. here or here starting pg. 9 which is a simple treatment of gravitational instability, but not enough on its own to cause the structure we see in the Universe right now, and better but more complicated mechanisms exist.)

The largest structures in the Universe are galaxy superclusters (and inversely, voids). Superclusters usually span half a billion light years and are groups of clusters of galaxies, which are in turn, groups of galaxies, which are formed within the larger structure of superclusters. Galaxy clusters are gravitationally-bound and in fact are the largest gravitationally-bound structure in the Universe. Galaxies then become star-forming regions and similar gravitational instability in interstellar clouds causes stars to form.

So depending on the scales you are looking through, in the small scales you could say that stars are very lonely entities, and on large scales you could say that galaxies do in fact come in groups.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is again a better explanation. I had not thought about clusters and super-clusters(which are actually groups of galaxies). $\endgroup$ – Enock Kabibi Mar 15 '16 at 16:56

protected by Qmechanic Mar 12 '16 at 13:27

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.