Milky Way Creation Simulation Presents Realistic Recreation Of Our Galaxy's Creation (VIDEO)

We know a lot about what the Milky Way looks like, but very little about how it got that way.

However, scientists at the University of Zurich may have just painted the most realistic picture of the formation of our galaxy to date. While in the past simulations have been able to achieve the classic spiral galaxy shape, none have recreated the distinctive swirl of the Milky Way like this video.

The study behind the video was originally published in March in the Astrophysical Journal and was revised and republished in late August.

The video itself (seen below) is extremely complex, despite its seemingly predictable path. In fact, it took two supercomputers from NASA and the Swiss National Supercomputing Center to compile the video, according to La Informacion.

"Previous efforts to form a massive disk galaxy like the Milky Way had failed, because the simulated galaxies ended up with huge central bulges compared to the size of the disk," said Javiera Guedes, the paper's author, in a press release published by UC Santa Cruz.

"The simulation follows the interactions of more than 60 million particles of dark matter and gas. A lot of physics goes into the code--gravity and hydrodynamics, star formation and supernova explosions--and this is the highest resolution cosmological simulation ever done this way," Guedes also said.

Piero Madau, one of the paper's co-authors, explained the difficulties behind creating such a video, according to the press release:

Star formation in real galaxies occurs in a clustered fashion, and to reproduce that out of a cosmological simulation is hard [...] This is the first simulation that is able to resolve the high-density clouds of gas where star formation occurs, and the result is a Milky Way type of galaxy with a small bulge and a big disk. It shows that the cold dark matter scenario, where dark matter provides the scaffolding for galaxy formation, is able to generate realistic disk-dominated galaxies.

Take a look at the video (below), then check out an amazing video of the Milky Way observed from earth.

WATCH:

Comments

[Jsal28]

08:24 PM on 09/05/2011

Do you believe it GOD? If so, you'd think that such complexities cannot be fathomed by the simple human brain, nor computer for that matter. We are not SUPPOSED to understand everything. Some work so hard to have an answer for everything instead of being humble and realizing we do not have all the answers. I say accept it.
-A Doctor of Science

[roomwitamoose01]

01:31 PM on 09/05/2011

that is so awesome. i wish i could have been around to see that. i love thinking about this kind of stuff

[texfly]

01:07 PM on 09/05/2011

What I found most intriguing about this video was the the rapid transition from CW rotation to CCW rotation at about the 45 sec mark, I can understand how a larger collection of stars could collide with the smaller one and cause the smaller collection (as a whole) to rotate CCW about it. But I don't "see" how all the stars from the CW collection would "suddenly" start rotating CCW about the new center. I know "suddenly" is not so sudden, but judging from the motion of other particles in the field it seems too fast.

Any insights out there?

[palindrom]

08:05 PM on 09/05/2011

It looks as if, just before the 45 second mark, two large blobs come in from the upper right and impart CCW angular momentum. I didn't see a very strong CW tendency before that.

The halo of the galaxy, by the way, is largely non-rotating, and there are some stars on counter-rotating orbits. But in the disk, not so much. Gas is collisional, and collisions dissipate energy, but stars are essentially collisionless, so the disk is thought to have formed largely from material that accreted as gas.

[Bryan Boru]

05:49 AM on 09/05/2011

It looks like a foamy urinal flushing.

[NoSillyName]

02:23 AM on 09/05/2011

Lovely. Beautiful and educational.

[palindrom]

10:08 PM on 09/04/2011

If you'd like to save time, here's a summary of the comment section.

The comments on this site tend to come from four classes of people: (1) science enthusiasts, some more sophisticated than others; (2) religious people, mostly objecting that it disagrees with the Bible (though not all the religious posters raise such objections); (3) people making jokes; and (4) cranks who are pushing their "unorthodox" theories . This class sometimes overlaps with (2).

[herewegoagain101]

10:33 PM on 09/04/2011

Wow, that's pretty close.

[PaulInMiami]

10:02 PM on 09/04/2011

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Hebrews 11:3 ...the whole book is superb, by the way)

I would caution those of us who believe the Bible as absolute truth, who believe the creation story in Genesis, and who totally reject Darwinian evolution--that it is unwise to be dogmatic about what is not specifically and clearly delineated in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that the creation occurred within a span of one literal week of seven (six) literal, 24-hour days; nor does the Bible say that the "days" were equal in length. I totally believe the Genesis account as true. I also assume that the "days" were symbolic representations of eons of time. The more we discover about the macrocosm and microcosm, the more we must admit how very little we know and how great must be the limitless Intelligence that brought such beauty and order out of nothingness and chaos.
What is more amazing yet is that this Intelligence is best characterized as all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent LOVE. Not the generic, vague quality of mere benevolence--but such love as described in John 3:16 -- the Creator himself, having planned it all along, presented himself in human form as our Savior, whom death could not hold captive.

[austine1994]

10:14 PM on 09/04/2011

Why would you question if the Bible is aboslutle? Please show me where the Bible is wrong.

[PaulInMiami]

10:39 PM on 09/04/2011

This is a science thread, not a religious discussion, and I don't think we should butt in with another discussion, not related to what people tuned in to read.

But I appreciate your comment. If you read carefully, I did not "question" the Bible. I believe it wholeheartedly as absolute truth. I questioned the inflexibility of rigid mindsets which seem unable to understand that language can be symbolic, as "the cattle on a thousand hills are the Lord's" from Psalms. Only 1000? What about the cattle on the other thousands of hills? This is where people go astray in biblical interpretation, insisting only 144,000 will be "saved," or that there will be a 1000-year literal earthly reign of Christ and such nonsense (never once mentioned in all the epistles, as it certainly would have been, had that been true). Many times in the Bible the expression "day" is used to represent a period of indefinite but very extended duration. God could have done it whatever way he wanted, but as a person of faith and common sense, I conclude that the universe is billions of years old (which in no sense supports belief in evolution).

[abbraxus]

08:12 AM on 09/05/2011

Wow... people like you scare me.

[libwingoflibwing]

02:15 PM on 09/05/2011

I'm sorry, Paul, but interpreting "day" as meaning an indefinite period of time does NOT solve the problem of Genesis 1 being seen as a true description of *what* happened.

The real problem is that the stars are made after the earth is made and the stars are in a dome that is over the earth. You can't align that with what Cosmology has proven by stretching the days to billions of years.

[PaulInMiami]

09:15 AM on 09/07/2011

Of course, I have thought of your point before, and it is a point worthy of consideration and indeed raises the question of which came first in chronology. I don't feel that the Genesis account is meant as a scientific textbook in detailed explanations of creation process. The "formless earth" is not a specific description of a round planet, and the placing of "lights in the sky" does not necessarily mean that they were not created beforehand and only visible through a clouded atmosphere much later. I don't insist that the earth as we know it is "older" --or as old--as the galaxies. I don't know what kind of "light" countered the "darkness." We know so little, even in our "wisdom" and "science," compared to the One who was there. You have raised a good question. I know that all things have their origin in God and that the Bible is true, including the Genesis account. What I caution against is our making dogmatic assertions about what that account states, based on a simplistic interpretation of it. Some things will never be clear to us, until that day when we "know, as we are known."

[visualbasicide]

03:35 PM on 09/04/2011

I feel so much better about the global economy, crime, mental health and stability of the country now that I've seen this.....ok, so this is of significant scientific importance and accomplishment, and I am glad to see the progress being made towards these ends, but at the moment I have bigger fish to fry.

[luthorhuss]

10:49 AM on 09/04/2011

This is an interesting debate. I have worked for years in advance science at several large labs that often collaborate with overseas labs including the LHC facilities. The questions will never have real answers because, let's say for instance you go out in your back yard and you start a garden. You prepare the soil and you arrange everything just so. Finally, after a long time of preparation and waiting over the days or weeks, you see something grow, let's say it's a wild strawberry. You call over two of your friends. One of your friends is named Religion and says, "Now there's no way that should be growing here...it had to come directly from God". Your other friend named Science says "No, he prepared the soil and dug the area just right and made the conditions favorable for strawberries. That is why there are no other strawberries in the backyard." Religion responds and says "There are no other strawberries because God didn't want strawberries there." This is why there is always a strong conflict between the two. Science is a method for ONLY making assumptions based on facts or data that can be observed. Religion is a method for making assumptions based on what you feel. The advantage of Science is that it always considers new data to learn from its mistakes.

[keng181]

11:08 AM on 09/04/2011

i suggest you read "The Source Field Investigations".

[palindrom]

12:16 PM on 09/04/2011

Full title: "The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations Behind the 2012 Prophecies".

Which may tell you whether you're really interested or not.

[jimboy71]

02:37 PM on 09/04/2011

I suggest you run very quickly away from such drivel.

[downyours]

10:17 AM on 09/04/2011

I didn't know that candy bar was so old.

[jimboy71]

02:37 PM on 09/04/2011

Laughing and crying.

[starchildjg24]

09:30 AM on 09/04/2011

This is absolutely fascinating! Bravo! I do hope they get that new telescope up. The one that makes the Hubble look primitive? Not to say anything bad about the Hubble, the images and info it sent back were fantastic. I would surely prefer the new telescope to another trip to the moon. If we can't have both!

[jimboy71]

02:38 PM on 09/04/2011

Apparently the moon has monsters.

[xanadu4024]

02:11 AM on 09/04/2011

Well since my math degrees need not be listed and I hate digging them all out. Lets all agree to disagree,,,,and when your all done trying to trash my beliefs,,,,my math , and independent research tells me that old Earth theories have yet to be PROVEN yet specific biblical histories HAVE been proven.
There are areas of "documented" era layers that old earth theorists swear by, then find a complete tree running through the whole mess.
Now after doing some math, just about our own solar system, tend to show a very specific order in how things are interrelated and all work together to make our planet safe and livable.
Its also very strange that so many will hang there hat on THEORY that cannot be proven and quite bit has been DIS proven.
I was "taught" back in my early years that neanderthal man was predecessor to homo sapiens yet now the THEORY is that man edged neanderthal man into extinction. Too bad "science" keeps changing its story to fit new information.
You also love to trash a person who actually looks analytically at everything, and so far science has proven my faith more true everyday. And my faith keeps me grounded as a person. I also can tell you that after many years of observation many of the popular ideas of how things work, well all the supposedly enlightened people are failing to look at all sides/pieces of information. Hence all of you trashing my faith.

[palindrom]

09:01 AM on 09/04/2011

"Too bad "science" keeps changing its story to fit new informatio­n."

That's why science is strong and reliable -- because it must explain the facts.

I've now seen this thing about fossil trees poking through rock layers in a couple of comments, but haven't seen any documentation. Do you have any?

[texfly]

12:48 PM on 09/05/2011

I'll second that. Science proceeds by DISproving its prior hypotheses and then finding a solution (or solutions) that encompasses all the facts (new and old). Rarely does the the whole construct have to be pitched.

A working hypothesis for a tree enigma is that an earthquake opened a gap, a tree slides in, and the gap recompresses. How many millenia are there if the tree fell into a 200 foot deep gash? Could be millions.

[starchildjg24]

09:34 AM on 09/04/2011

You are welcome to your religious beliefs! Why, then, are you commenting on a science article? You don't believe in science? Good for you! A lot of very fine people used to believe that the earth was flat. I have no interest in trashing your beliefs. I just want to read science comments. (By the way, math degrees are great for accountants and actuaries, my son is studying advanced math. However, I think advanced science degrees would be a bit more relevant)

[Quint Michael Long]

01:18 AM on 09/04/2011

Wow it amazes me as to how a simple science video turns into a heated religious debate. There is no need for it. Go crusade your beliefs in another section or another story. Obviously we know the truth so your comments are only going to make us not believe more. Your fighting a hopeless cause, and just making a lot of people annoyed. If we wanted to have a religion debate we would go to the religion section.

[Margaret Cadogan]

10:31 PM on 09/03/2011

This thread is hilarious!The super smart and the super stupid.

[palindrom]

11:08 AM on 09/04/2011

I'll take that as a compliment, but I hope you didn't mean it as an insult!

[Moosebrew]

08:11 PM on 09/03/2011

if only in my lifetime we could find a way to travel at the speed of light...once this is achieved we will reach a whole new realm of possibilities....

[StephenJK]

08:39 AM on 09/04/2011

We will have to exceed the speed of light in order to get anywhere in this universe in the amount of time that would make it worthy of pursuing. There is only one thing I can think of that exceeds the speed of light; consciousness.

[jimboy71]

02:40 PM on 09/04/2011

Really? Not true, btw.

[bccmeteorites]

09:27 PM on 09/04/2011

Fanned.

[starchildjg24]

09:37 AM on 09/04/2011

I wish I could understand quantum physics more, but there are fascinating possibilities in that research. Just saw a program about scientists having some success with transporting objects. I didn't understand it all, just a little.

[jimboy71]

02:41 PM on 09/04/2011

Brian Greene and Timothy Ferris...for the layperson, of which I am one. ;)