The standard cosmological model of galaxy formation might be in trouble

The majestic spiral galaxy NGC 4414 as photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope. Image: NASA.

Scientists have a pretty good picture of how the universe formed and evolved – and how it is structured today. This knowledge all fits together nicely as a “standard cosmological model”, which has been able to successfully predict and describe many observational data in the universe. But now and then scientists discover something that threatens to tear down this valuable framework.

New research, published in Science, has done just that. The paper reports that a number of “satellite dwarf galaxies” – small galaxies orbiting around the much larger galaxy, Centaurus A – are rotating in synchrony in a single plane around their host, which is not at all what was expected.

This is a problem because the standard cosmological model predicts that galaxies form hierarchically, meaning they grow gradually larger by attracting smaller galaxies and tearing some of them apart. This happens as the force of gravity sucks them in, irrespective of which direction they are captured from. You would therefore expect these galaxies to be moving in all sorts of random positions and directions corresponding to however they were moving before being caught in orbit.

Despite being challenged at times, the hierarchical model still stands strong. It supports one of the most fundamental aspects of modern cosmology: isotropy. This is the expectation that the universe is uniform, looking the same in whatever direction you are viewing it. The same expectation for uniform behaviour holds true on the small scales of satellite galaxies. The new study challenges the hierarchical model and thereby also isotropy – it doesn’t make sense for some galaxies in some corner to behave in synchrony and others at random.

What’s more, we see plenty of evidence for the hierarchical model in the wreck caused by past satellite disruptions; also, smaller galaxies in the process of being accumulated gradually and others still surviving.

Estimating strangeness

But just how surprising is the new finding? A few other satellite galaxies moving in a single plane have been found before. Two such cases were discovered right in our cosmological backyard, one around our own Milky Way and one around the Andromeda galaxy. Three is not a big number, but we have not looked for these features much farther away yet. However there is tantalising evidence that about half of galaxies like the Milky Way may have satellites on ordered orbits.

So far, cosmologists have been writing off these planes as rare events, odd occurrences that don’t represent the wider universe. Using computer simulations of galaxy formation and sifting through all possible orientations of satellite galaxies in these models, scientists can estimate the number of such “outlier” galaxies we can expect to find in the universe. This shows that such planar distribution should not be freakishly rare – there is in fact a 10 per cent chance of it happening.

However, the chance of seeing a large number of satellite galaxies rotating in the same direction, such as those around Centaurus A, is less than 0.5 per cent. This means it is not impossible, but if we find too many such cases, the standard model would have to be rethought. In addition to the new study, we know of two other cases where that happens (also in Milky Way and Andromeda). So by now there are already three such examples in a sample of observations that is not yet very large.

Milky Way, taken from Australia. Image: Roanish/Wikipedia/creative commons.

But then there is the “look-elsewhere effect”. This is an effect well known to statisticians, which corrects for our propensity to reach all sorts of bizarre conclusions when a rare event happens in a small sample of observations. By looking elsewhere, that is, by increasing the number of observations and counting all the times when the event does not occur, the statistical significance of that event can be drastically reduced.

Alternative explanations

But what if we can’t find enough cases to show that these galaxies are an exception rather than a rule? Can the findings be explained at all by our current cosmological model? Possibly, but unusual observations call for unusual explanations. Potentially these dwarf galaxies could have been created in a single event – giving them coherent movement – rather than having been captured one at a time. A massive merger of two galaxies could potentially create this effect. As Centaurus A certainly shows signs of a violent past, this isn’t impossible.

Such a scenario has been proposed for explaining the plane of satellite galaxies in Andromeda, but it seems unlikely this would explain all such cases. The problem with this scenario is that the dwarf galaxies born in a single tidal event would have to share similar star formation histories. However, many of these dwarf galaxies don’t.

The environment of galaxies clearly plays a role. The distribution of galaxies on much larger scale can also have subtle effects on the motion of satellite galaxies. For example, an expanding empty region of space known as the Local Void is thought to “shepherd” galaxies near Centaurus A, steering them along preferred directions. This explanation is also fully compatible with the standard cosmological model. However, cosmological simulations cannot yet show exactly how this would match what’s actually seen.

A more drastic re-evaluation of the whole problem is to tweak the laws of gravity, for example by using something called modified newtonian dynamics. Computer simulations using such dynamics have been able to produce similar planes of satellite galaxies as seen in the Milky Way and Andromeda. However, this theory, although successful in many respects, is still some way from passing the same consistency checks as the standard model.

The ConversationSo it looks like our cherished cosmological model may just be able to survive, at least for a while.

Andreea Font, Senior Lecturer at Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


CityMetric is now City Monitor! Come see us at our new home

City Monitor is now live in beta at

CityMetric is now City Monitor, a name that reflects both a ramping up of our ambitions as well as our membership in a network of like-minded publications from New Statesman Media Group. Our new site is now live in beta, so please visit us there going forward. Here’s what CityMetric readers should know about this exciting transition.  

Regular CityMetric readers may have already noticed a few changes around here since the spring. CityMetric’s beloved founding editor, Jonn Elledge, has moved on to some new adventures, and a new team has formed to take the site into the future. It’s led by yours truly – I’m Sommer Mathis, the editor-in-chief of City Monitor. Hello!

My background includes having served as the founding editor of CityLab, editor-in-chief of Atlas Obscura, and editor-in-chief of DCist, a local news publication in the District of Columbia. I’ve been reporting on and writing about cities in one way or another for the past 15 years. To me, there is no more important story in the world right now than how cities are changing and adapting to an increasingly challenging global landscape. The majority of the world’s population lives in cities, and if we’re ever going to be able to tackle the most pressing issues currently facing our planet – the climate emergency, rising inequality, the Covid-19 pandemic ­­­– cities are going to have to lead the way.

That’s why City Monitor is now a global publication dedicated to the future of cities everywhere – not just in the UK (nor for that matter just in the US, where I live). Our mission is to help our readers, many of whom are in leadership positions around the globe, navigate how cities are changing and discover what’s next in the world of urban policy. We’ll do that through original reporting, expert opinion and most crucially, a data-driven approach that emphasises evidence and rigorous analysis. We want to arm local decision-makers and those they work in concert with – whether that’s elected officials, bureaucratic leaders, policy advocates, neighbourhood activists, academics and researchers, entrepreneurs, or plain-old engaged citizens – with real insights and potential answers to tough problems. Subjects we cover include transportation, infrastructure, housing, urban design, public safety, the environment, the economy, and much more.

The City Monitor team is made up of some of the most experienced urban policy journalists in the world. Our managing editor is Adam Sneed, also a CityLab alum where he served as a senior associate editor. Before that he was a technology reporter at Politico. Allison Arieff is City Monitor’s senior editor. She was previously editorial director of the urban planning and policy think tank SPUR, as well as a contributing columnist for The New York Times. Staff writer Jake Blumgart most recently covered development, housing and politics for WHYY, the local public radio station in Philadelphia. And our data reporter is Alexandra Kanik, whose previous roles include data reporting for Louisville Public Media in Kentucky and PublicSource in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Our team will continue to grow in the coming weeks, and we’ll also be collaborating closely with our editorial colleagues across New Statesman Media Group. In fact, we’re launching a whole network of new publications, covering topics such as the clean energy transition, foreign direct investment, technology, banks and more. Many of these sectors will frequently overlap with our cities coverage, and a key part of our plan is make the most of the expertise that all of these newsrooms combined will bring to bear on our journalism.

Please visit going forward, where you can also sign up for our free email newsletter.

As for CityMetric, some of its archives have already been moved over to the new website, and the rest will follow not long after. If you’re looking for a favourite piece from CityMetric’s past, for a time you’ll still be able to find it here, but before long the whole archive will move over to City Monitor.

On behalf of the City Monitor team, I’m thrilled to invite you to come along for the ride at our new digs. You can follow City Monitor on LinkedIn and on Twitter. If you’re interested in learning more about the potential for a commercial partnership with City Monitor, please get in touch with our director of partnerships, Joe Maughan.

I want to thank and congratulate Jonn Elledge on a brilliant run. Everything we do from here on out will be building on the legacy of his work, and the community that he built here at CityMetric. Cheers, Jonn!

To our readers, on behalf of the City Monitor team, thank you from all of us for being such loyal CityMetric fans. We couldn’t have done any of this without you.

Sommer Mathis is editor-in-chief of City Monitor.