PDA

View Full Version : "The findings redefine what scientists think of as galaxies, Nasa said."



Gigabyte
2014-Nov-07, 04:49 AM
The glow between galaxies equals the total amount of infrared light coming from known galaxies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2824563/Nasa-spots-mystery-light-bright-known-galaxies-combined-say-change-call-galaxy.html#ixzz3IM2NH9uY


Wow. Just wow.


A NASA sounding rocket experiment has detected a surprising surplus of infrared light in the dark space between galaxies, a diffuse cosmic glow as bright as all known galaxies combined. The glow is thought to be from orphaned stars flung out of galaxies.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/november/nasa-rocket-experiment-finds-the-universe-brighter-than-we-thought/#.VFxSHfnF-So

Jerry
2014-Nov-07, 07:46 PM
The paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1445 a related paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1445

I think it is horribly premature to conclude the source is primarily near-by galaxy renegades; ruling out EOR (Epic of reionization) sources because the metallicity and X-ray strength are too high. We keep finding things that do not agree with theory, and pounding and pounding on them until they do. Sometimes the right answer is to up-chuck the theory and start over.

Amber Robot
2014-Nov-07, 09:10 PM
The OP is referring to a rocket that observed in the infrared, whereas Jerry's link is about X-rays.

Ken G
2014-Nov-07, 11:44 PM
I'll believe it when I see reports of a type Ia supernova from the in-between stars.

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-08, 02:18 PM
I can see why they waited almost four years to publish.

Jens
2014-Nov-08, 02:48 PM
Does anybody have a reference to the paper?

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-08, 03:16 PM
Published Nov 7 2014 in Science

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6210/732


The measured fluctuations are associated with an EBL intensity that is comparable to the background from known galaxies measured through number counts and therefore a substantial contribution to the energy contained in photons in the cosmos. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6210/732)

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-08, 08:34 PM
Stars tidally stripped from their host galaxies are the most likely culprit, rather than unknown primordial galaxies. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6210/732

(From the editors summary (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6210/tab-editor-summary))

"culprit" is an odd term to use to describe an enormous new discovery.

kzb
2014-Nov-10, 01:02 PM
There is an arxiv article now available. The link goes direct to the pdf, for some reason other links route you to pay for access.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.1411.pdf

I've not taken it all in yet. On the one hand you have to wonder that all the expensive infra-red hardware (WISE, Spitzer, Herschel, IRAS etc) that has been used , why has this not been noticed and it has taken a sounding rocket experiment to see it?

But reading the paper, it seems it has been detected previously, but the origin has been assigned to other things.

The conclusion depends a great deal on the correct subraction and modelling of other IR sources. It's a net signal, and I am sure everyone can see the dangers in subtracting two similar numbers.

That said, the authors have apparently been sat on this for over two years. I can only think they must have been taking great pains to make sure their calculation is beyond criticism before publishing.

So, what about the following:

The mass to light ratio of these stars is presumably much greater than the average for a galaxy. If the luminosity is the same as galactic stars, does that mean the mass is much greater than stars in galaxies?

At some point this IR emission is going to be red-shifted into the cosmic background microwave region. Does this affect anything?

kzb
2014-Nov-10, 01:11 PM
I'll believe it when I see reports of a type Ia supernova from the in-between stars.

But...if these stars exist they are a very old stellar population (M dwarfs). Scattering events favour the lighter partners being scattered furthest. Binary systems may get separated during the scattering.

In other words, supernova progenitors may have been selected against during the formation of these populations ?

Amber Robot
2014-Nov-10, 06:24 PM
I can see why they waited almost four years to publish.

Considering that they used flight data from 2012, they didn't wait four years to publish. And they had an intervening flight in the middle of last year, for which they used a larger rocket to get more observing time -- at the expense of the lack of recovery of the payload.

Amber Robot
2014-Nov-10, 06:26 PM
That said, the authors have apparently been sat on this for over two years.

What exactly do you mean by "sat on"? Do you know how much time it takes to analyze their data? They also had another rocket flight since the latter of the two they used in this paper, so there was a big chunk of time taken out of the last year and a half (flight in late March 2012, paper in early November 2014) dedicated to their fourth flight. My guess is that they've been working hard on this data, not "sitting" on it.

Ken G
2014-Nov-10, 10:54 PM
But...if these stars exist they are a very old stellar population (M dwarfs). I'm not so sure that's true, it seems like the tidal stripping would need to have been going on over much of the history of the universe to get such a large population, unless there was a lot more tidal interactions going on in very early galaxies that splayed them out all over the place a long time ago. Maybe that's the claim, I don't know. But higher mass stars contribute more to the luminosity than do lower-mass stars, so if you want to get this light from only the M dwarfs, you may need even more of them than are in the galaxies. You do raise an important point-- what is the expected distribution over mass of these stars? Is the population expected to be so old that solar-mass stars have evolved already? I'm expecting that to get a total light in the IR that rivals regular galaxies, you will probably need to have about the same number of stars around 1 solar mass as we find in galaxies, so we should expect type Ia supernovae when those stars gain mass in close binaries.
Scattering events favour the lighter partners being scattered furthest. Binary systems may get separated during the scattering.
I would imagine that tidal stripping happens to essentially all the stars as a group, it's not so much a scattering as an interaction of the full gravitational potential, which wouldn't care about the masses of what they are acting on. I expect the tidal effects would be too weak to separate binaries as well. But you are certainly right that some kind of anti-type Ia selection effect could explain why we don't see type Ias in proportion to this claimed stellar population. It seems like an issue that needs some resolution before this result can be accepted as real, and I don't know if an answer to this has been offered or not.

Jeff Root
2014-Nov-10, 11:42 PM
If the largest galaxies really did get as large as they are via
mergers, then there must have been more small galaxies early
on, which would have lost stars more easily than larger galaxies.
So I would expect the population to be mostly really old.

I'm not sure if this is relevant or not, but one thing I don't
understand is why we don't see the glow from the earliest,
first generation of stars. They should have been spectacularly
bright, there should have been a humongous number of them,
all forming at about the same time, they should have started
going supernova very quickly, because of their enormous mass,
and they should have an angular size much greater than their
distance suggests (because of the cosmic expansion), so they
should cover the sky pretty well. Yet we haven't seen them?
What's with that? Why don't we see their collective glow?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

kzb
2014-Nov-11, 12:40 PM
What exactly do you mean by "sat on"? Do you know how much time it takes to analyze their data? They also had another rocket flight since the latter of the two they used in this paper, so there was a big chunk of time taken out of the last year and a half (flight in late March 2012, paper in early November 2014) dedicated to their fourth flight. My guess is that they've been working hard on this data, not "sitting" on it.

This is what I wrote

the authors have apparently been sat on this for over two years. I can only think they must have been taking great pains to make sure their calculation is beyond criticism before publishing.


If you have taken offence from this then I apologise. Can we now stop point scoring and talk about the scientific issues?

kzb
2014-Nov-11, 01:17 PM
They are saying that it is a stellar population from a certain red-shift range I think.

I was thinking previously that any scattered larger stars would've gone pop or evolved long ago, leaving just the longer-lived small stars in this population. But now I see we are also looking back in time as well, so I'm not so sure.

If this stellar population is being actively re-populated up to the current time, why do we not see loads of inter-galactic bright stars in our locality? There are a few that have been detected, but not many.

M-stars remain difficult to detect at large distances to this day. So conceivably there could be plenty of those (Do people on here this is still allowed by observations? I am not so sure myself).

This makes me think that at least in the current epoch, and if this population actually exists, it must be an old population of small stars and stellar remnants. But the situation back in the past could've been different.

Jerry
2014-Nov-12, 02:13 AM
The OP is referring to a rocket that observed in the infrared, whereas Jerry's link is about X-rays.
- Sorry - A cut-paste error http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1411

The paper says more of what it is not, than what it is; eliminating zodiac light and the upper atmosphere. The spectral signature is inconsistent with light from the 'first galaxy' population they were looking for.

kzb
2014-Nov-12, 12:56 PM
-
The paper says more of what it is not, than what it is; eliminating zodiac light and the upper atmosphere. The spectral signature is inconsistent with light from the 'first galaxy' population they were looking for.

Yes, this is relevant to Jeff Root's point about Pop III stars. They say that a model of Epoch of Reionisation galaxies (including Pop III stars) does not fit their data.

They have looked at a variety of potential sources and interferences, and found that the best fit is inter galactic stars (at redshift 1-3 ?).

But what I want to know is, can this be confirmed or denied by observations in our locality? Surely this intergalactic population must still exist, so can it be detected directly in our neighbourhood of the universe?

William
2014-Nov-12, 03:40 PM
There are piles and piles of anomalies. I have been looking at the anomalies in question (as a group rather than individually) in detailed following a structural approach using standard analysis techniques (I have 20 years experience working as a senior technical specialist where I led or worked with teams that solved complex holistic problems) that are used to solve complex holistic logical problems. One of the standard techniques (to solve complex holistic problems) is to prepare a summary of the observations/anomalies, independent of the theory/theories/assumed mechanisms looking for logical connections and constrains and then use the observations to attempt to solve the puzzle using model/hypothesis options. It appears I am the first person to have done that exercise using the new observations, as I was surprised as to how extensive the paradoxes and anomalies are, the quality of the analysis concerning each sub paradox/anomaly (i.e. the sub anomaly analysis confirms the anomaly exists and provides a guide to constrain and guide the puzzle solution), and where the analysis is leading.

I am still working away however it appears there is a solution to the puzzle which makes sense as the last time the puzzle was addressed holistically was more than 50 years ago, at which time there was insufficient observational evidence to solve it. The new observational data is due to multi spectral observations from new satellites and the evolution of the analysis (there is a delay before paradoxes and anomalies are labeled as paradoxes and anomalies as the first step is to challenge the observations and/or to keep adapting the theory/mechanisms/or to add on new mechanisms (dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and so on) to keep the theory alive.

http://mnrasl.oxfordjournals.org/content/367/1/L11.full.pdf

Where are the sources of the near-infrared background?

Recent measurements of the near-infrared background (NIRB; see Hauser & Dwek 2001 for a review) have shown an intensity excess with respect to observed light from galaxies in deep field surveys (Madau & Pozzetti 2000; Totani et al. 2001). The discrepancy is maximal at 1.4 μm, corresponding to 17–48nWm−2 sr−1 (about 2–5 times the known galaxy contribution; Matsumoto et al. 2005); significative discrepancies are found also at longer wavelengths.

The infrared radiation in question is 2 to 5 times greater than can be explained using the assumed distribution of galaxies where redshift is used to determine assumed distance.

Those writing the infrared papers are ignoring known observations that rule out the intrahalo light fraction option. No one has bothered to list and summarize the relatively new galaxy morphology and evolution observations that support the assertion that galaxies avoid mergers and the vast majority of all star formation occurs in spiral galaxies, due to some unknown mechanism (those how continue to support ΛCDM assume cold gas from some unknown source). The spiral galaxy growth mechanism is constrained by the fact the spiral galaxies' rotational velocity increases as they grow and there is a tight relationship between all spiral galaxy properties and overall spiral galaxy mass which is not possible if the spiral galaxies formed by hierarchical mergers (see paper linked to Galaxies are 'simpler' than expected which is linked to in my next comment this thread).

70% of all galaxies are disk galaxies. Major merges create elliptical galaxies. The fraction of disk galaxies has remained the same for z=1 to z=0 (last 11 billion years) which indicates there has been a lack of mergers. Curiously the density of galaxies and the relative ratio of galaxy morphology type has remained the same from z=1 to z=0 which requires (if one uses ΛCDM to interpret the observations there must be an extra galaxy source of new gas to enable new spiral galaxies to grow and new spiral galaxies to form and there is serendipitously exactly the correct amount of new gas to enable the morphology ratio to remain the same, to make it appear the universe is eternal as opposed to fix time.

30% to 40% of disk galaxies are bulgeless disk galaxies, including the Milky Way. 11 of 19 galaxies in our local region are bulgeless disk galaxies. Bulgeless disk galaxies show no evidence of any major merge activity.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.3015v1

BULGELESS GIANT GALAXIES CHALLENGE OUR PICTURE OF GALAXY FORMATION BY HIERARCHICAL CLUSTERING1,2
We find that at least 11 of 19 galaxies with Vcirc > 150 km s1, including M101, NGC 6946, IC 342, and our Galaxy, show no evidence for a classical bulge. Four may contain small classical bulges that contribute 5 –12% of the light of the galaxy. Only four of the 19 giant galaxies are ellipticals or have classical bulges that contribute ∼ 1/3 of the galaxy light. We conclude that pure-disk galaxies are far from rare. It is hard to understand how bulgeless galaxies could form as the quiescent tail of a distribution of merger histories. Recognition of pseudobulges makes the biggest problem with cold dark matter galaxy formation more acute: How can hierarchical clustering make so many giant, pure-disk galaxies with no evidence for merger-built bulges?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4542v1


THE EDGE-ON PERSPECTIVE OF BULGELESS, SIMPLE DISK GALAXIES

Galaxies have an anomalous lack of satellite galaxies (there are dozens of observed satellite galaxies observed our galaxy and the nearest galaxy Andromeda as opposed to the 1000s or the hundreds of thousands satellite galaxies that ΛCDM predicts). Furthermore the satellite galaxies that are found have a structural and phase orientation (they orbit the poles of the disk galaxies). This anomalous polar structure of satellite galaxies has found first in the Milky Way and Andromeda. It was assumed the Milky Way and Andromeda polar satellite galaxy anomaly was due to some weird specific encounter however a recent survey has found that 30% to 50% of other spiral galaxies have the same polar structure of satellite galaxies.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8178

Velocity anti-correlation of diametrically opposed galaxy satellites in the low z universe

Recent work has shown that both the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies possess the unexpected property that their dwarf satellite galaxies are aligned in thin and kinematically coherent planar structures1–7. It is now important to evaluate the incidence of such planar structures in the larger galactic population, since the Local Group may not be a sufficiently representative environment. Here we report that the measurement of the velocity of pairs of diametrically opposed galaxy satellites provides a means to determine statistically the prevalence of kinematically coherent planar alignments. In the local universe (redshift z < 0:05), we find that such satellite pairs out to a galactocentric distance of 150 kpc are preferentially anti-correlated in their velocities (99.994% confidence level), and that the distribution of galaxies in the larger scale environment (beyond 150 kpc and up to _ 2Mpc) is strongly elongated along the axis joining the inner satellite pair (> 7 sigma confidence). Our finding may indicate that co-rotating planes of satellites, similar to that seen around the Andromeda galaxy, are ubiquitous in nature, while their coherent motion also suggests that they are a significant repository of angular momentum on approx. 100 kpc scales.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5176

The VPOS: a vast polar structure of satellite galaxies, globular clusters and streams around the Milky Way

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0446

A Vast Thin Plane of Co-rotating Dwarf Galaxies Orbiting the Andromeda Galaxy

William
2014-Nov-12, 04:01 PM
Something forces spiral galaxies to grow in a structured manner, spiral galaxy angular momentum (rotational speed) for example increases tightly with spiral galaxy mass . The explanation for the 'simpler' spiral galaxy observation and bulgeless spiral galaxy observations requires a new mechanism(s). The paradox concerning the spiral galaxies are simpler than expected observation (and a dozen other anomalous observations concerning star formation and star bursts) is that spiral galaxies appear to grow primarily from an internal gas source rather than an external gas source.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.1554.pdf


Galaxies appear simpler than expected

Galaxies are complex systems the evolution of which apparently results from the interplay of dynamics, star formation, chemical enrichment, and feedback from supernova explosions and supermassive black holes1. The hierarchical theory of galaxy formation holds that galaxies are assembled from smaller pieces, through numerous mergers of cold dark matter2,3,4. The properties of an individual galaxy should be controlled by six independent parameters including mass, angular-momentum, baryon-fraction, age and size, as well as by the accidents of its recent haphazard merger history. Here we report that a sample of galaxies that were first detected through their neutral hydrogen radio-frequency emission, and are thus free of optical selection effects5, shows five independent correlations among six independent observables, despite having a wide range of properties. This implies that the structure of these galaxies must be controlled by a single parameter, although we cannot identify this parameter from our dataset. Such a degree of organisation appears to be at odds with hierarchical galaxy formation, a central tenet of the cold dark matter paradigm in cosmology6.

kzb
2014-Nov-12, 06:28 PM
That's all very well William but what's the relevance to the subject of this thread?

You write:
Those writing the infrared papers are ignoring known observations that rule out the intrahalo light fraction option.

That implies you disagree with the authors' conclusion on the origin of this light, but I can't understand what your alternative explanation is?

William
2014-Nov-12, 09:12 PM
The solution is there are more quasars and galaxies in the local universe than observations indicate. The photon underproduction crisis is another observational anomaly that requires that there be more quasars and galaxies in the local universe.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2933

THE PHOTON UNDERPRODUCTION CRISIS
This mismatch in 􀀀HI results in the mean ux decrement of the Lyman-_ forest being underpredicted by at least a factor of 2 (a 10 sigma discrepancy with observations) and a column density distribution of Lyman-_ forest absorbers systematically and significantly elevated compared to observations over nearly two decades in column density. We examine potential resolutions to this mismatch and find that either conventional sources of ionizing photons (galaxies and quasars) must be significantly elevated relative to current observational estimates or our theoretical understanding of the low-redshift universe is in need of substantial revision.

There are multiple observations that supports the assertion that something is incorrect with our observations of the high redshift universe. There are multiple anomalies and paradoxes with the high redshift observations. These anomalies and paradoxes are unresolved. For example high redshift quasars do not exhibit time dilation which they should if they are distant objects.

High redshift quasars are anomalous luminescent. Even assuming the highest theoretically possible accretion into the super massive black hole requires the high redshift black holes to be orders of magnitude larger than local quasar supermassive black holes. That does not make sense. SMBHs should get larger with age not smaller. (Note there is a relationship between the SMBH and the galaxy's bulge mass so it possible to estimate the SMBH mass even if the quasar core is not highly active.

The spectral iron in the high redshift quasars is the same as the spectral iron in local quasars. That does not make sense as galaxies should evolve with time and hence produce more iron. The fact that iron in the quasar spectrum does not change with redshift does make sense.

There are multiple observations all supporting the same conclusions.

There is observational evidence of large fully formed galaxies that have stopped producing stars when the universe is roughly 500 million years old. There is insufficient time to form a large fully formed galaxy.

The high redshift galaxies are five times more dense and smaller than local galaxies, yet there is no evidence of a different type (five time more dense and smaller galaxy type in the local universe.) The galaxies in the local universe all follow the same scaling laws, there is no subset of local galaxies that look different as they were formed at high redshifts.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824
This the link to the published 2010 paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x/abstract


On time dilation in quasar light curves
In this paper we set out to measure time dilation in quasar light curves. In order to detect the effects of time dilation, sets of light curves from two monitoring programmes are used to construct Fourier power spectra covering time-scales from 50d to 28yr. Data from high- and low-redshift samples are compared to look for the changes expected from time dilation. The main result of the paper is that quasar light curves do not show the effects of time dilation. Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in time-scale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.
1 INTRODUCTION
Time dilation (the stretching of time by a factor of (1 + z)) is a fundamental property of an expanding universe. Given
the success of the the currently accepted cosmological model, which certainly implies expansion, it is perhaps surprising that more attention has not been paid to making direct measures of time dilation. This must surely be due in part to the fact that measures of time dilation can tell little or nothing about cosmological parameters within the framework of a Big Bang universe, but only whether or not the Universe is expanding. Also, it turns out to be surprisingly hard to formulate a conclusive test for time dilation. What is needed is an event or fluctuation of known rest frame duration which can be observed at sufficiently high redshift with an accuracy which enables the predicted stretching by a factor of (1 + z) to be observed.


5 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
The results of Section 4 provide strong evidence that the effects of time dilation are not seen in quasar light curves. This clearly runs against expectations based on a conventional cosmological viewpoint, and so in this section we examine ways in which the results may be understood.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3151v1.pdf
As noted in this review paper, quasar black hole size gets less with redshift. That does not make sense. The earlier formed super massive black holes should be smaller than local supermassive black holes that have a longer time to form. i.e. Some of the black holes in the local universe should have formed during the earliest period of the universe, they should therefore be at least as massive as the high redshift quasar black holes. That is not observed.

See page 9 of the above paper link that has a copy of the graph from Vestergaard et al 2008 which from shows the SMBH (super massive Black hole) mass downsizes with redshift from 10^10 solar masses to 10^7 solar masses in the local universe. SMBH are not in allowed in the standard model to lose significant mass. Observationally, however, they do not.



Critical Thoughts on Cosmology Wolfgang Kundt
• Why have the masses of the observed central BHs decreased during cosmic epochs, from initial 10^9.5 M⊙ to their present-day 10^7M⊙, as shown by the statistics of the SDSSurvey (fig.4, Vestergaard et al 2008)?
• How could some of the most massive ones already form within 0.8 Gyr after the Big Bang?
• Why do their masses scale as 10^−2.85 times their bulge masses (Marconi and Hunt 2003)? Labita et al. (2009a) derived that the maximum mass of a black hole in a QSO is a function of the redshift: log10MBH = (0:34z + 8:99) M up to redshift 1.9, or proportional to (1 + z)1:64 if extended up to a redshift of 4 (Labita et al. 2009b). This lack of the signature of active massive AGN black holes in the local Universe cannot be related with a possible decline in the rate of formation of QSOs (this would affect the density of QSOs but not their average mass; and indeed there is evidence for the change in the comoving density of QSOs of a given mass; Steinhardt & Elvis 2011, fig. 3), but because of some mechanism for the formation of huge black holes which took place in the past in the Universe, which is absent in the present Universe.
NOTE: Do not confuse the non-evolution of the black hole mass-luminosity ratio (the result of this paper) with the non-evolution of mechanisms which produce such black holes. Evidently, as said in the introduction, some evolution in the birth of new QSOs must take place in order to explain the absence of very bright QSOs at low redshift.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/515/2/487/fulltext/38814.text.html

LACK OF IRON ABUNDANCE EVOLUTION IN HIGH-REDSHIFT QSOs
We analyze the spectra of 12 high-redshift QSOs in the region of Mg II j2798. Two six-spectrum composites, with SzT\4.47 and 3.35, are compared with the Francis et al. Large Bright Quasar Survey
(LBQS) composite (SzTD0.8) and show remarkable similarity. The equivalent width of Mg II is somewhat larger in the LBQS composite than in the high-redshift composites; this may be identiĐed as a weak Baldwin e.ect. The equivalent width of the Fe II blends to either side is the same in the SzT\3.35 composite as in the LBQS composite and marginally larger in the SzT\4.47 composite. We derive strong conĐdence limits on the absence of a signiĐcant increase in either the Fe II equivalent width or the Fe II/Mg II line ratio from the earliest epoch to the present. Hamann & Ferland predicted that the Fe II/Mg II ratio at high redshift should be a factor of approximately 3 lower than for low-redshift QSOs if the age of the universe at the earlier epoch is much less than 1 Gyr.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3684

A STUDY OF MASSIVE AND EVOLVED GALAXIES AT HIGH REDSHIFT

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4094.pdf

CONFIRMATION OF THE REMARKABLE COMPACTNESS OF MASSIVE QUIESCENT GALAXIES AT Z ∼ 2.3: EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES DID NOT FORM IN A SIMPLE MONOLITHIC COLLAPSE

Jerry
2014-Nov-12, 09:54 PM
The solution is there are more quasars and galaxies in the local universe than observations indicate. The photon underproduction crisis is another observational anomaly that requires that there be more quasars and galaxies in the local universe.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2933


There are multiple observations that supports the assertion that something is incorrect with our observations of the high redshift universe. There are multiple anomalies and paradoxes with the high redshift observations. These anomalies and paradoxes are unresolved. For example high redshift quasars do not exhibit time dilation which they should if they are distant objects.

High redshift quasars are anomalous luminescent. Even assuming the highest theoretically possible accretion into the super massive black hole requires the high redshift black holes to be orders of magnitude larger than local quasar supermassive black holes. That does not make sense. SMBHs should get larger with age not smaller. (Note there is a relationship between the SMBH and the galaxy's bulge mass so it possible to estimate the SMBH mass even if the quasar core is not highly active. he spectral iron in the high redshift quasars is the same as the spectral iron in local quasars. That does not make sense as galaxies should evolve with time and hence produce more iron. The fact that iron in the quasar spectrum does not change with redshift does make sense. The simplest explanation, is that there is an intrinsic redshift in many observed quasar events. It resolves both the over-luminosity and local sparseness; and it is also a reasonable answer to the relaxed iron content. Unfortunately, there is a canon that forbids intrinsic redshifting; it is not a viable solution to any and all anomalies.




There are multiple observations all supporting the same conclusions.

There is observational evidence of large fully formed galaxies that have stopped producing stars when the universe is roughly 500 million years old. There is insufficient time to form a large fully formed galaxy.

The high redshift galaxies are five times more dense and smaller than local galaxies, yet there is no evidence of a different type (five time more dense and smaller galaxy type in the local universe.) The galaxies in the local universe all follow the same scaling laws, there is no subset of local galaxies that look different as they were formed at high redshifts.
Again, this is consistent with a badely defective distance modules. So is the increasing ratio of blue/to red galaxy counts (many blue galaxies contain agn). I don't think any of this can be fixed until the hard rules change.

kzb
2014-Nov-13, 12:50 PM
I do think it'd be a good move if we could have problems with cosmology forum where people could raise these kind of issues and have the consenus being the defendant rather than the way it is currently on ATM.

But this thread was about one specific paper, concerning excess IR light.

I was rather hoping that someone knowledgeable about this subject area would come on here and give us a bit of background to subject. It's not an area I've heard much about, but here we have a paper claiming something that is surely cosmologically signficant.

ngc3314
2014-Nov-13, 02:06 PM
But this thread was about one specific paper, concerning excess IR light.

I was rather hoping that someone knowledgeable about this subject area would come on here and give us a bit of background to subject. It's not an area I've heard much about, but here we have a paper claiming something that is surely cosmologically signficant.

This thread (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?154261-Supernova-outside-the-ISM&p=2254670#post2254670) has morphed into something like that, centering on whether supernova data are consistent with the interpretation as stars outside galaxies.

William
2014-Nov-13, 05:50 PM
This thread (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?154261-Supernova-outside-the-ISM&p=2254670#post2254670) has morphed into something like that, centering on whether supernova data are consistent with the interpretation as stars outside galaxies.

I will start a new thread, obviously the supernova data is not the only paradox/anomaly, there is the lack of time dilation of quasars (if quasars were distant objects their spectrum would change with redshift, it does not), the photon crisis (2 to 3 times more quasars required in the local universe to explain the ionization of intergalactic gas), there is the no change in spectral iron in quasars with redshift (puzzling as galaxy metallicity evolves with redshift), there is the unexplained downsizing of quasar super massive black hole mass by a factor of 63 (puzzling as the super massive black holes in every galaxy should get larger with time not smaller), there is the subject of this thread that the amount of observed infrared radiation is a factor of 2 to 5 times too large based on the number of galaxies observed, and so on.

There are piles and piles of observational anomalies and paradoxes (see my above comments for details), the anomalies and paradoxes appear to be interconnected (which makes sense as there is a physical explanation for everything), the number of anomalies and paradoxes is increasing not decreasing with multi spectral observations, some of the anomalies and paradoxes have been around for almost 20 years.

If the theory is incorrect it will logically generate piles and piles of anomalies and paradoxes. Cosmology is in crisis.

kzb
2014-Nov-13, 06:49 PM
This thread (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?154261-Supernova-outside-the-ISM&p=2254670#post2254670) has morphed into something like that, centering on whether supernova data are consistent with the interpretation as stars outside galaxies.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Question: do we know for a fact that all SN type 1A take place within galaxies? Even at z=1 to 3? Is it always routine to identify the host galaxy?

antoniseb
2014-Nov-13, 07:06 PM
Thanks for pointing that out.

Question: do we know for a fact that all SN type 1A take place within galaxies? Even at z=1 to 3? Is it always routine to identify the host galaxy?
It's been a while since I looked at this, but I don't think we see very many SN at z>0.5, because they are less bright than you'd imagine... or the distance is more than you'd think.
However the argument in the OP is that about half of the stars are outside galaxies, and so even locally z<0.1, there should be lots of orphaned SN 1a, if that were true, but there aren't... so it appears that it isn't true.

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-14, 02:43 AM
astronomers at Caltech and their colleagues have detected a diffuse cosmic glow that appears to represent more light than that produced by known galaxies in the universe. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106143723.htm

Until this came out, I didn't even know there was a diffuse infrared glow equal to all the known galaxies.

I certainly was unaware of the following
In earlier studies, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, which sees the universe at longer wavelengths, had observed a splotchy pattern of infrared light called the cosmic infrared background. The splotches are much bigger than individual galaxies. "We are measuring structures that are grand on a cosmic scale," says Zemcov, "and these sizes are associated with galaxies bunching together on a large-scale pattern." Initially some researchers proposed that this light came from the very first galaxies to form and ignite stars after the Big Bang. Others, however, have argued the light originated from stars stripped from galaxies in more recent times.

So these latest measurements are being used to argue it is actually a tremendous amount of stars, "outside" what we think of as a galaxy. Or rather, galaxies actually may be much much larger than we imagine. In fact, if this is true, that means the known galaxies, if they hadn't lost so many stars, would be at least twice as large as they appear.

It also could mean, that the dark spaces between galaxies is full of everything else that gets tidally stripped and flung out when galaxies merge. Certainly they measured the glowing energetic stars, but what else is out there? And is there any way to ever even know?

Jerry
2014-Nov-14, 05:13 AM
While the microwave background was predicted, the X-ray, Gamma Ray, and infrared backgrounds were not.

It looks to me like the authors are arguing that this band of infrared light is inconsistent with expected signatures of population III galaxies and/or other events predicted to have occurred in the early universe, therefore, the source of the light must be a foreground source. It is a curious argument.


However the argument in the OP is that about half of the stars are outside galaxies, and so even locally z<0.1, there should be lots of orphaned SN 1a, if that were true, but there aren't... so it appears that it isn't true. This is well reasoned; and it is consistent with Williams argument that individual research groups do not always look at the broad picture: Integrated solutions are needed.

Jeff Root
2014-Nov-14, 09:09 AM
I don't understand why you think that there should be lots of
type 1a supernovae among intergalactic stars. The population
would be so different from the galactic population that a very
much lower rate of SN 1a seems highly plausible.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

kzb
2014-Nov-14, 12:56 PM
It's been a while since I looked at this, but I don't think we see very many SN at z>0.5, because they are less bright than you'd imagine... or the distance is more than you'd think.
However the argument in the OP is that about half of the stars are outside galaxies, and so even locally z<0.1, there should be lots of orphaned SN 1a, if that were true, but there aren't... so it appears that it isn't true.

But then you could argue that they looking at a younger stellar population at z= 1 to 3. Locally, any SN1a progenitors in this dispersed population have already gone off by now. They aren't replaced with new progenitors because the era of mass tidal stripping is largely over with.

That still means that there should be orphan SN 1A's at the redshift corresponding to the era all this is meant to have happened, and for a few billion years after.

I also wonder about a more direct approach. Perhaps local intergalactic dim stars have not been detected, because they've not been searched for. The search algorithms reject them from searches for other objects as background.

Would it be possible to design a search algorithm for say the WISE data that would select for very distant M or K dwarfs?

antoniseb
2014-Nov-14, 03:03 PM
But then you could argue that they looking at a younger stellar population at z= 1 to 3. Locally, any SN1a progenitors in this dispersed population have already gone off by now. They aren't replaced with new progenitors because the era of mass tidal stripping is largely over with. ...
The majority of Type 1a SNs seem to be pairs of white dwarfs that eventually spiral into each other. There is no evidence that the half-life for such a pair is shorter than the age of the universe so far, so the population wouldn't be depleted.

Ken G
2014-Nov-15, 02:37 PM
I don't understand why you think that there should be lots of
type 1a supernovae among intergalactic stars. The population
would be so different from the galactic population that a very
much lower rate of SN 1a seems highly plausible.On what basis do you say this? There is no such thing as "the galactic population", galaxies include star-forming regions with very young stars, they include "field" stars like the Sun that are of "medium" age if you will, and they include globular clusters which could be quite ancient. So which of those is what you mean by the "galactic population"? If you mean all three, that you can be pretty sure that the stars in between galaxies will belong to one of those groups. What's more, all three types exhibit supernovas.

Ken G
2014-Nov-15, 02:48 PM
Question: do we know for a fact that all SN type 1A take place within galaxies? Even at z=1 to 3? Is it always routine to identify the host galaxy?That's a good question (out to z=1 anyway, I don't think there are supernovae that are often seen farther than that). It is routine to find not only the galaxy, but even where in the galaxy, the supernova happened, but I don't know that this statement continues to hold for the very farthest ones. A type Ia is about as bright at its peak as the galaxy it is in, but the galaxy is more spread out so perhaps it could be easier to see the point source than the galaxy. However, the key point is that the interpretation that what is seen in the IR is stars requires that these stars be much closer than z=1, so we would know we were seeing close supernovae, and I would expect that had any supernova that close been seen without a galaxy around it, we would have heard about it by now.

Jerry
2014-Nov-15, 04:26 PM
Not every Ia type event is followed-up on. I don't recall any events which have been scrutinized that a host galaxy of some sort has not been identified. Likewise; I don't recall any type II events that are not associated with a galaxy. It seems much more likely that the extended background is truly "background"; not "foreground". It is not the 'background' models predicted.

kzb
2014-Nov-15, 06:05 PM
Now we have you two order of kilopi gentlemen in direct contradiction !

antoniseb
2014-Nov-15, 06:12 PM
Now we have you two order of kilopi gentlemen in direct contradiction !
Are you trying to foment trouble? Jerry and Ken G both stated that type 1a supernovae have not been observed outside of galaxies. There is no contradiction.

StupendousMan
2014-Nov-15, 06:58 PM
I don't recall any events which have been scrutinized that a host galaxy of some sort has not been identified. Likewise; I don't recall any type II events that are not associated with a galaxy.

Oodles and oodles of supernovae are discovered without any knowledge of the host galaxy. In many cases, the objects are discovered by accident as part of some other project, and there's no interest in any followup. In others, those who discovered the event are interested in SNe, but can see little or no light from the host galaxy with their regular search images; and they don't have the additional telescope time to go back and look more deeply.

For example, in one of the early SDSS supernova search papers

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3220

scan through Table 3 (at the end of the paper) and look at the number of events which have no information listed for the host galaxy. The SNe in this paper are relatively nearby, with redshifts z = 0.05 - 0.4.

Jerry
2014-Nov-15, 07:26 PM
That is why I included the qualifier "have been scrutinized". If 99+% of the time that researchers have had the big scope time to follow-up observations, this follow-up has lead to the discovery of a host galaxy of some kind; it is reasonable to conclude 99+% of all supernova events occur in host galaxies of some kind.

More-over; the wide variety of galaxies in which supernova are found indicate that the gross stellar environment is not an issue on whether or not supernova events will occur. Research indicates that some types of events are more likely to occur in some types of galaxies; but on the whole, there is no reason to think (and it is certainly contrary to theory) that a galaxy is necessary in order for a star to supernova as part of a normal life cycle.

Ergo, postulating that there is a high percentage of lower redshift rogue stars that are not associated with galaxies that are responsible for the muted backgrounds that we see requires one to ignore an obvious fact: Stars live in clusters that we usually associate with galaxies; whether or not they are exploding stars.

It is unreasonable to stipulate that a star must promise not to supernova when it leaves a galaxy environment and becomes part of a previously unidentified 'local' background of non-galactic light emitters.

Ken G
2014-Nov-16, 02:26 AM
The issue here is that one common way to try to tell what kind of supernova has been seen is to look for where it happened in its host galaxy. So that is often the motivation to look deeper. If no search for a host galaxy is done, it matters not, that case is simply not relevant. If a search for a host galaxy is done, and the supernova is known to be nearby (like the stelllar population is claimed to be, I believe within z < 0.1), and no host galaxy is found, that is the situation we are talking about. So the questions are:
1) has any z < 0.1 supernova had its vicinity searched deeply, with no host galaxy found?
2) if the answer to (1) is "yes", why wasn't a stellar population between galaxies already hypothesized?

StupendousMan
2014-Nov-16, 03:48 PM
Most people who are interested in a stellar population between galaxies don't use supernovae as probes; they just look for the stars directly. If you go to ADS

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html

and type, for example, "intergalactic star optical image" into the abstract words text box, then press "Send Query", you'll see lots and lots of papers describing searches for stars in the space between galaxies. One term you might follow up is the "Leo Ring."

Ken G
2014-Nov-16, 04:30 PM
But that might just be because it was never thought before that there would be as many stars between galaxies as in them. Given that supernovas are fairly rare even over the scale of an entire galaxy, it would seem a poor way to look for stars between galaxies if such stars are rare as well. It is only if you think stars occur in between galaxies as often as in them that you would even think to look for supernovae in the former population. It sounds like the next issue to address in this hypothesis.

On the matter of the Leo ring, it was certainly known that galaxies collide, and tidal stripping of gas can occur. Galaxy collisions are often thought of as a way to make even larger galaxies and to re-ignite star formation, but there's also gas that is lost from the galaxy, so it was always a question of how much of both is going on. It is certainly plausible that the Leo ring is a recent example of galactic stripping, and older examples might have many low-mass stars, but it does sound like the supernova implications need to be ironed out.

Jean Tate
2014-Nov-16, 05:07 PM
But that might just be because it was never thought before that there would be as many stars between galaxies as in them. Given that supernovas are fairly rare even over the scale of an entire galaxy, it would seem a poor way to look for stars between galaxies if such stars are rare as well. It is only if you think stars occur in between galaxies as often as in them that you would even think to look for supernovae in the former population. It sounds like the next issue to address in this hypothesis.

Which is pertinent for supernova searches that were (and are) done by looking at galaxies, one by one (and their immediate surroundings). However, supernova searches such as done using SDSS' Stripe 82 data are blind to galaxies; in that survey, a rather large piece of sky was scanned, by the same camera (etc), repeatedly. Details of the observations of any and all supernovae detected have long ago been published. As far as I know, ~no IGM supernovae were found. I don't recall what the redshift limit is (it obviously depends on the cadence, and the type of supernova), but it's likely at least ~0.4 and could be as much as ~0.7.


On the matter of the Leo ring, it was certainly known that galaxies collide, and tidal stripping of gas can occur. Galaxy collisions are often thought of as a way to make even larger galaxies and to re-ignite star formation, but there's also gas that is lost from the galaxy, so it was always a question of how much of both is going on. It is certainly plausible that the Leo ring is a recent example of galactic stripping, and older examples might have many low-mass stars, but it does sound like the supernova implications need to be ironed out.

Again, here's the rub: the central parts of rich clusters of galaxies are known to be awash with 'rogue IGM stars', whether stripped from galaxies, formed in situ, or whatever. Lots of these nearby clusters (out to z ~0.4, say) have been pretty thoroughly observed, and (as far as I know) essentially ~zero IGM SNe have been found. Of course, it's always possible that observations of these IGM regions haven't been frequent enough, or candidates followed up on, but I suspect when someone does sit down and troll through the literature (as I'll bet at least one group is doing, right now), they'll put limits on at least this IGM's SNe rate that is, um, in tension with the published CIBER result.

publiusr
2014-Nov-16, 08:41 PM
Well, isn't it always the smallest stars that wind up getting ejected in some cases? Those are your longest lived. So less supernovae are to be expected from these smaller objects as they leave a galaxy over time...or am I wrong?

Ken G
2014-Nov-17, 02:09 AM
The old stars can still undergo type Ia supernovae, so that's the type we are talking about. Cases like the Leo ring involve gas that has been stripped from galaxies yet is still dense enough to undergo star formation, make massive stars, and produce other types of supernovae, but presumably the hypothesis being considered is that galaxies have been leaking stars for a long time, so most of the star formation is over in that tidally stripped population. So the larger question here is, what is the mass distribution of the stripped stars? Assuming the Leo ring is the exception, and star formation in the stripped population is rare, we might expect little in the way of massive stars. But stars with solar type mass should be quite common in that population, one expects, and those are the type that undergo type Ia supernovae, if they are in close binaries. Tidal stripping shouldn't affect the binary status of a star.

Jerry
2014-Nov-17, 06:28 AM
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1623.pdf Nearby supernova host galaxies from the CALIFA Survey:
I. Sample, data analysis, and correlation to star-forming regions

Some events are identified that are >50 arc sec from the galaxy cores, Cores that for the purposes of this study are at least 70 arc sec across. They make no mention of straggler events that the are far from know galaxies...still looking...found it!

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.5016.pdf Supernovae and their host galaxies I. The SDSS DR8 database and statistics⋆

They identified 3876 supernova events in 3679 host galaxies, with multiple hosts containing more than one event during the Sloan Digital Survey. There is no mention of 'hostless' events; but there is also some bias in the survery; in that they tend to target regions with known galaxies in order to search for supernova events.

Again, I don't recall any hard searches for host galaxies that did not find a host of some kind.

Ken G
2014-Nov-17, 07:39 AM
That does sound significant, though it's hard to tease out the selection bias.

Jeff Root
2014-Nov-17, 07:57 PM
Tangential question, for reference:

How many supernovae are known, as of some fairly recent date?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

glappkaeft
2014-Nov-17, 08:17 PM
Tangential question, for reference:

How many supernovae are known, as of some fairly recent date?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Here you go: http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/Supernovae.html

Jeff Root
2014-Nov-17, 08:36 PM
The link isn't working for me. I tried removing everything
after the .edu domain, but it still didn't work.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Amber Robot
2014-Nov-17, 09:07 PM
The link isn't working for me. I tried removing everything
after the .edu domain, but it still didn't work.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Try it without the "www".

mkline55
2014-Nov-17, 09:12 PM
I can't put my finger on the quote, but I seem to recall (possibly incorrectly) that most of the baryonic matter in the universe exists in the space between galaxies. If so, then why shouldn't we observe energy from the IGM that is equal to or greater than the energy from the galaxies?

Ken G
2014-Nov-17, 09:39 PM
Here you go: http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/Supernovae.htmlI guess the big question there is what is meant by the galactic designation "Anon." The notes say it means the host galaxy is not from one of the main catalogs mentioned, but it stops short of assuring us there is a known host galaxy there at all, so we don't get our answer.

Ken G
2014-Nov-17, 09:43 PM
I can't put my finger on the quote, but I seem to recall (possibly incorrectly) that most of the baryonic matter in the universe exists in the space between galaxies. If so, then why shouldn't we observe energy from the IGM that is equal to or greater than the energy from the galaxies?The matter is indeed in between galaxies, but it is not in stars, so it doesn't emit as much light. Stars are a great way to get matter to emit light, because stars achieve not only high temperatures, but also high densities to go with it, and that's very good for producing light. It's also the reason they are good at making new elements.

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-17, 11:46 PM
There was some paper from a while back that hypothesized the gas/dust "outside" galaxies had to be greater than the mass "inside" the galaxies, based on measurements. I wonder what they are thinking about this new data.

Jeff Root
2014-Nov-18, 01:03 AM
I managed to get into Harvard, but I flunked out of CBAT.
No link containing "cbat" works for me. My "hosts" file is empty.
Downforeveryoneorjustme.com shows that the page is working.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-18, 07:40 PM
http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/Supernovae.html

works fine for me

Jeff Root
2014-Nov-19, 05:00 AM
I can get to it via my dial-up connection. CBAT may be
blocking my broadband ISP.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-19, 10:51 PM
The entire thing of all that light, and all them stars, outside what we think of as galaxies, it's a little mind blowing.

kzb
2014-Nov-20, 01:00 PM
I can't get that website either. However I have looked at a few references and I can see that a large number of SN 1A's have been recorded. There are plenty to do statistics with.

Over on the Space and Astronomy Questions forum, in Supernova outside the ISM thread, ngc3314 put the following very interesting information:

I checked with some of the folks who did the SDSS "Stripe 82" SN survey. There was no bias toward known hosts (especially since they, and their Dark Energy Camera followup, really want high-z supernovae). They did find some 50+ kpc from a plausible host. Something I had been aware of, but not that it was this important in the context, is that there seem to be two SN Ia populations, distinguished by the star-forming history of their hosts and their redshift. These are sometimes called the prompt and delayed populations; "prompt" meaning times of maybe 2 Gyr after star formation. The prompt kind dominates by something like 4:1, so an intergalactic population of SN Ia which left their galaxies a long time ago would comprise only maybe 10% of all SN Ia.

Also, in groups and clusters there is the possibility of misattributing an SN to a host galaxy just through projection effects. I think the answer as to whether the claimed population of intergalactic stars is compatible with existing SN surveys is answerable but takes more work than I might have first thought.

From that, it seems to me, there is at least the possibility that the lack of SN 1A is not quite a stake through the heart for this theory. Adding to it, no SN 1A progenitor has been identified, and there is a lack of certainty of what the progenitor actually is. Maybe they need to be in a galaxy for some unsuspected reason.

But on balance I still doubt the large population of intergalactic stars theory. Would it not have been detected in the microlensing surveys for MACHOs?

If it is not a stellar population, what else could it be?

Ken G
2014-Nov-21, 02:39 PM
From that, it seems to me, there is at least the possibility that the lack of SN 1A is not quite a stake through the heart for this theory. Adding to it, no SN 1A progenitor has been identified, and there is a lack of certainty of what the progenitor actually is. Maybe they need to be in a galaxy for some unsuspected reason.Yes I think that's fair.


But on balance I still doubt the large population of intergalactic stars theory. Would it not have been detected in the microlensing surveys for MACHOs?Not necessarily, the MACHO search was looking for a particular type of variation in a particular way, it might not have been at all optimized for seeing a constant spatial background in starlight variations between galaxies. For example, the MACHO search wanted there to be sources of light, whereas the IR survey was trying to avoid known sources.


If it is not a stellar population, what else could it be?That's a fair question, and indeed the conclusion that it is a stellar population is largely a conclusion that comes from excluding every other possibility, once you are confident the effect is real (I have no sense of that analysis, but it seems like they were trying to be careful). It's not that it fits a stellar population perfectly, it's that it fits it better than it fits anything else that has been considered. Perhaps we have even more surprises ahead in astronomy....

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-21, 07:33 PM
"Perhaps we have even more surprises ahead in astronomy...."

I would call that the understatement of the century

Ken G
2014-Nov-21, 09:33 PM
You can say that again...

Gigabyte
2014-Nov-26, 03:11 AM
Yeah, but it wears out the batteries.