PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Heavy Galaxies Evolved Early



Fraser
2004-Jul-07, 06:04 PM
SUMMARY: New observations from the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope at Paranal have disrupted theories that massive galaxies didn't evolve early in the Universe. Astronomers have found four remote galaxies, which are several times larger than our own Milky Way, which probably formed when the Universe was only 2 billion years old. Astronomers previously believed that the largest galaxies only came together very recently, after billions of years of mergers into larger and larger structures.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

Guest
2004-Jul-07, 06:10 PM
I was thinking could our own Milky Way galaxy was once from a small globular cluster all the way to the size today... I mean by devour other small galaxies and lately merge into a very largest structure....

galaxies above
2004-Jul-07, 06:11 PM
amazing information, i hope we hear more about this discovery :)

om@umr.edu
2004-Jul-07, 06:28 PM
Thanks, Fraser, for this news.

Massive galaxies in the early Universe, and other reports of surprisingly high abundances of heavy elements in the early Universe, raise doubts about currently popular models of the early Universe.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Jul-07, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jul 7 2004, 06:28 PM
Massive galaxies in the early Universe, and other reports of surprisingly high abundances of heavy elements in the early Universe, raise doubts about currently popular models of the early Universe.
I agree!

The early formation of large galaxies suggests that the models which involve ALL galaxies forming through the hierarchical merger of globular clusters have some big obstacles.

I am more inclined to believe that there was a wide variety of galaxy forming conditions a few hundred million years after the big bang, and that the Supermassive black holes, and the largest protogalaxies formed rapidly after that at a large percentage of their current size.

The JWST should extend the limit of how early we can see these galaxies forming.

Fraser
2004-Jul-07, 07:23 PM
I wonder if the supermassive black holes formed first, and then accumulated galaxies around them appropriate to their size? But then, wouldn't we still see even bigger galaxies now because of all the mergers through the billions of years?

I wonder what the biggest galaxy is.

VanderL
2004-Jul-07, 07:30 PM
A question springs to mind. Is the "heavy" galaxies' size based on their angular size, or are they thought to be large because they are morphologically the same as our own galaxy?


Cheers.

Ok, just read the entire article (ahem) and saw the remark that they have the same structure as our Milky Way. These observations would also fit very well with an infinite, non-expanding Universe, but we need more than this observation to think in that direction.

antoniseb
2004-Jul-07, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by fraser@Jul 7 2004, 07:23 PM
I wonder if the supermassive black holes formed first, and then accumulated galaxies around them appropriate to their size?
There was a paper a few months back that discussed a mechanism that could have formed the intermediate mass black holes, and globular clusters. I think the mechanism would also scale up to the largest SMBHs and galaxies, especially in the early era of much denser gas in the universe.

The idea is that clouds of material collide and a core begins to collapse. The collapse happens so fast that a black hole forms before it can turn into a star, but that 99.9% of the material gets ejected at less than escape velocity. This material would get blown away altogether from the radiation pressure eventually, but it gets a chance to coalesce into stars on the way out. These stars stay bound to the system. Some of these stars fall back into the core, and increase the mass of the SMBH. These initial stars form the ellipsoidal halo around the center of the galaxy. Infalling gasses and dust from the initial explosion and elsewhere form the spiral arms.

Note that the observed masses of the ellipsoidal halos are generally always about 1000 times more massive than the central black hole in the several galaxies where both have reliable estimates made.

Note also that no mechanism for getting the initial clouds to move has been proposed.

Greg
2004-Jul-08, 08:52 AM
Very interesting article. It is beginning to look more and more like galaxies form in a similar manner, but at different times. Perhaps there is a critical mass of gas and dust needed to begin the process from a large interstellar cloud. The SMBH forms early on and dictates the process by which the overall structure of the galaxy takes shape. It is concieveable that there the same process could be taking place to the present day in the universe, considering that not all interstellar clouds gather at the same rate to begin the process. This would also mean that consuming smaller galaxies may be secondary events that have little bearing on galaxy formation aside from generating star formation and adding additional gas and dust. I always did think that the process of consuming dwarf galaxies to proceed at an exceedingly slow pace given that the universe's age. Or perhaps some galaxies can form by conglomerating smaller ones together. I suppose we will find out.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jul-08, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by fraser@Jul 7 2004, 07:23 PM
I wonder if the supermassive black holes formed first, and then accumulated galaxies around them appropriate to their size?
An interesting idea, Fraser.

I suspect that the "Big Bang", if there were one, produced units of highly compressed matter - - - like neutron stars and black holes (if such exist) - - - rather than the tiny units of matter (neutrons and protons) envisoned by the "Big Bang."

Our ideas about distant parts of the Universe are based largely on our (mis-) understanding of the Sun.

Thus, opinions on the evolution of the universe will be shaped by a scholarly resolution of the debate about neutrino oscillations, the origin of the solar cycle and solar magnetic fields, the Maunder minimum, the link between surface abundances and magnetic activity, etc.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Jul-08, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jul 8 2004, 12:06 PM
Thus, opinions on the evolution of the universe will be shaped by a scholarly resolution of the debate about neutrino oscillations, the origin of the solar cycle and solar magnetic fields, the Maunder minimum, the link between surface abundances and magnetic activity, etc.
This news item is about the formation of heavy galaxies, which is pretty far removed from the maunder minimum as a topic. It is important to understand the workings of the Sun, but there are other objects to study in the universe. Further, the origin of the solar cycle and solar magnetic fields will not be discovered by debate alone [scholarly or otherwise]. It will take observations, calculations, and maybe some experimetation.

Similarly the debate about the formation of the Heavy Galaxies will be discovered by future observations and calculations. Those observations will be made by looking at very early heavy galaxies, probably in the millimeter and far IR bands with telescopes that would seem gigantic to us today. Some of the observations will lead to conclusions that depend on our knowledge of the Sun, and the local part of our galaxy, but that will only provide some fine tuning.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jul-08, 01:04 PM
Thanks, Anton.

Sorry if my posting was misunderstood.

In my view, scholarly debate includes careful measurements and observations on possible neutrino oscillations, the solar cycle, solar magnetic fields, the Maunder minimum, the link between surface abundances and magnetic activity, etc.

E,g,. the recent finding that the ratio of heavy elements to hydrogen at the solar surface is 30% lower than believed.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Guest
2004-Jul-10, 05:47 AM
This is amazing confirmation of Eugene Savov's theory of interaction [1].
Galaxies, light and heavy elements will be seen at every distance according to this
model of "firework universe".

1. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jul-10, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Guest@Jul 10 2004, 05:47 AM
This is amazing confirmation of Eugene Savov's theory of interaction [1].
Galaxies, light and heavy elements will be seen at every distance according to this
model of "firework universe".

1. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.
Thanks.

Can you quickly summarize or is there a web link where we can quickly grasp the essence of Eugene Savov's theory of interaction?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

rocket
2004-Jul-15, 05:20 AM
Just picking this up late, but the picture looks to me to be of five remote galaxies, not four. :huh:

Guest
2004-Aug-07, 07:54 AM
Quote: Can you quickly summarize or is there a web link where we can quickly grasp the essence of
Eugene Savov's theory of interaction?

For more information you may copy and paste Eugene Savov in google.
It looks like a promising theory.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Aug-07, 09:07 PM
Does the lack of signs of lumpiness in the early, rapidly expanding, universe as seen in the CMB radiation constrain early galaxy formation? If some form of gaussian distribution of "eddy currents" in the highly ionized "gas" immediately following the dark era were able to be manifested in those turbulent conditions including their mutual induction interactions via Lens' law, it seems likely galaxies of all sizes might "precipitate" at a difficult to anticipate rate. Since the expansion rate seems to have always been > zero, the rate of galaxy formation should have fallen off with time due to the increase in volume. Does current observation either support or deny this result?

Is there a gaussian distribution of the energy densities and volumes in play at the time that would have resulted in fusion of some higher mass elements? How could this be determined separately from rapid super novae generation and the subsequent salting of the unverse with higher mass elements by that more standard process?

GOURDHEAD
2004-Aug-07, 09:54 PM
Note also that no mechanism for getting the initial clouds to move has been proposed

This awakens the elephant in the room and stirs the mosasaur in the swimming pool. If the expansion of space during inflation slipped by the manifestations of mass/energy, then the motion of the mass/energy would have a large vector of "outward" (each particle mutually repelling assuming electron/ proton velocity differentation commensurate with equal kinetic energy but non-equal masses) velocity. If space inflation carried the mass concentrations along at speeds greater than that of light, revisions to the standard theory might be in order but still the "outward"vector would be largely dominant.

In each scenario motion perpendicular to the "outward" velocity could happen from tiny initial divergences resulting from thermodynamically caused collisions of the "outflowing" ionized (initiated during the dark era) particles which could generate post-dark era near "runaway" feedback loops from the interaction of large magnetic fields from the huge ion currents. If this were not prohibited by the physics at play, both fusion of higher mass elements and galaxies could result. Also, this would generate the oxygen needed to form the water needed to catalyze star formation especially for the big boys from which we get even more higher elements earlier than we might otherwise expect.

Does anyone agree with my guess that protons and electrons would be separated during the inflation era due to their nearly equal kinetic energy and largely different masses? Is this guess easily falsified? Also, it seems logical to assume that within a few million years, far less than a billion years, after the inflation era,
light would have reached the expansion horizon from each point in the universe and the electrons and protons, having formed neutral hydrogen and helium, for the most part, would have caught up with the photons. If so, how does each react with the horizon? Could they be reflected back with a component of velocity in the direction from which they came?

Here I have diverged from my shmoo field theory somewhat, but I still prefer it to standard big bang theories.