PDA

View Full Version : Distant Galaxy is Too Massive For Current Theories



Fraser
2005-Sep-27, 07:37 PM
SUMMARY: The latest images released from the Hubble Space Telescope pinpoint an enormous galaxy located almost 13 billion light-years away - at a time when the Universe was only 800 million years old. This galaxy contains 8 times the mass of stars as the Milky Way, and really shouldn't exist according to current astronomical theories. This research demonstrates that mature stars and large galaxies formed much earlier than astronomers had ever expected.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/distant_galaxy_too_massive.html)
What do you think about this story? post your comments below.

iantresman
2005-Sep-27, 11:12 PM
This galaxy contains 8 times the mass of stars as the Milky Way, and really shouldn't exist according to current astronomical theories.
Doesn't this omit one other throw-away comment: If this galaxy contains 8 times the mass of stars as the Milky Way, the THEORY should not really exist?

Out of the two options (1) the galaxy should not really exist (2) the theory should not really exist, the only option that is consistent with the evidence is (2)?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Fraser
2005-Sep-28, 12:33 AM
Obviously it's the theories which are wrong, I was just being dramatic.

"Face the galaxy that should not be!"

Fortunate
2005-Sep-28, 01:52 AM
Very intriguing. Very exciting! Lots of fun. Aren't the Europeans about to launch a farsighted first light telescope along with Planck?

Fr. Wayne
2005-Sep-28, 02:11 AM
I think it is past due that the "bubble" of Einstein's Big Bang be replaced by a Bigger Bang. To use a Rolling Stones' lyric: " You got to mix it child
You got to fix it but love It’s a *****, alright." Assuming earth is ground -zero for a moment, let's try this theory: The more information we generate, the more expanded the universe becomes. We should stop chasing our tail , and provide focused disciplines for mapping our planet's characteristics, especially under the surface. Once mapped, our planet can be the best space ship God ever built. "Girl, when you call my name, I salivate like a Pavlov's dog, ... forever. " (See ya on tour!) :boohoo:

Fortunate
2005-Sep-28, 02:40 AM
ESA's Herschel satellite/telescope will be launched with Planck and will be dedicated to detecting earliest stars/galaxies yet seen.

Greg
2005-Sep-28, 03:12 AM
As has been said before, little to no data has been available about the earliest era of our universe. This finding is a big problem to reconcile with the most popular theories of how the early universe unfolded, but not unexpected. Sometimes when you have little to go on, predictions can be way off and you have to wait to fit the theory with the data as it comes in. To quote another vernacular, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." The big bang theory is alive and well and one ill fitting thread once pulled does not unravel the whole tapestry, as some would hope and imply that it would.
On the flip side, this kind of finding is a fundamental blow of popular and accepted theories of the evolution of the early universe. The sting of a failure of predictions of this magnitude will not go away soon nor be simply fixed. The good news is that we may learn a few unexpected and important things in the process of rendering a fix to explain this finding that may explain other mysteries such as dark matter or dark energy.

BlackStar
2005-Sep-28, 06:53 AM
This is a lovely slap in the face to the conservative element in this forum! Ya-hoo!

pmf71
2005-Sep-28, 11:35 AM
What made me think, immediately after reading this article:

Distance of the object is determined primarily by measuring redshift, right? (i am not an expert in the mathematical side of astronomy, so correct me if i am wrong anywhere in factual matters). And the redshift is a result of the expanding universe. And for now, astronomers directly correlate the distance to age. So could it be that this galaxy is actually closer than we think because of errors in the theory of the (accellerating) expanding universe? For example, a crazy thought, could it be that our universe is not expanding uniformly, but faster in some places than others, like an amoebe shape? This could create the illusion that some galaxies have a larger redshift than others, while still being the same distance away. Thus this observed galaxy could be closer, and as such, be older than assumed.

Just a thought here, i appreciate any comments on this matter, even the ones that hammer me :) for thinking such stupid thoughts...

madman
2005-Sep-28, 11:40 AM
in the last few years we've seen evidence of both mature and young galaxies at the 2 extremes of the universe...ie: near and far.

this leaves the bb modellers with just the first billion years or so to find distinct hierarchy.

finding a very massive galaxy 800 million years (after the big bang) is not an impossibility (but it's close)...finding one at 100-200 million years would be though...and would call the whole bb scenario into serious question.

Molecular
2005-Sep-28, 03:34 PM
Is it possible that during the process of the Big Bang, that maybe a hiccup somehow occured, causing a sort of a draining process, and some galaxies that were further out, drifted backwards towards this suction point?

After reading this, it just made me think of something errupting up out of a clogged bathtub or sink, in how some items get spewed out very far, but can get dragged back to the drainage point, while other things just stabilize.

AndyHolland
2005-Sep-28, 04:09 PM
pmf71 wrote:

"Distance of the object is determined primarily by measuring redshift, right? (i am not an expert in the mathematical side of astronomy, so correct me if i am wrong anywhere in factual matters). And the redshift is a result of the expanding universe. And for now, astronomers directly correlate the distance to age. So could it be that this galaxy is actually closer than we think because of errors in the theory of the (accellerating) expanding universe?..."

Well, I thought the same thing. The redshift only measures the rate at which the object is moving away from us. It functions like a RADAR gun not a yardstick.

Maybe that particular galaxy zinged on by, having been blue shifted x billion years ago so its only y billion years old. How would one know otherwise?

Greg
2005-Sep-28, 04:23 PM
I would be far more willing to entertain the notion that a few big tweaks to conventional theories of the early universe formation would adequately incorporate this finding rather than call into question the validity of using redshift for distance measurement of very distant objects. I might even be willing to question the value of the Hubble constant to try to explain this before sacrificing redshift. Most likely there is a mechanism by which galaxies can form more quickly than they can today, given the different conditions present in the early universe. If we begin finding such galaxies at about 500 myrs, then I would say that we need to consider questioning the above issues, or even tweaking theories of what happened at the earlier periods of the big bang, before matter condensed out of the primordial vacuum.

Fortunate
2005-Sep-28, 04:27 PM
AndyHolland,
Good question. Maybe there are other indicators of distance. I don't suppose we could discern any type 1A supernovas in such a distant galaxy, for instance. Or maybe the required speed just seems implausible. I hope someone more knowledgeable than I addresses that question. Any experts out there?

Edit: After further thought, I think that a huge galaxy's traveling at such a speed is not possible. What force could accelerate a whole galaxy so much? Probably none. Again, though, I seek more clarity.

Fortunate
2005-Sep-28, 04:31 PM
Where's Herschel? We need a better looksee.

cran
2005-Sep-28, 07:44 PM
Hi guys, sorry I've been out of reach for a while (long story... you don't want to know...);

What do I think? Exactly what I thought before (where has that thread got to?...) - so, I'll just stay quietly smug for a while...:dance:

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Sep-28, 09:28 PM
Where's Herschel? We need a better looksee.

Europe will have Herschel and some years after there will be the JWST ( Hubble-2 ) ready for launch

ATKINS
2005-Oct-01, 04:48 PM
Hello everyone, I've just registered as a member so as to be able to comment on this stunning picture of HUDF–JD2.

Can anyone else see what I see?

There are actually three things which immediately struck me about this photo:

1/ HUDF–JD2 happens to fall just at the north fringe of the large, unnamed, considerably lower-redshifted spiral galaxy which fills the centre of the inset and which also happens to be by far the most conspicuous galaxy in the entire field covered by the Hubble photo. The probability of this happening by chance is very slight, to say the least.
2/ But above all, there is a strong infrared bridge linking HUDF–JD2 back to the spiral, with this bridge apparently being at the same redshift as HUDF–JD2 itself (since it too is only visible in the infrared range).
3/ There are equally clear infrared streamers coming out of the spiral to the south, diametrically opposite HUDF–JD2. The inset has been cropped at this point but a glance back at the full panorama suggests that these streamers may be heading off in the direction of the two small reddish objects visible in optical wavelengths just south of the spiral.

What are we to make of all this? The enormous size of HUDF–JD2 so close to the big bang already indeed makes this a truly exceptional (not to say totally unique) object in terms of the "redshift = distance/velocity" versus "intrinsic redshift" controversy. Might the additional peculiarities I have referred to above not constitute spectacular new evidence to support Halton Arp's numerous observations suggesting a possible ejection (and counter-ejection) origin for quasars and high-redshift companions from lower-redshift parent galaxies?

For those who have not followed recent developments in this debate, perhaps the most startling (but unfortunately little publicized…) recent observation of all is reported here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm (http://)
(The paper by Pasquale Galianni, Margaret Burbidge, Halton Arp, V. Junkkarinen, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti which is referred to in the Thunderbolts text was eventually published in "Astrophysics" in February of this year and can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215.pdf (http://))

Any comments?

VanderL
2005-Oct-01, 05:42 PM
Hello everyone, I've just registered as a member so as to be able to comment on this stunning picture of HUDF–JD2.

Can anyone else see what I see?

There are actually three things which immediately struck me about this photo:

1/ HUDF–JD2 happens to fall just at the north fringe of the large, unnamed, considerably lower-redshifted spiral galaxy which fills the centre of the inset and which also happens to be by far the most conspicuous galaxy in the entire field covered by the Hubble photo. The probability of this happening by chance is very slight, to say the least.
2/ But above all, there is a strong infrared bridge linking HUDF–JD2 back to the spiral, with this bridge apparently being at the same redshift as HUDF–JD2 itself (since it too is only visible in the infrared range).
3/ There are equally clear infrared streamers coming out of the spiral to the south, diametrically opposite HUDF–JD2. The inset has been cropped at this point but a glance back at the full panorama suggests that these streamers may be heading off in the direction of the two small reddish objects visible in optical wavelengths just south of the spiral.

What are we to make of all this? The enormous size of HUDF–JD2 so close to the big bang already indeed makes this a truly exceptional (not to say totally unique) object in terms of the "redshift = distance/velocity" versus "intrinsic redshift" controversy. Might the additional peculiarities I have referred to above not constitute spectacular new evidence to support Halton Arp's numerous observations suggesting a possible ejection (and counter-ejection) origin for quasars and high-redshift companions from lower-redshift parent galaxies?

For those who have not followed recent developments in this debate, perhaps the most startling (but unfortunately little publicized…) recent observation of all is reported here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm (http://)
(The paper by Pasquale Galianni, Margaret Burbidge, Halton Arp, V. Junkkarinen, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti which is referred to in the Thunderbolts text was eventually published in "Astrophysics" in February of this year and can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215.pdf (http://))

Any comments?

Welcome Atkins,
I'd say yes, there is reason to question the redshift=distance dogma. I didn't notice it the first time I looked, but there is indeed something between the two galaxies, I'm not sure of it's relevance, more specific data are necessary. I think Arp concentrated on quasars ejected from active galaxies. I don't know if this galaxy is such an active galaxy and with such a high redshift, I doubt that it fits his model (active galaxy>ejection of quasar (pairs)>evolution of quasar into galaxy, while redshift decreases). Apparently no redshift decrease here.
What is important is that when this observation is taken together with the recent finding of very high numbers of galaxies at high redshift, the lack of evolution is apparent, contradicting current wisdom.

Cheers.

ArgoNavis
2005-Oct-02, 12:11 AM
What is important is that when this observation is taken together with the recent finding of very high numbers of galaxies at high redshift, the lack of evolution is apparent, contradicting current wisdom.
Cheers.

The Hubble Deep Fields indicate that the early Universe was very different to the current Universe and that the galaxies were much younger.

ATKINS
2005-Oct-02, 12:15 AM
Thanks for the welcome, VanderL!


[...] there is indeed something between the two galaxies, I'm not sure of it's relevance, more specific data are necessary.Absolutely! Even if there definitely seems to be a physical link between the two galaxies, nobody can be sure of its relevance until more precise data has been obtained. This is precisely what doubters of "current wisdom" have been crying out for for decades: use of major telescope facilities to carry out in-depth observation of phenomena which do not seem to concord with BB theory.


I think Arp concentrated on quasars ejected from active galaxies. I don't know if this galaxy is such an active galaxy and with such a high redshift, I doubt that it fits his model (active galaxy>ejection of quasar (pairs)>evolution of quasar into galaxy, while redshift decreases). Apparently no redshift decrease here. Indeed, we don't yet know if the spiral in question is a Seyfert or some other type of active galaxy but in view of the amount of attention that HUDF–JD2 should logically be attracting over the coming months, that question should be settled one way or the other fairly soon. There too, a rapid follow-up analysis is precisely what alternative cosmologists would hope for.

As for comparison with the Arpian model you describe, I would simply suggest that the object HUDF–JD2 might well have been described as a "quasar" if there had been the slightest trace of it in the visible spectrum. As I understand it, the whole drive of Arp's argument is that the younger the object, the closer it is to the "parent" galaxy (and HUDF–JD2 seems pretty close) the higher its redshift and the fainter it is in the visible spectrum (which seems to be the case too). Perhaps we're going to have to wait a few million years to actually "see" it as a quasar.

As for the "paired" ejection of quasars observed by Arp, this is why I also mentioned the infrared "streamers" (or bridges) which can be seen emerging from the spiral to the south (whereas there is absolutely nothing emerging at any other point around the perimeter of the galaxy...). It would certainly be worth trying to determine what, if anything, lies along their path.


What is important is that when this observation is taken together with the recent finding of very high numbers of galaxies at high redshift, the lack of evolution is apparent, contradicting current wisdom. Indeed. And we can logically expect this type of observation to become increasingly frequent and precise, thereby requiring more and more "tweaks" and "fixes" to the theory. The additional peculiarities I have pointed out here would simply be a bonus, but maybe a pretty big one...

Cheers.

xelasnave
2005-Oct-02, 12:46 AM
I dont know but it seems the only way to keep BB alive through this is to move "ignition" back and focus on the possibility that the age of the Universe is greater than calculated.. a problem in itself.. but what if BB is only a theory and the Universe has no begining, no end, no top, no bottom or sides? ie truely infinite. Certainly fits my concept of things being managed by a supreme entity .. not my opinion but if you were a God would you entertain that you have a begining or an end?My problem with the big bang is the parrallel to many popular religions.. the concept of a start and an end.. fits nicely for "Christian" styled religions. The difference between Steven Hawkins approach and that of the Pope is the Pope says creation took 7 days and Steven says some 13 billion years. Being old cynical I cant help but think there may be more to why science must provide us with a Universe that fits our cultures popular religion. How is funding influenced in this area?
I am not seeking to start a row its simply interesting to consider other possibilities and why some axes get sharpened and others left dull... and I have just got out of bed so I may still be dreaming
alex

suitti
2005-Oct-02, 02:15 AM
Its still quite possible that some phenomenon, perhaps the sound waves in the early Universe concentrating matter, could cause all that stuff to be in one place so early on.

It strikes me that we have so little of the sky out that far (back in time) that this anomally may just be an anomally.

It also strikes me that there could be an error. For example, a pointer error with the Spitzer on 2003 UB313 caused researchers to put an upper limit on that object's size, since nothing was found. When proper coordinates were used, a new value for size became apparent. The spectroscopy is not taken from the photo - its a seperate measurement. Perhaps there's an error, and the big blob is closer than thought.

In any case, there are follow up studies that seem warranted.

xelasnave
2005-Oct-02, 02:51 AM
My idea about gravity could explain it, irrespective of being correct, I have the idea that gravity is a pushing force (perhaps generated by star light and in fact contained in the electromagnetic spectrum) and armed with that approach one could expect that the gravity may have been stronger because of the proximity of stuff to other stuff.. even if my idea of gravity is incorrect and irrespective of the possibility of it varying in force, the fact of closer proximity of stuff (which is a given for the early Universe)would suggest to me that maybe things could form at a more rapid rate than currently understood. And I wonder how many errors of measurement may creep in during these observations..and possible misinterpretations of data... it is not like we are measuring something sitting on the desk in front of us. Anyways feeling a little more awake and embarrassed to be so outspoken .. must have been a little grumpy first thing today. But how wonderful that we can think upon such grand things.
alex

madman
2005-Oct-02, 04:47 AM
The Hubble Deep Fields indicate that the early Universe was very different to the current Universe and that the galaxies were much younger.


the hdf results were affected by the redshift/distance effect.

at zs' 3-4-5 the visible light of galaxies was "redshifted out" of the range of hst...and ultraviolet was "redshifted in".

therefore at high redshift hst saw only the emission from star forming regions in galaxies...which made the galaxies look more different at increasing epochs.
ie: "smaller"...."undergoing collisions"...etc.

but it is just because the light from older stars was invisible.

**********************************

this is why we no longer hear nasa talk about "blue baby galaxies"...because they realised they were only able to see ultraviolet light from star forming areas.

in the last few years gemini, vlt and others have been able to see the visible light (that was shifted into near infrared at these high z distances) and have shown that these galaxies are mature.

meanwhile hst took the "hudf image" and roger thompson (the head of the nicmos part of the study) found powerfull xray sources at z7-8.4.

ATKINS
2005-Oct-02, 08:36 AM
For those who have not followed recent developments in this debate, perhaps the most startling (but unfortunately little publicized…) recent observation of all is reported here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm (http://)
(The paper by Pasquale Galianni, Margaret Burbidge, Halton Arp, V. Junkkarinen, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti which is referred to in the Thunderbolts text was eventually published in "Astrophysics" in February of this year and can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215.pdf (http://))Sorry, I've just realized that I failed to insert the hyperlinks correctly. For those who are interested, they are:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm
and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215.pdf
They're great fun!

ATKINS
2005-Oct-02, 04:19 PM
It strikes me that we have so little of the sky out that far (back in time) that this anomally may just be an anomally.You can also turn this logic on its head and come up with a completely different conclusion, particularly damaging for BB cosmology: if there is even one such "anomally" (i.e. an observation which tends to contradict conventional BB theory) in so minute a segment of the sky - the HUDF represents "just one tenth the diameter of the full moon" to quote the NASA press release of March 9 2004 - then there should, statistically speaking, be untold millions of them elsewhere. It is then no longer these impossible galaxies which are "anomallies", but the BB theory which cannot explain them.

The idea of seeing the evidence in a radically different manner is precisely what is behind my choice of avatar: who first sees the old hag and who the young beauty?

Ari Jokimaki
2005-Oct-03, 06:37 AM
Sorry, I've just realized that I failed to insert the hyperlinks correctly. For those who are interested, they are:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm
and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215.pdf
They're great fun!
We've had some discussions about this, here's one rather old thread about it (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15492). The subject was also more recently touched in the thread "More from Arp et al." (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=26365).

Ari Jokimaki
2005-Oct-03, 07:15 AM
Here's the preprint (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509768) of this HUDF-JD2 study.

ATKINS
2005-Oct-03, 06:26 PM
Thanks for indicating these two other threads, Ari Jokimaki, and sorry for my ignorance - I've only just discovered the forum. They make good reading.

Ari Jokimaki
2005-Oct-04, 04:28 AM
Thanks for indicating these two other threads, Ari Jokimaki, and sorry for my ignorance - I've only just discovered the forum.
No, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to imply that you should have known about those threads, I just wanted to offer you more information about the subject. :)

ATKINS
2005-Oct-05, 07:56 PM
I've just read them again and am comforted by the fact 1/ that Arp apparently has as many defenders as he has assailants, and 2/ that the "arguments" of the assailants are often nothing more than pure invective.

I'd still like to know if anyone else sees what I see...

VanderL
2005-Oct-05, 10:35 PM
I've just read them again and am comforted by the fact 1/ that Arp apparently has as many defenders as he has assailants, and 2/ that the "arguments" of the assailants are often nothing more than pure invective.

I'd still like to know if anyone else sees what I see...

Hi Atkins,

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but one of the "assailants" promised a rebuttal of Arp's work back in April, we can look forward to some lively dabate "soon":



Nereid:

I estimate it'll take me ~6 to 12 months to go through all the material that DGR posted, and do it justice (I've already ~1 page of quick quips, any one of which could be devastating ... to Arp et al). However, I may run into a curious dilemma - would my work be publishable, e.g. in ApJ? :blink: If so, what should I do? (publish first? post here first? give it to you and ask you to publish it? ask DGR to be a joint author? something else?)

Cheers.

blueshift
2005-Oct-06, 02:56 PM
A problem I detect here is that many seem to feel that there is a single Big Bang theory to disprove. This is false. There are thousands of Big Bang theories just as there are a multitude of static state theories. New equipment let's us realize data that replaces many of the models in existence.

VanderL
2005-Oct-06, 08:40 PM
A problem I detect here is that many seem to feel that there is a single Big Bang theory to disprove. This is false. There are thousands of Big Bang theories just as there are a multitude of static state theories. New equipment let's us realize data that replaces many of the models in existence.

If you disprove an expanding Universe, my guess is that it would surely eliminate all those "thousands" (really?) of Big Bang theories in one sweep. :D

Cheers.

ATKINS
2005-Oct-07, 09:00 PM
I'm not sure what you're looking at, but one of the "assailants" promised a rebuttal of Arp's work back in April, we can look forward to some lively dabate "soon":

The sooner the better!

Meanwhile, for those who are interested in the "Against the Mainstream" forum, I've also posted something on this subject to the "More from Arp et al." thread.

wstevenbrown
2005-Oct-10, 06:23 PM
Quoted from the abstract of the preprint cited by Ari Jokimaki :


“Its spectral energy distribution is consistent with a galaxy at z ~ 6.5 and a stellar mass of 6x10e11 M(sun) (for a Salpeter IMF). We interpret a prominent photometric break between the near-infrared and Spitzer bandpasses as the 3646A Balmer discontinuity. The best-fitting models have low reddening and ages of several hundred Myr, placing the formation of the bulk of the stars at z > 9. Alternative models of dusty galaxies at z ~ 2.5 are possible but provide significantly poorer fits.”

Do let’s try to confine our reactions to what was actually said by the principal authors. The data presented are not spectra, which would be the basis for a redshift determination. They are bandpass energy distributions which may be interpreted (as the authors clearly state) as various combinations of reddening and redshift, with wide-ranging effects on the implied distances, ages and physical sizes.

Everyone, including the PR flacks and the journalists, seems to have siezed upon the most extreme possibility, or upon whatever interpretation promotes their pet project or iconoclasm.

I am not a great fan of the more grandiose versions of BB, which purport to tell in great detail what went on in the first attoseconds of the universe’s life. I do, however, routinely use the Hubble rule to estimate distances in the range from 50 Mpc to 3 Gpc. Closer in, velocities are distorted by local disturbances and peculiar motions. Farther out, the accuracy of distance measurement increases. Beyond a certain distance, tho, the assumption of accuracy is based on faith rather than upon data (checks for concordance with other methods). You should pick your own upper limit, based on whatever methods seem reliable to you.

Having examined one pueblo in Chaco Canyon, we are prepared to make very reasonable extrapolations about life in metropolitan London, Shanghai, Tokyo, Calcutta, and New York. Very reasonable, indeed.

Best regards-- Steve

ATKINS
2005-Oct-19, 02:09 PM
Quoted from the abstract of the preprint cited by Ari Jokimaki :


“Its spectral energy distribution is consistent with a galaxy at z ~ 6.5 and a stellar mass of 6x10e11 M(sun) (for a Salpeter IMF). We interpret a prominent photometric break between the near-infrared and Spitzer bandpasses as the 3646A Balmer discontinuity. The best-fitting models have low reddening and ages of several hundred Myr, placing the formation of the bulk of the stars at z > 9. Alternative models of dusty galaxies at z ~ 2.5 are possible but provide significantly poorer fits.

Do let’s try to confine our reactions to what was actually said by the principal authors. The data presented are not spectra, which would be the basis for a redshift determination.”
I too noted the absence of confirming redshift data.


They are bandpass energy distributions which may be interpreted (as the authors clearly state) as various combinations of reddening and redshift, with wide-ranging effects on the implied distances, ages and physical sizes.

Everyone, including the PR flacks and the journalists, seems to have siezed upon the most extreme possibility, or upon whatever interpretation promotes their pet project or iconoclasm.
And I too thought that in the absence of spectral redshift, the conclusions on distance were perhaps a little hasty. But I actually found them fairly plausible if only because they seemed to provide interesting corroboration of another set of observations from the ESO’s VIMOS instrument announced just five days earlier on September 22 (see article here (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/many_galaxies_early_universe.html?2292005)). These observations, based entirely on redshift, concern other surprising galaxies discovered in the very early (BB) universe. I’m not sure if this too should be seen as a form of promotion for a pet iconoclasm, I just see it as a further substantial headache for BB proponents.


I am not a great fan of the more grandiose versions of BB, which purport to tell in great detail what went on in the first attoseconds of the universe’s life. I do, however, routinely use the Hubble rule to estimate distances in the range from 50 Mpc to 3 Gpc. Closer in, velocities are distorted by local disturbances and peculiar motions. Farther out, the accuracy of distance measurement increases. Beyond a certain distance, tho, the assumption of accuracy is based on faith rather than upon data (checks for concordance with other methods). You should pick your own upper limit, based on whatever methods seem reliable to you.
It’s certainly refreshing to see such a frank admission of possible limits to BB theory and the resulting recourse to a subjective and selective interpretation of observed redshift values. Should the same latitude also apply henceforth to the calculation of such things as the supposed age of the universe?


Having examined one pueblo in Chaco Canyon, we are prepared to make very reasonable extrapolations about life in metropolitan London, Shanghai, Tokyo, Calcutta, and New York. Very reasonable, indeed.
If HUDF–JD2 is to be compared with a pueblo in Chaco Canyon, perhaps the objects observed by VIMOS are more akin to places like Manchester, Bejing, Osaka, New Delhi or Washington. And even what currently looks like a pueblo in Chaco Canyon may, on closer inspection, turn out to be more like Los Angeles.

jimmarsen
2005-Oct-27, 03:24 AM
The light we are seeing from HUDF-JD2 was emitted 13 billion years ago. How far away was it from the Milky Way at that time? How far away is it today? How fast is it receding from us now? Has it evolved into a Type E galaxy?