Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 39

Thread: Distant Galaxy is Too Massive For Current Theories

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    28,182

    Distant Galaxy is Too Massive For Current Theories

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    28,182
    Obviously it's the theories which are wrong, I was just being dramatic.

    "Face the galaxy that should not be!"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    609
    Very intriguing. Very exciting! Lots of fun. Aren't the Europeans about to launch a farsighted first light telescope along with Planck?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,293
    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!)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    609
    ESA's Herschel satellite/telescope will be launched with Planck and will be dedicated to detecting earliest stars/galaxies yet seen.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    585
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    77
    This is a lovely slap in the face to the conservative element in this forum! Ya-hoo!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7

    Talking

    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...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    605
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    33
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    28

    Talking

    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?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    585
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    609

    Smile

    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.
    Last edited by Fortunate; 2005-Sep-28 at 04:54 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    609
    Where's Herschel? We need a better looksee.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,030
    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...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortunate
    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

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    144

    Do you see what I see?

    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
    (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)

    Any comments?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Quote Originally Posted by ATKINS
    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
    (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)

    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by VanderL
    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    144
    Thanks for the welcome, VanderL!

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanderL
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanderL
    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.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14
    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

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    123
    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14
    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

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by ArgoNavis
    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.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by ATKINS
    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
    (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)
    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/20...sar-galaxy.htm
    and
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215.pdf
    They're great fun!

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by suitti
    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?
    Last edited by ATKINS; 2005-Oct-02 at 05:51 PM. Reason: mistaken term

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by ATKINS
    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/20...sar-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. The subject was also more recently touched in the thread "More from Arp et al.".

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,531
    Here's the preprint of this HUDF-JD2 study.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    144
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. What does current theories say about planets?
    By jhwegener in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Sep-25, 05:26 PM
  2. Galaxy formation - current status?
    By Nereid in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-18, 04:41 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-21, 12:02 PM
  4. Lets come up with all the theories of the current con artist
    By username24 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 2005-Aug-03, 04:37 PM
  5. Most distant massive object
    By ToSeek in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Mar-14, 08:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •