"new type galaxies" distant universe?

[pantheory]

Strange New "Species" of Ultra-Red Galaxy Discovered

 

http://www.scienceda...11201125358.htm

 

I was thinking about putting this article in the science news section here but realized that the comments that I wished to make are not mainstream, so they would be considered speculative so I posted the article here.

 

As long as they have been using the Hubble and VLBA/ VLBI (long baseline radio telescopes) they have been seeing at the farthest distances very old appearing galaxies like we can find in our local galactic neighborhood. I expect when the James Webb goes up they will also see the same thing. It has always seemed likely to me that a number of the furthest of these galaxies which are supposedly only a few hundred million years old and estimated to be larger than the Milky Way, are probably as old or much older than the Milky Way galaxy was when their presently observed light was emitted. If so, this would imply that the Big Bang model is the wrong model of the universe.

 

I have collected maybe a dozen articles/ papers similar to the one above concerning "old appearing galaxies" in the very distant universe. This does not necessarily imply that the universe must be infinite in age, but I believe such observations continue to be strong evidence to support the assertion that the universe is probably many times older than what the BB model could allow.

 

 

//

Edited December 3, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

Yes.

We have already swallowed that we are lost in space. Our actual place in the Universe is not in the center, not on the edge, it is "somewhere" in the vast incommensurable Universe.

Now we have to swallow that we are also lost in time. That would extend the Copernican Principle in what I call the Complete Copernican Principle which is an application of the Mediocrity principle. That is my opinion.

[pantheory]

Yes.

We have already swallowed that we are lost in space. Our actual place in the Universe is not in the center, not on the edge, it is "somewhere" in the vast incommensurable Universe.

Now we have to swallow that we are also lost in time. That would extend the Copernican Principle in what I call the Complete Copernican Principle which is an application of the Mediocrity principle. That is my opinion.

 

I totally agree. Never heard of the Mediocrity principle before but Wiki informed me. Maybe in 20 years after the James Webb goes up etc., I expect many more will have come to these same conclusions. I also never thought of the cool verbiage "lost in time." I'll have to add this catchy little phrase to my book with your permission

Edited December 3, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

Permission granted.

I don't put copyright on my posts.

 

I totally agree. (...)

 

That makes 2 of us.

[pantheory]

Permission granted.

I don't put copyright on my posts.

 

That makes 2 of us.

I would like to see some others that here who may have the same or different opinion, plus maybe a moderator or two who might think that we will soon stop seeing very large, old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances.

//

Edited December 4, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

Well I could never extract safe conclusions from a "no answer" on this Forum. It may mean (1) oops this one has a point, it's better to don't say anything or (2) this one is so gibberish that it's not worth saying anything.

 

___________________________

edit

Now that I'am thinking about,there is a third possibility (3) it's the weekend.

Edited December 4, 2011 by michel123456

[pantheory]

Well I could never extract safe conclusions from a "no answer" on this Forum. It may mean (1) oops this one has a point, it's better to don't say anything or (2) this one is so gibberish that it's not worth saying anything. Now that I'am thinking about it ,there is a third possibility (3) it's the weekend.

I always hoped the weekend would be more active, but I guess not

 

I'm of the opinion that these exact observations are what will finally provide the coup de grâce for the Big Bang model (BB). Specifically as viewed by the James Webb telescope, very large old-appearing elliptical galaxies at the centers of a large galaxy clusters, less than a billion years after the supposed beginning of the universe according to the BB model. I expect that such observations will start to appear within two years after the James Webb is fully operational.

 

One quandary that I have always wondered about concerning the BB model: If the universe were expanding, the density of galaxies in the past would have necessarily been greater. To my knowledge, no observations have ever claimed observing a higher density of galaxies in the past. To the contrary, there have been many observations which imply that the observable universe appears to be less dense the farther back we look into time. The answer to this problem to date that I know of has generally been: the farther away we see galaxies the more difficult they are to see so naturally we will see fewer of them. This, I think, is not a valid answer since we have many studies and observations that claim to see large galaxies like the Milky Way 10-12 billion years ago. If we can see large galaxies that far away we should be able to make a volume survey to determine galactic density estimates of Milky Way sized galaxies or larger, 7 billion years ago in several locations. Since the Inflation era, accordingly in a constantly expanding universe that is close to being flat as is presently believed, when the radius of the universe was 1/2 its present radius, the density should have been 8 times as dense based upon the volume of sphere. This should be easy to observe. No one in the mainstream seems to ever question this very long-standing "problem of Density," which also seems to be strong evidence against the BB model IMO, or any model which asserts based upon redshifts, that the observable universe is expanding in any measurable way.

 

Here's another link concerning the OP observations:

 

http://io9.com/5864931/whats-going-on-with-these-mysterious-ultra+red-galaxies

//

Edited December 5, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

For a mainstream discussion of these newly discovered galaxies one can find it in the astronomy/ cosmology forum, and also in the Science News section.

[michel123456]

For a mainstream discussion of these newly discovered galaxies one can find it in the astronomy/ cosmology forum, and also in the Science News section.

Where exactly?

[pantheory]

Where exactly?

It can be found here in Science News section and here in the Astronomy and Cosmology section. So far there have been no responses in these other sections and only our conversations here.

 

I'm going to go with door #1 concerning your proposed reasons for non-response here: "(1) oops this one has a point, it's better to don't say anything" , and maybe just a simple "so what?" concerning the postings in the other sections

//

Edited December 6, 2011 by pantheory

[A Tripolation]

By no means am I an expert, but I do intend to go to grad school for astrophysics, so this is of particular interest to me. I have a few questions.

 

1. Why are you assuming that the main reason for the redness of the galaxy is entirely due to the redshift of light?

 

2. It seems more plausible to me that these galaxies are missing stages of galactic evolution. As far as I know, there are many open questions regarding protogalaxies - specifically with regards as to why there was a certain varying density in some areas instead of a uniform distribution.

 

3. The Big Bang model is our most complete model of spacetime expansion. If these galaxies are so far away that their light has been traveling for more than the 14 billion years posited by the BB model, why would that render the entire theory false?

[pantheory]

By no means am I an expert, but I do intend to go to grad school for astrophysics, so this is of particular interest to me. I have a few questions.

 

1. Why are you assuming that the main reason for the redness of the galaxy is entirely due to the redshift of light?

 

2. It seems more plausible to me that these galaxies are missing stages of galactic evolution. As far as I know, there are many open questions regarding protogalaxies - specifically with regards as to why there was a certain varying density in some areas instead of a uniform distribution.

 

3. The Big Bang model is our most complete model of spacetime expansion. If these galaxies are so far away that their light has been traveling for more than the 14 billion years posited by the BB model, why would that render the entire theory false?

Tripolation, thanks for your reply and questions.

 

1. Why are you assuming that the main reason for the redness of the galaxy is entirely due to the redshift of light?

This is not anyone's assumption. For them to be able to say that the light is about 13 billion years old it means that they have determined the extent of these galaxies redshifts by lining up their hydrogen and helium absorption/ emission lines and determined the degree of their redshifts, which based upon this age the redshifts should be about 6.7. Concerning observable galaxies today, the distance does not get much further. Next, older galaxies concerning the apparent age of its stars, are always redder. This is also not an assumption; this is based upon stellar evolution theory. Very-dusty is their speculation mentioned which I think is a reasonable speculation for them to make since extensive dust would also certainly redden a galaxy. This seems to me like a "must" presumption concerning the Big Bang model (BB), otherwise it would only leave the other two reasons, the second reason discussed being very-old-stars at a distance of 13 billion light years distance, which would entirely contradict the BB model.

 

2. It seems more plausible to me that these galaxies are missing stages of galactic evolution. As far as I know, there are many open questions regarding protogalaxies - specifically with regards as to why there was a certain varying density in some areas instead of a uniform distribution.

There are no firm theories of galactic evolution concerning the mainstream. There are different hypothesis which have varying support. There are many questions concerning proto-galaxies but you can be certain no models relate to what is being observed here concerning these four galaxies. We can see what appears to be very young galaxies in our local neighborhood which of course look like one would expect for a proto-galaxy, a small galaxy with many clouds of hydrogen filled with hot blue stars.

 

http://www2.astro.ps...ell/M81/pr.html

 

Varying-densities is a characteristic of most irregular and spiral galaxies. Of course there would necessarily be many open questions concerning galaxy evolution models if one is using the wrong model of the universe to formulate galaxy evolution models, as I believe they are. What would be the meaning of your idea "missing stages of galactic evolution" concerning these galaxies? We have what I think is a very good theory concerning stellar evolution.

 

3. The Big Bang model is our most complete model of spacetime expansion. If these galaxies are so far away that their light has been traveling for more than the 14 billion years posited by the BB model, why would that render the entire theory false?

If there were galaxies as old as the Milky Way 13 billion years ago, then the BB bang model would at least need to be drastically changed. Since the BB model has already needed to adopt Inflation, dark matter, dark energy hypotheses into the theory to remain plausible, I think another drastic change would become too much for the model to withstand if much simpler explanations/ model(s) that need none of these assumptions, become known/ available.

 

Concerning you future field of study, I think astrophysics is a cool subject that does not rely much on the BB model for its studies. I expect that a PhD would be needed to make decent money in this field.

//

Edited December 7, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here's some links to old appearing galaxies in the local and distant universe:

 

http://www.scienceda...81124194936.htm

 

"There's as much variety in the early universe as we see around us today."

http://www.scienceda...50310102001.htm

http://www.scienceda...80401160020.htm

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/the-enigma-of-elliptical-galaxies.html

 

The implications seem clear IMO, that the universe is far older than the BB model could possibly allow.

Edited December 12, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Very old appearing large elliptical-like galaxies, like the ones discussed in the OP, which according to their redshifts existed near the beginning times of the universe according to the BB model, are totally unexplainable via the Big Bang model and I believe are the observations that will in time end the belief and confidence in the Big Bang model once and for all, giving way to a simpler cosmological model, more consistent with observations.

 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/06/could-the-universe-be-far-older-than-we-think-new-findings-point-that-way.html"

 

http://www.dailygala...ly-thought.html

 

Spitzer data showed that the early universe was a big zoo with "animals" of all sorts, including surprisingly old, dead galaxies......

Edited December 14, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Quasar about the same distance as the OP galaxies.

 

http://www.sciencene...aises_questions

 

Old appearing very large galaxies and quasars at the farthest distances will continuously be puzzling to BB theorists. But I am seriously surprised that also no theorists seem to realize or even discuss what seems to me like an obvious density problem with the BB model as explained in posting #7 above.

[pantheory]

Here's another galaxy that should not be at the beginning of the universe.

 

http://www.space.com/14022-rare-galaxy-dawn-time-universe-photo.html