A galaxy cluster at 9.6 billion years

NASA (JPL) publishes a press release about this cluster of galaxies that
is 9.6 billion years away. In the press release NASA points out that it
is a VERY OLD cluster of galaxies!

quote:
The ancient cluster is dominated by old, red and massive galaxies,
typical of present-day clusters
end quote.

Note that the universe should have been 4 billion years old when the
light of that cluster started its journey according to current big bang
theory. It is completely impossible to have such an old cluster at such
a distance!

quote:
For now, ClG J02182-05102 stands out as a greatly over-dense region of
galaxies - a metropolis in a land of isolated villages. At its center
regions loom red, monster galaxies containing about 10 times as many
stars as our Milky Way galaxy. This puts them on par with the most
mammoth galaxies in the nearby universe, which have grown fat through
repeated mergers with other galaxies. These big galaxies are so
uncharacteristic of those in the early universe that in some sense it is
like finding modern skyscrapers in ancient Rome.

The Papovich et al paper was accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal on April 21, 2010. A subsequent study by Masayuki
Tanaka of the Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe
in Japan confirmed the discovery, and the work was the subject of a news
release on May 10, 2010.

end quote


Another data point. I remember that several years ago that the "fact"
that no galaxy clusters were seen beyond 6-7 billion light years was an
argument FOR the big bang theory: the evolution of the universe was
visible since beyond a certain distance, galaxy clusters wouldn't have
the time to form.

Now that we discover a galaxy cluster at 9.6 billion years the argument
should run in the opposite direction:

How could the universe have started 13.7 billion years ago and form an
OLD galaxy cluster in just 4 billion years?

Note that 4 billion years is a very short time at galactic scales. Our
own galaxy makes only 16 revolutions in that time. Mergers of galaxies
take even more time: the collision of our galaxy with the Andromeda
galaxy will happen in 4 billion years, and an eventual merge would take
much more time.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cf...y&auid=6340722

In article , jacob navia
writes:

Note that the universe should have been 4 billion years old when the
light of that cluster started its journey according to current big bang
theory. It is completely impossible to have such an old cluster at such
a distance!

Obviously it is not impossible, if you believe the observations and
their interpretation.

Another data point. I remember that several years ago that the "fact"
that no galaxy clusters were seen beyond 6-7 billion light years was an
argument FOR the big bang theory: the evolution of the universe was
visible since beyond a certain distance, galaxy clusters wouldn't have
the time to form.

Now that we discover a galaxy cluster at 9.6 billion years the argument
should run in the opposite direction:

How could the universe have started 13.7 billion years ago and form an
OLD galaxy cluster in just 4 billion years?

Note that there are many lines of evidence in favour of the big-bang
theory. If ONE observation is to overturn it, it needs to be absolutely
watertight.

Note that 4 billion years is a very short time at galactic scales. Our
own galaxy makes only 16 revolutions in that time. Mergers of galaxies
take even more time: the collision of our galaxy with the Andromeda
galaxy will happen in 4 billion years, and an eventual merge would take
much more time.

One can't expect new observations to be completely understood right
away. Maybe the cluster was in an environment which favoured more rapid
evolution.

Note also that if you question the big-bang theory and standard
cosmology, you can't straightforwardly go along with the age estimates
in the paper. In other words, you can't depend on deductions based on
the big-bang theory in order to disprove the big-bang theory (unless you
show, in a watertight fashion, that it is inconsistent).

Note that 15 years ago, people were saying "some stars are older than
the universe, thus the big-bang theory is disproved". It turned out
that the universe was older than the naive estimate (based on the
Einstein-de Sitter model) indicated.