Huge galaxy at 800 million years away from the 'big bang'

The expansion of the universe and the bb model are colliding with
the observable universe.

The only thing *really* expanding is the observable universe. Now, CNN
reports that the Hubble space telescope has detected a HUGE galaxy just
800 million years away from the supposed big bang.

I remember those times when I argued in this group that 3 billion years
were too short to form a galaxy.

Then it was 2 billion, then 1 billion !!!

Now it is 800 million years!!!

"The Spitzer telescope, which is sensitive to the light from older,
redder stars, found the baby galaxy to be unexpectedly bright in
infrared light, suggesting a very massive object, especially for its
early era."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/0...eut/index.html

What will happen when our telescopes hit the 400 million year mark?

Or the 300?

I still have the same question, a stupid layman question:

INTO WHAT is space "expanding"????

Common sense is not dead (yet).

jacob

More information about this galaxy HUDF-JD2:

1)
DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR AN EARLY REIONIZATION OF THE UNIVERSE?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0509/0509605.pdf

2)=09
NASA Finds 'Big Baby' Galaxies in Newborn Universe
Spitzer space telescope press release:
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media.../release.shtml

3)
Space Daily:
Mature Galaxy Found In Early Universe Eight Times More Massive Than=20
Milky Way.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stell...stry-05ze.html

4)
Evidence for a Massive Post-Starburst Galaxy at z =E2=88=BC 6.5
http://www.eso.org/~jvernet/mobasher05.pdf

From reference 4)
In summary therefore, Figures 4 and 5 suggest that the HUDF-JD2 is=20
likely to be an extremely massive galaxy observed at 6 z 8 which=20
formed the bulk of its stars at zform 9. The size of the observed Ks
-3.6 micrometers break implies a post-starburst system now being=20
observed in a quiescent state.

Translated into english the above paragraph gives:

The researchers are particularly intrigued by the fact that star=20
formation in the galaxy seems to have already been completed. This=20
implies that the bulk of the activity that built up the galaxy had=20
occurred even earlier. (Reference 3)

This object is eight times the Mily way. The photographs show a well
formed spiral galaxy:
http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2005-19a2.jpg

In article , jacob navia
writes:

The expansion of the universe and the bb model are colliding with
the observable universe.

Why?

The only thing *really* expanding is the observable universe. Now, CNN
reports that the Hubble space telescope has detected a HUGE galaxy just
800 million years away from the supposed big bang.

I remember those times when I argued in this group that 3 billion years
were too short to form a galaxy.

When YOU argued? Surely you can't use the fact that your own previous
arguments were for longer times to discredit the above claim.

Then it was 2 billion, then 1 billion !!!

Now it is 800 million years!!!

What will happen when our telescopes hit the 400 million year mark?

Or the 300?

Nothing.

Galaxy formation is a complicated process. No-one has ever claimed to
understand it all from first principles. In this case, observation is
perhaps more an input to theory than vice versa.

I still have the same question, a stupid layman question:

INTO WHAT is space "expanding"????

Why does it have to expand into anything? Your question has an implicit
assumption.

Common sense is not dead (yet).

Common sense evolved to keep us alive in the environment in which we
evolved. It is thus no surprise if it is not a good guide in
environments vastly different than this.

In message , jacob navia
writes
The expansion of the universe and the bb model are colliding with
the observable universe.

The only thing *really* expanding is the observable universe. Now, CNN
reports that the Hubble space telescope has detected a HUGE galaxy just
800 million years away from the supposed big bang.

I remember those times when I argued in this group that 3 billion years
were too short to form a galaxy.

Then it was 2 billion, then 1 billion !!!

Now it is 800 million years!!!

"The Spitzer telescope, which is sensitive to the light from older,
redder stars, found the baby galaxy to be unexpectedly bright in
infrared light, suggesting a very massive object, especially for its
early era."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/0...eut/index.html

The paper is

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-...09/0509768.pdf

It seems the red shift is not 100% rigorous. The best fit is a red shift
of 6.5, but an interpretation of redshift 2.5 is also possible.


What will happen when our telescopes hit the 400 million year mark?

Or the 300?

They are already finding galaxies at red shifts around 10, which
corresponds to about that. Poor images of course, and only young
galaxies can be detected - if there are any mature ones, the light from
them is too dim and red to detect with current telescopes.

I still have the same question, a stupid layman question:

INTO WHAT is space "expanding"????

It does not need anything to expand into.



Regards

--
Charles Francis

jacob navia writes
2)=09
NASA Finds 'Big Baby' Galaxies in Newborn Universe
Spitzer space telescope press release:
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media.../release.shtml

Reading the various texts suggests that the galaxy in question is NOT
visible in this view. Its NOT the prominent spiral.

Try

http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2005-19a1.jpg




--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:

What will happen when our telescopes hit the 400 million year mark?

Or the 300?


Nothing.

Galaxy formation is a complicated process. No-one has ever claimed to
understand it all from first principles. In this case, observation is
perhaps more an input to theory than vice versa.


Excuse but there are some facts that just can't be dismissed like that.
We have a big, mature GALAXY at only 800 million years after the
supposed bang.

Of course common sense doesn't apply but... I suppose I can still
assume that 800 million years after the 'BANG' nothing in the
universe can be older than 800 million years.

Is that OK with you?

800 million years is a very short time at this scales. A normal star
like the sun lives 10 000 million years.

ALL stars in that galaxy can be no older than 800 million years then.
The galaxy should be blue, from the color of young stars. And this
is not observed.

Besides, the authors point out that the galaxy has passed already
the peak of star formation and is in a stable state... That means that
star formation has happend much earlier.


I still have the same question, a stupid layman question:

INTO WHAT is space "expanding"????


Why does it have to expand into anything? Your question has an implicit
assumption.


Common sense is not dead (yet).


Common sense evolved to keep us alive in the environment in which we
evolved. It is thus no surprise if it is not a good guide in
environments vastly different than this.

With common sense I mean the basic rules of logic.

Of course common sense and even our own logic are extrapolated
when we try to observe and understand the universe. But then,
logic is the only thing we have. If we leave logic what is left?

I am ready to accept extraordinary conclusions. As I pointed out in the
example in my previous post, my physics teacher convinced me that
it is the earth that goes around the sun, and not viceversa, as I see
every day. Common sense can be misleading, logic is not. Nowhere
my teacher told me to abandon logic. It was precisely by using logic
that he convinced me...

According to the BB theory, space gets created out of nothing. OK,
there is no space where space is expanding into, it is just... that
space gets created out of nothing.

There was a conference about alternative theories to the BB posted in
this forum. For a report about that conference see:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/d...-Ratcliffe.pdf

jacob navia wrote:
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:

What will happen when our telescopes hit the 400 million year mark?

Or the 300?


Nothing.

Galaxy formation is a complicated process. No-one has ever claimed to
understand it all from first principles. In this case, observation is
perhaps more an input to theory than vice versa.



Excuse but there are some facts that just can't be dismissed like that.
We have a big, mature GALAXY at only 800 million years after the
supposed bang.

Of course common sense doesn't apply but... I suppose I can still
assume that 800 million years after the 'BANG' nothing in the
universe can be older than 800 million years.

Is that OK with you?

800 million years is a very short time at this scales. A normal star
like the sun lives 10 000 million years.

Yes, but even a star like the Sun takes just a few million years to
form, and a heavy star will form even more rapidly, so there is no
conflict between the time scale for star formation and the age of the stars.

ALL stars in that galaxy can be no older than 800 million years then.
The galaxy should be blue, from the color of young stars. And this
is not observed.

No, blue stars have life times of around 10 million years, so no
conflict with the age of the galaxy. The stars that remain will be
white, yellow or red, and when they leave the main sequence they will
turn into red giants. If their is still plenty of dust in the galaxy
the light that they emit will become even redder, so no conflict with
the age of the galaxies here.

Besides, the authors point out that the galaxy has passed already
the peak of star formation and is in a stable state... That means that
star formation has happend much earlier.

Yes, but it only needs to take some millions of years, or perhaps a
few tens of millions of years if it gradually covers a large part of the
galaxy. There is no conflict with the age of the galaxy here.

Ulf Torkelsson

In article ,
jacob navia writes:
Now, CNN
reports that the Hubble space telescope has detected a HUGE galaxy just
800 million years away from the supposed big bang.

As others have mentioned, the preprint is at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0509768
It's better to comment on that than on vague press reports.

A few comments based on a quick scan:

1. The redshift looks plausible but isn't airtight; z=2.5 is also
possible.

2. What is observed is the luminosity. In order to get the mass, one
has to assume a mass function. This is the standard problem that
the light comes from the big stars, but the mass is in the small
stars. The mass function in the early Universe is unlikely to be
the same as the mass function today. In particular, the mass
function back then was most likely weighted more to massive stars.
If so, the true mass of HUDF JD2 would be lower than the 6E11
indicated for a Salpeter initial mass function (IMF).

3. The age at z=6.5 (in the currently favored cosmology) is 0.9 Gyr.
The best model fit to the HUDF JD2 1 to 8 micron data has an age
of 1 Gyr, and the authors find populations as young as 0.5 Gyr are
consistent with the data (0.4 Gyr if the errror bars are pushed to
the limits). The authors don't explore changing the IMF, but I'd
expect that an even younger stellar population with a nonstandard
IMF can also fit the data. Moreover, the object is detected at 24
microns, implying that an active nucleus is present. If the AGN
contributes to the shorter wavelength fluxes (as it probably
does), the size of the Balmer jump will change and thus so will
the derived age. All in all, a very young age for the stellar
population cannot be ruled out.


4. If a massive clump of dark matter forms somewhere in the early
Universe, hydrogen ought to fall in and form stars pretty quickly.
Of course one needs to make this quantitative, but I don't see
that small numbers of objects such as HUDF JD2 are a big problem
for standard cosmology. Time will tell, but there is already good
evidence that such objects are rare.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

Steve Willner wrote:

4. If a massive clump of dark matter forms somewhere in the early
Universe, hydrogen ought to fall in and form stars pretty quickly.
Of course one needs to make this quantitative, but I don't see
that small numbers of objects such as HUDF JD2 are a big problem
for standard cosmology. Time will tell, but there is already good
evidence that such objects are rare.


The HUDF looks at an extremely small patch of the sky. In that patch
there is at least one object like that. Extrapolated to the whole sky
the number of those objects should be significant.

The exact position of the HUDF is selected by random parameters:
Orientation of our galaxy so that we can look at the deep
sky without foreground objects. Other random variables are the
availability of guide stars and the desire to avoid gaps
that are present in the Chandra image of the CDFS.

In short, the pointing looks essentially random.

"there is already good evidence that such objects are rare".

What evidence?

Thanks for your attention

jacob

SW Of course one needs to make this quantitative, but I don't see
SW that small numbers of objects such as HUDF JD2 are a big problem
SW for standard cosmology. Time will tell, but there is already good
SW evidence that such objects are rare.

In article ,
jacob navia writes:
The HUDF looks at an extremely small patch of the sky. In that patch
there is at least one object like that. Extrapolated to the whole sky
the number of those objects should be significant.

Could you show us the numbers on that? "Rare" and "significant" are
easy to throw around, but they are no substitute for a quantitative
analysis, including comparison to model predictions.

The exact position of the HUDF is selected by random parameters:
.....
In short, the pointing looks essentially random.

Agreed, but remember that because of cosmic variance (i.e., large
scale structure) *no* small field of view is representative of the
whole sky.

"there is already good evidence that such objects are rare".
What evidence?

Other surveys that could have seen such objects and have not. But as
I indicated in the first place, no quantitative analysis has yet (to
my knowledge) been done. Absent that, it makes no sense to get over-
excited about this one object.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)