A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The impossible early galaxy (continued)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 15th 17, 06:10 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacobnavia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default The impossible early galaxy (continued)

ZF-COSMOS-20115

A dead galaxy, with 3 time more stars than the milky way. Just 1.65 Gy
after the supposed bang.

Star formation has shutted down there. And worst, that could be one of
the many galaxies that were missed at first, but now, with better
instrumentation, start to come out.

There is a whole population of those galaxies, and, as our scopes
improve, ... well I have said this many times here, and it is amazing
how clear the things start playing out.

How long will it be until astronomers realize that there wasn't any
"bang" 13.7 Gy ago?

Can the bang be "recalibrated" to 20 GY? That would agree with
observations but...

In any case a "bang" at 13.7 Gy is not compatible with the observation
of ZF-COSMOS-20115.

jacob

To the moderator: I know any post that argues against the "bang" theory
is supposed to be unscientific. But I think an alternative viewpoint to
current astronomical theory can't be simply censored.

[[Mod. note --
1. It would be very nice if you would provide references, e.g., to
just which observations of ZF-20115 you're referring to.
2. I don't see any reason why a high-redshift (= young) galaxy with
a very low star-formation rate would be inconsistent with big-bang
cosmology. In fact, I rather doubt that we understand star formation
well enough to make such a statement.
3. arXiv:1704.03868 suggests that ZF-20115 may in fact have lots of
ongoing star formation, but that this activity is heavily obscured
and thus invisible to optical surveys. In fact, the authors write
"We conclude that the ZF20015 system does not pose a
challenge to current models of galaxy formation [[...]]"
-- jt]]
  #2  
Old May 17th 17, 03:52 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacobnavia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default The impossible early galaxy (continued)

[[Mod. note -- This post arrived at my moderation inbox with lots of
hex-encoded 8-bit characters. I have hand-repaired those whose meaning
seemed obvious from context. -- jt]]

Le 15/05/2017 =C3=A0 07:10, jacobnavia a =C3=A9crit :
ZF-COSMOS-20115

[snip]

[[Mod. note --
1. It would be very nice if you would provide references, e.g., to
just which observations of ZF-20115 you're referring to.


arXiv:1702.01751v2 [astro-ph.GA] 29 Mar 2017
A massive, quiescent galaxy at redshift of z=3.717

The authors of that paper say:

"...Here, we report the spectroscopic confirmation of one of these
galaxies at redshift z=3.717 with a stellar mass of 1.7*10^11 M_sun
whose absorption line spectrum shows no current star-formation"

Further down, they say:

"It takes at least 100--200 Myr of quiescence to reach the line
strengths needed and the quiescent star-formation rate has to be
at least a 100=C3=97 less than during the formation period."

Next page:

"There are a number of significant implications from this spectroscopic
confirmation of the existence of a quiescent galaxy population at
z =E2=88=BC 4
with stellar masses of =E2=88=BC 10^11M=E2=8A=99 and a space density of 1.8 =C2=B1 0.7 =C3=97 10=E2=88=925
Mpc=E2=88=923 . These are not seen in modern hydrodynamical (i.e. dark matter
and baryon physics) simulations of galaxy formation, whose volumes now
approach =E2=88=BC 106 Mpc."

So, we have a dead galaxy, probably the successors of the early quasars.

And all that: the merger of two big galaxies, the ensuing quasar and its
demise, and 200 My of cooling of the ashes, all that in just 1625 My?

Galaxies are big and their movements are slow. In 1625 My the milky way
(much less massive than ZF-20115) manages to make just around 6 turns.

A series of ad hoc explanations are presented in other papers to explain
this galaxy away. The quasar (not seen, apparently in a quiscent state
then) should have heated the gas, quenched star formation, and leave a
dead corpse of stars still shining. All that, in just 1.6 Gy.

Nobody here has definitely answered how much time after the bang should
have passed until star formation was at all possible.

Let's assume 150-200 My.

In just 1.3Gy (1600 - 200 quiescent period and - 200 cooling after the
bang) two huge galaxies collided, their nucleous merged what provoked a
quasar that heated the gas and stopped star formation.

I think that it is obvious that all that happened maybe, the galaxies
did collide, their two huge black holes fused and started a big quasar
that heated the gas.

But that takes at least 4-5 Gy. The collision of our galaxy with
Andromeda will happen in 4 Gy. And when galaxies collide they do not
fuse instantaneously but dance around for a long while before their
central black holes merge.

The precursor galaxies could not have so many stars anyway since the
universe had just begun a few hundred million years before. Supposing
that the precursor galaxies were both around 200 My old, just babys in
galaxy time, the collision would have happened at 400-500 My after the
BB.. That leaves only 600 My available to

1) Build that quasar, i.e. a black hole fusion with all the time needed
for that: the time to pass around each other, get into orbit, approach,
etc. Let's say that happens hyper quickly: just 100 My.

2) Quasar built, it must heat the gas incredibly fast to stop any
further star formation, i.e. just 500 My to blow away all the gas of the
galaxy and make it a dead one.

Let's be reasonable, this looks like a film seen in fast forward, to
keep bending reality to theory.

At the same time you have to build stars at huge rates to be able to
weight 3*10^11 solar masses in a few hundred My...

To completely quench star formation you have to heat a lot of gas and
that takes a lot of time.

Yes, anyone here can point to my idiotic "common sense" but the story of
all that happening in 1.625 Gy seems (to me) completely preposterous.


2. I don't see any reason why a high-redshift (= young) galaxy with
a very low star-formation rate would be inconsistent with big-bang
cosmology.


Because there is no time to produce dead galaxies yet.

In fact, I rather doubt that we understand star formation
well enough to make such a statement.


So, we do not understand star formation but we do understand how the
universe started etc.

I have a different interpretation of the observations. This is a dead
galaxy, probably the remnants of a quasar that heated all the gas and
extinguished itself, leaving a bright core of stars, very dense. And
that can't be done in 1625 My.


3. arXiv:1704.03868 suggests that ZF-20115 may in fact have lots of
ongoing star formation, but that this activity is heavily obscured
and thus invisible to optical surveys. In fact, the authors write
"We conclude that the ZF20015 system does not pose a
challenge to current models of galaxy formation [[...]]"
-- jt]]


Of course.

The authors said:

"The stellar mass we see is relatively unobscured."

and further down:

"We note the non-detection by Herschel at 100=E2=80=93160=CE=BCm
limits current obscured star-formation to 70=E2=80=93100 M=E2=8A=99
yr=E2=88=921"

Of course you can tweak the models, build unlikely scenarios, make yet
another twist.

ALMA will make more spectroscopic observations but this thing is too big
to hide now.

A dead galaxy in an infant universe?

And beyond this one there are many others galaxies waiting to be discovered.

jacob
  #3  
Old May 17th 17, 05:26 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacobnavia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Time necessary for a galaxy collision

In one of the scenarios proposed for explaining away ZF-COSMOS-20115, a
merger of two galaxies is proposed. How much time do those mergers take
in years?

A hint can be found in the work of Jennifer Lotz, of the Hubble space
telescope team.

http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2011-30

Scientific paper:
arXiv:1108.2508v1 [astro-ph.CO] 11 Aug 2011

She arrives at time scales of a BILLION or more years for a full merger.

So, to build the quasar by a merge of two big galaxies we need around a
billion years, and in that time the time needed to heat the gas in the
galaxy is not even considered!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nearby galaxy is a “fossil” from the early universe Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 7 May 23rd 14 05:44 PM
Are we alone on our galaxy? Are we even alone in our universe?Statistically impossible. Carl Sagan's billions SETI 6 August 31st 11 06:32 PM
Fossil Galaxy Reveals Clues to Early Universe (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 January 14th 06 06:04 PM
early morning galaxy hunting [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 3 November 18th 05 03:55 PM
Hubble and Spitzer discover big, old and almost impossible galaxy Luigi Caselli Misc 5 September 28th 05 06:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.