|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 05:04 PM |
early morning galaxy hunting | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | November 18th 05 02:55 PM |
Hubble and Spitzer discover big, old and almost impossible galaxy | Luigi Caselli | Misc | 5 | September 28th 05 06:17 PM |