Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio news this morning
carried an interview with Chris Mullis about a galaxy cluster,
discovered initially with X-rays and then confirmed
spectroscopically with the VLT.

http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/~cmul...rch/xmmuj2235/

Discovery of an X-ray-Luminous Galaxy Cluster at z=1.4
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503004

The interview should soon be available at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/

Chris Mullis et al. say their technique could be used to find
many such objects with relative ease.

. . . XMMUJ2235.3-2557 is likely more massive
than RDCS1252-29 (previously the most massive, distant
cluster known at z = 1.24).

They estimate the cluster is 9 billion light years away. In
the interview Chris Mullis indicated that he thought the cluster
must have begun forming 11 billion years ago. He referred to
the age of the Universe as being 13.7 billion years.

He indicated that this cluster is a major challenge to theories
of galaxy formation - which will need to be revised in order to
account for them forming and collecting themselves into clusters
so rapidly.

I think that a better approach would be to question the Big Bang
Theory. All we need to disprove it is a mechanism by which
light is redshifted 1 part in about 15 billion per year of
travel in the intergalactic plasma. See

http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/

for such theories and discussion of problems with the BBT and
some alternative theories, concerning:

Heating and acceleration of stellar coronae and winds.

How galaxy clusters do not resemble the shapes one would
expect to result from gravitational formation, but rather
the liquid between bubbles in a foam. I propose the void
IGM is heated to extreme temperatures by a plasma redshift
(I plan to reformulate this as sparse particle redshift)
of distant starlight, creating high enough pressures,
despite the very low density, to push galaxies (and their
more massive surrounding coronae) into the cluster or
supercluster shapes we observe.

Plasma (sparse particle) redshift occurring close to quasars -
so the Lyman forest is local to the quasar. This would also
explain the failure to find the transverse proximity effect
with a foreground quasar - a failure which directly challenges
the Doppler / expansion assumption about redshift on which the
Big Bang Theory is based.

A theory of dark matter in galactic halos consisting of black
dwarfs and their collision fragments. This would be
impossible if the galaxies are less than 14 billion years
old or so, since (according to conventional theories, which
I think are probably fine) stars would take too long to cool.
However, if we we abandon the BBT and consider that galaxies
are probably much older than this, with some as-yet unknown
source of matter/energy, then they could be old enough to
generate collapsed and cooled stars with a mass exceeding that
of the luminous stars. I propose how these would eventually
wind up in widely dispersed elliptical orbits around a spiral
galaxy - so explaining the long-standing problem of galactic
rotation curves.

Pointers to Jerry Jensen's critique of the conventional
analysis of supernova light curves. This conventional finding
of time dilation would need to be disproven in order to
abandon the BBT.


- Robin http://astroneu.com http://www.firstpr.com.au

One more data point in the same direction:

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ..._universe.html
What did the universe look like when it was only 2 to 3 billion years=20
old? Astronomers used to think it was a pretty simple place containing=20
relatively small, young star-forming galaxies. Researchers now are=20
realizing that the truth is not that simple. Even the early universe was=20
a wildly complex place. Studying the universe at this early stage is=20
important in understanding how the galaxies near us were assembled over=20
time.

Jiasheng Huang (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) said, "It=20
looks like vegetable soup! We're detecting galaxies we never expected to=20
find, having a wide range of properties we never expected to see."

"It's becoming more and more clear that the young universe was a big zoo=20
with animals of all sorts," said Ivo Labb=EF=BF=BD (Observatories of the=20
Carnegie Institution of Washington), lead author on the study announcing=20
this result.

Using the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) aboard NASA's Spitzer Space=20
Telescope, the astronomers searched for distant, red galaxies in the=20
Hubble Deep Field South-a region of the southern sky previously observed=20
by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Their search was successful. The IRAC images displayed about a dozen=20
very red galaxies lurking at distances of 10 to 12 billion light-years.=20
Those galaxies existed when the universe was only about 1/5 of its=20
present age of 14 billion years. Analysis showed that the galaxies=20
exhibit a large range of properties.

"Overall, we're seeing young galaxies with lots of dust, young galaxies=20
with no dust, old galaxies with lots of dust, and old galaxies with no=20
dust. There's as much variety in the early universe as we see around us=20
today," said Labb=EF=BF=BD.

The team was particularly surprised to find a curious breed of galaxy=20
never seen before at such an early stage in the universe--

*old, red galaxies that had stopped forming new stars altogether.*

Those galaxies had rapidly formed large numbers of stars much earlier in=20
the universe's history, raising the question of what caused them to=20
"die" so soon.

The unpredicted existence of such "red and dead" galaxies so early in=20
time challenges theorists who model galaxy formation.

"We're trying to understand how galaxies like the Milky Way assembled=20
and how they got to look the way they appear today," said Giovanni Fazio=20
(CfA), a co-author on the study. "Spitzer offers capabilities that=20
Hubble and other instruments don't, giving us a unique way to study very=20
distant galaxies that eventually became the galaxies we see around us now=
..."

The study will be published in an upcoming issue of The Astrophysical=20
Journal Letters.

This press release is being issued in conjunction with the Observatories=20
of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

---------------------------------------------
Emphasis in
*old, red galaxies that had stopped forming new stars altogether.*
added by me.

How can an old galaxy form and die in only 2 Bill years?
Assuming a rotation rate identical to the milky way, it has
the time to make only 8 turns abd it is already dead and old...

Every months we have discoveries like this:
*There's as much variety in the early universe as we see around us today*

The scopes have arrived at the immediate neighborurhood of the
supposed big bang and there is not the slightest hint of a bang
to see.

jacob

jacob navia wrote:

One more data point in the same direction:

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ..._universe.html
What did the universe look like when it was only 2 to 3 billion years
old? Astronomers used to think it was a pretty simple place containing
relatively small, young star-forming galaxies. Researchers now are
realizing that the truth is not that simple. Even the early universe was
a wildly complex place.

The complex evolutionary state of the "early" universe described
in your post certainly can't be logically justified within the
scope of the BBT. While researchers are out there realizing the
"truth", they should also realize that continually upgrading the
theory to incorporate emerging, and damning evidence, will only
serve to further embarrass the entire physics community.

One theory has so far passed every test, with flying colors.

-----

Max Keon

jacob navia wrote:

How can an old galaxy form and die in only 2 Bill
years?

One can envision lots of mechanisms; all it takes is
something to sweep the galaxy clear of dust and gas
from which to create more stars.

A glancing collision with a larger galaxy could do
that.

The "big enough" jet from another galaxy's massive
black hole could perhaps do that, hosing away the
dust but leaving the existing stars.

Flying through a dust-thick extensive unconsolidated
cloud at relativistic relative velocities could
probably do that too; the stars would bully on
through, but the galactic dust between them would be
stopped in its tracks.

Once you stop forming stars, the blue ones die their
quick deaths, and soon only the longer-lived red
ones remain, and the galaxy looks "old" only because
it no longer has any surviving blue stars to make it
look "young". That is just as should be expected if
you take out the loose dust by _any_ mechanism.

There's nothing "contradictory to the big bang
theory" about finding a _few_ anamolous objects.

The universe is plenty big enough for a few highly
unlikely happenings nontheless to have occurred.

The more data we find, the more fractal-like the
universe seems, and fractals provide lots of room
for extremal cases.

Finding the anomalous objects to be the _prevalent_
types would certainly be worrisome to the BBT; any
theory which finds mostly exceptions to its
predictions hasn't long to live.

Assuming a rotation rate identical to the milky
way, it has the time to make only 8 turns a[n]d it
is already dead and old...

Which is completely irrelevant to the issue.

Every months we have discoveries like this:
*There's as much variety in the early universe as
we see around us today*

Yep; like every other theory of the real world,
things grow more interesting the better your ability
gets to resolve details in the data.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate the larger
theory.

What would be absolutely mind boggling would be if
the _opposite_ were the case, if all the new
instruments' resolving power were a waste of effort,
because nothing new or unexpected or interesting at
all were there to be seen.

The scopes have arrived at the immediate
neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.

You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
radiation that already confirms the BBT to several
decimals of precision?

That _is_ the Big Bang, granted you aren't going to
see it in an optical telescope, which would be
looking among the wrong
wavelengths for the Big Bang in any case.

Were you looking for some _other_ Big Bang?

If so, why?

One more than suffices, I would think.

xanthian, amused that _every_ theory finds its
_inevitable_ gathering of naysayers.

wrote:
jacob navia wrote:


How can an old galaxy form and die in only 2 Bill
years?


One can envision lots of mechanisms; all it takes is
something to sweep the galaxy clear of dust and gas
from which to create more stars.

A glancing collision with a larger galaxy could do
that.

The "big enough" jet from another galaxy's massive
black hole could perhaps do that, hosing away the
dust but leaving the existing stars.

Flying through a dust-thick extensive unconsolidated
cloud at relativistic relative velocities could
probably do that too; the stars would bully on
through, but the galactic dust between them would be
stopped in its tracks.


Relativistic relative velocities???

One of the fastest moving galaxies (NGC 1427A ) is falling into the
Fornax cluster at ... 600 Km/sec.
(http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/new...leases/2005/09)

To accelerate *A GALAXY* to relativistic speeds would require so
much energy that I can safely bet that there will never be an
observation of such an object. Besides, the high speed of the
galaxy should be *noticable* in its spectra, either in an increased
or decreased red/blue shift.

This looks like a desperate explanation. Yes; it is *possible* but...
is it likely?


Once you stop forming stars, the blue ones die their
quick deaths, and soon only the longer-lived red
ones remain, and the galaxy looks "old" only because
it no longer has any surviving blue stars to make it
look "young". That is just as should be expected if
you take out the loose dust by _any_ mechanism.


Just 2 Billion years?
A sun-like star lives 10 Billion years. Even if there weren't
any new star formations, sun-like stars should go on for quite
a while. Supposing this "encounter at relativistic speeds" takes
place 1 Bill years after the bang, we should see a lot of blue
stars 1 Billion years later, not enough to make the galaxy red.


There's nothing "contradictory to the big bang
theory" about finding a _few_ anamolous objects.


Sorry but this is *one* from many examples discovered.
Old galaxies with iron in it, galaxy clusters at
9 Billion years
(http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-04-05.html)
and *many* others.

The universe is plenty big enough for a few highly
unlikely happenings nontheless to have occurred.


Probably. The point is, the more "unlikely" events we find, the
more unlikely the theory becomes, that is my point. I am not
saying that this is 100% impossible to explain with BB theory, just
that BB theory becomes more and more unlikely as more facts are
known.

Ptolomeus rotating spheres model could ALWAYS accomodate new
observations by making a NEW sphere. But at some point people
just preferred the new model because it was simpler...

Now, the big problem here is that there isn't any Galileo
around :-)

The more data we find, the more fractal-like the
universe seems, and fractals provide lots of room
for extremal cases.


Finding the anomalous objects to be the _prevalent_
types would certainly be worrisome to the BBT; any
theory which finds mostly exceptions to its
predictions hasn't long to live.


That's exactly my point.


Assuming a rotation rate identical to the milky
way, it has the time to make only 8 turns a[n]d it
is already dead and old...


Which is completely irrelevant to the issue.



No. Galaxies are flat, and to get flat they have to
rotate for some time to flatten themselves isn't it?

Every months we have discoveries like this:
*There's as much variety in the early universe as
we see around us today*


Yep; like every other theory of the real world,
things grow more interesting the better your ability
gets to resolve details in the data.


I agree

That doesn't necessarily invalidate the larger
theory.

What would be absolutely mind boggling would be if
the _opposite_ were the case, if all the new
instruments' resolving power were a waste of effort,
because nothing new or unexpected or interesting at
all were there to be seen.


The scopes have arrived at the immediate
neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.


You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
radiation that already confirms the BBT to several
decimals of precision?


There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging"
and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god"
story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there
is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background.

The problem is that it could very well be that we just
do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it
as we can: as a "BB " relic.

That _is_ the Big Bang, granted you aren't going to
see it in an optical telescope, which would be
looking among the wrong
wavelengths for the Big Bang in any case.


I am not so stupid to believe we could "see" the big bang.
Of course not. But its immediate neighborhood should have
*some* marks of such a "bang" having happened relatively shrtly,
i.e. 500 Mill years...

Were you looking for some _other_ Big Bang?

If so, why?

One more than suffices, I would think.

xanthian, amused that _every_ theory finds its
_inevitable_ gathering of naysayers.

And, an established theory will find its inevitable
gathering of people that will stick to it no matter what.

jacob

In article , jacob navia
writes:

Ptolomeus rotating spheres model could ALWAYS accomodate new
observations by making a NEW sphere. But at some point people
just preferred the new model because it was simpler...

No. As Fourier pointed out, ANY periodic motion can be thought of as
consisting of a sum of sinusoidal motions of various periods, so in that
sense, yes (I bet Ptolemy didn't know he was doing Fourier synthesis).
However, this applies just to TRANSVERSE motions. Ptolemy's model
predicts completely different RADIAL motions than that of Copernicus or
Kepler so, as soon as you can measure the distance to a planet, you can
falsify Ptolemy's model.

As for the rest of the discussion, I think you need to define "big bang
theory" before going any further. A common mistake is to define "big
bang theory" to mean more than it actually does. Even if these
additional details really are falsified by some observations, it just
means that these additional details are falsified, not the "core" of the
big bang theory.

jacob navia wrote:

wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
-----
-----

The scopes have arrived at the immediate
neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.


You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
radiation that already confirms the BBT to several
decimals of precision?

There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging"
and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god"
story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there
is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background.

The problem is that it could very well be that we just
do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it
as we can: as a "BB " relic.

Since the validity of the BB theory is very much in question, I
assume that arguments posed by alternative theories are now
open for discussion?

The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
explanation for the CMBR. But without some prior understanding of
the theory the link may not make much sense. To make things even
more difficult, the concept itself is almost incomprehendable
because there are virtually no parallels that can be drawn from our
understanding of how we fit into the structure of the universe that
can be compared with it.

Describing such a universe is no less difficult than it is to
comprehend, so don't expect too much if/when you visit. And spare
a thought for me.

-----

Max Keon

[Mod. note: Just in case people aren't aware of the policy,
`alternative theories' have always been up for discussion on s.a.r.,
but they should be discussed in a scientific (and polite!) way. A
descent to personalities (by either side) or arguments that blatantly
ignore the experimental evidence are likely to run foul of the
moderation policy -- mjh]

Max Keon wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

-----
-----


The scopes have arrived at the immediate
neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.


You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
radiation that already confirms the BBT to several
decimals of precision?


There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging"
and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god"
story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there
is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background.

The problem is that it could very well be that we just
do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it
as we can: as a "BB " relic.


Since the validity of the BB theory is very much in question,

Not by the actual scientists working in cosmology.


I assume that arguments posed by alternative theories are now
open for discussion?

Everyone is free everytime to propose alternative theories. See the
moderator's comment below.


The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
explanation for the CMBR.

Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
without any spectral lines? Why its temperature changes with time in
accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The fact that if the CMBR
is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
consistent with determinations using other methods? Why computer
simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
acoustic peak? The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
Sachs-Wolfe effect


But without some prior understanding of
the theory the link may not make much sense.

If your theory can explain all the things listed above
(quantitatively), I'll look at it.


[snip]


[Mod. note: Just in case people aren't aware of the policy,
`alternative theories' have always been up for discussion on s.a.r.,
but they should be discussed in a scientific (and polite!) way. A
descent to personalities (by either side) or arguments that blatantly
ignore the experimental evidence are likely to run foul of the
moderation policy -- mjh]

That is a really good point: one should first be aware of the
experimental evidence before one starts proposing alternative theories.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote:

[snip]


The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
explanation for the CMBR.


Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
without any spectral lines? Why its temperature changes with time in
accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The fact that if the CMBR
is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
consistent with determinations using other methods? Why computer
simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
acoustic peak? The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
Sachs-Wolfe effect

Oh, and let's add the observed polarization of the CMBR.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
-----
-----

There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging"
and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god"
story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there
is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background.

The problem is that it could very well be that we just
do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it
as we can: as a "BB " relic.


Since the validity of the BB theory is very much in question,

Not by the actual scientists working in cosmology.

I assume that arguments posed by alternative theories are now
open for discussion?

Everyone is free everytime to propose alternative theories. See the
moderator's comment below.

The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
explanation for the CMBR.

Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
without any spectral lines?

Yes.

Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the
predictions of the BBT?

The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature
of course. My theory predicts a similar curve, and that has been
tweaked to the shape of the CMBR with a multiplier which indicates
the current state of evolution of the universe.

The CMBR paints the picture to which we all fit our theories.

The fact that if the CMBR
is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
consistent with determinations using other methods?

Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required.

Why computer
simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
acoustic peak?

Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed
universe that could have been there forever.

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
Sachs-Wolfe effect

I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks.
But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine.

What evidence supports that effect anyway? The assumption seem to
be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential
wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or
extending their wavelengths. If a photon is moving through a
deepening potential well, it will exit the well with an extended
wavelength (I think). But that is clearly impossible. It would be
hard to explain where the trailing edge of a very long wavetrain
in the visible light spectrum might be stored while it's waiting
for the extended train length in front of it to exit the potential
well. Even if time slows in the deepening well and the light path
length increases, that path length will again shorten when the
wavetrain moves away from the well. Whatever is assumed to happen,
what is going to permanently alter? What experimental evidence
directly supports such a thing?

If the deepening potential well was moving away from an observer,
that effect may be noted. But that's not relevant to the CMBR, is
it?

But without some prior understanding of
the theory the link may not make much sense.

If your theory can explain all the things listed above
(quantitatively), I'll look at it.

[snip]

[Mod. note: Just in case people aren't aware of the policy,
`alternative theories' have always been up for discussion on s.a.r.,
but they should be discussed in a scientific (and polite!) way. A
descent to personalities (by either side) or arguments that blatantly
ignore the experimental evidence are likely to run foul of the
moderation policy -- mjh]

That is a really good point: one should first be aware of the
experimental evidence before one starts proposing alternative theories.

One should also be aware that the evidence can be interpreted in
more ways than one. From the time of my initial encounter with the
zero origin universe (around 30 years ago) I've tested the theory
to the best of my ability against emerging evidence. The universe
seems to be falling into place very nicely. Even the electron and
positron, through experimental evidence, have emerged with amazing
precision to fill the role of the postulated components which I
initially labeled "absolute opposite stress characters".
----------

The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your
follow-up post is a question I need to address. Could it be caused
by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can
be termed thus)?

-----

Max Keon