An old galaxy at z=7.1

The scientific paper is he

http://www.eso.org/public/archives/r...8/eso1508a.pdf

The press release is he

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1508/

From the paper's abstract:
quote

Here we report thermal dust emission from an archetypal early universe
star-forming galaxy, A1689-zD1. We detect its stellar continuum in
spectroscopy and determine its redshift to be z = 7.5+/- 0.2 from a
spectroscopic detection of the Ly alpha break. A1689-zD1 is
representative of the star-forming population during reionisation, with
a total star- formation rate of about 12 M sun per yr. The galaxy is
highly evolved: it has a large stellar mass, and is heavily enriched in
dust, with a dust-to-gas ratio close to that of the Milky Way. Dusty,
evolved galaxies are thus present among the fainter star-forming
population at z 7, in spite of the very short time since they first
appeared.

end quote

Note the language: They do not say "We have a result that contradicts
obviously the Big Bang theory".

[Mod. note: that's because it doesn't -- mjh]

They say in the press release
quote
'Although the exact origin of galactic dust remains obscure,' explains
Darach Watson, 'our findings indicate that its production occurs very
rapidly, within only 500 million years of the beginning of star
formation in the Universe -- a very short cosmological time frame, given
that most stars live for billions of years.'
end quote

We have then:

(1)
Our galaxy is ready to form stars almost immediately after the supposed
"bang".
(2)
It enters immediately into a star forming frenzy that stops abruptly to
give the impression of an aged galaxy forming only around 12 stars per year.
(3)
Somehow it manages to form enormous quantities of DUST, a tell-tale sign
of mature galaxies.

AMAZING the explanations of proponents of BB Theory!

This is a very preliminary result of ALMA. Now that this first result is
out, I am confident that we will see more and more such surprises in the
very near future.

jacob

---------------------------------------------

To the moderator:

I copied from the abstract, opened up "vi", saved in a file, eliminated
all non ascii characters, verified with "od -c" recopied into the

[Mod. note: non-ASCII characters (the quotes cut and pasted from the
press release) manually removed as usual -- mjh]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, jacob navia wrote:
The scientific paper is he

http://www.eso.org/public/archives/r...8/eso1508a.pdf

The press release is he

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1508/



Paper is available at arXiv.org

On 3/3/15 12:48 PM, jacob navia wrote:
The scientific paper is he

http://www.eso.org/public/archives/r...8/eso1508a.pdf

The press release is he

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1508/

I assume this all falls within the Big Bang theory.
But interestingly,
The paper indicates "unknown dust temperature"
and the press release indicates "cold gas and dust emissions"
How cold is cold?
Is the dust at CMBR temperature at z = 7.1
2.7*(1+7.1)^1 = 22 K
or even lower?

Richard D Saam

Le 03/03/2015 19:48, jacob navia a écrit :
Note the language: They do not say "We have a result that contradicts
obviously the Big Bang theory".

[Mod. note: that's because it doesn't -- mjh]

OK.

Let's go in steps.

Step BIG A: Dust
----------

1) Dust production in galaxies is a cumulative process. The older the
galaxy, the more dust it has. This is because supernova explosions
produce the dust, as has been recently found. [1], [2].

2) The galaxy A1689-zD1 has the same level of dust as our galaxy that
is probably 12 billion years old. Since that galaxy is at z= 7.5, it is
observed at a time when the universe was around 700 million years old,
hence it can't be older than that [3].

To accomodate observations with an age of both 0.7 Gy and 12 Gy we must
assume some process is eliminating dust in the milky way, process that
doesn't happen in A1689-zD1. Or maybe some other mysterious and
obviously "ad hoc" process. I am open to suggestions by BB people.


Step BIG B: Star formation.

The galaxy A1689-zD1 (if I understood the paper correctly) makes only 12
stars like the sun per year. In the paper, we have:

quote
The galaxy has already formed much of its stars and metals. Taken
together, these lines of evidence point to a picture of A1689-zD1
consistently forming stars at a moderate rate since z ~ 9, or possibly
having passed through its extreme starburst very rapidly and now in a
declining phase of star-formation.
end quote

Well, that must have been an EXTREMELY rapid star formation phase:
just 500 million years for forming all the millions of stars that make a
galaxy! We should subtract the "dark ages" time that has been shrinking
a LOT but should be at least 100 - 150 Million years. That leaves us
with only 350 Million years to form all those stars!

Perspective

I see that the arguments that I have advanced here since at least 2005
are being confirmed. In a message here on Sep 28th, 2005 I pointed out
That HUDF-JD2 that at that time was observed with 6 z 8 that had
stopped star formation. That galaxy has 8 times the mass of the milky way.

In another message on Nov 24 2004 I was reporting that BB theory had
"exploded" because of the discovery of a black hole 1 billion solar
masses was discovered at 12.8 billion ly. Five days ago astronomers
discovered at the same distance a black hole with 12 billion solar
masses. As the observable universe expands (because of better telescope
technology) all my previous arguments are confirmed...


[1] http://phys.org/news/2013-01-herschel-cosmic.html
[2] http://www.space.com/26482-cosmic-du...xplosions.html
[3] http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html I just plugged
z=7.5 in the "z" parameter leaving all other parameters at their default
values.

In article ,
jacob navia wrote:
1) Dust production in galaxies is a cumulative process. The older the
galaxy, the more dust it has. This is because supernova explosions
produce the dust, as has been recently found. [1], [2].

2) The galaxy A1689-zD1 has the same level of dust as our galaxy that
is probably 12 billion years old.

No. Read the paper. It has the same *gas to dust ratio*. It does not
have the same *amount of dust*. There is much less gas, much less dust
and many fewer stars than in the MW.

Well, that must have been an EXTREMELY rapid star formation phase:
just 500 million years for forming all the millions of stars that make a
galaxy! We should subtract the "dark ages" time that has been shrinking
a LOT but should be at least 100 - 150 Million years. That leaves us
with only 350 Million years to form all those stars!

The estimated stellar mass is 1.7 x 10^9 solar masses. So that's a
star formation rate of about 5 solar masses a year by your
calculation, actually less than the current star formation rate (which
they seem to have estimated by adding the UV and IR numbers).

In another message on Nov 24 2004 I was reporting that BB theory had
"exploded" because of the discovery of a black hole 1 billion solar
masses was discovered at 12.8 billion ly. Five days ago astronomers
discovered at the same distance a black hole with 12 billion solar
masses. As the observable universe expands (because of better telescope
technology) all my previous arguments are confirmed...

None of these are, or ever have been, arguments against the BB model
because they don't present any *quantitative* argument that these things
cannot be observed in the BB model. Numbers matter. Waving your hands
about and claiming that selected observations are consistent with your
preconceptions is not science.

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me

Le 04/03/2015 09:20, Martin Hardcastle a écrit :
In article ,
jacob navia wrote:
1) Dust production in galaxies is a cumulative process. The older the
galaxy, the more dust it has. This is because supernova explosions
produce the dust, as has been recently found. [1], [2].

2) The galaxy A1689-zD1 has the same level of dust as our galaxy that
is probably 12 billion years old.

No. Read the paper. It has the same *gas to dust ratio*. It does not
have the same *amount of dust*. There is much less gas, much less dust
and many fewer stars than in the MW.


That's exactly what I said. The same level of dust.

Well, that must have been an EXTREMELY rapid star formation phase:
just 500 million years for forming all the millions of stars that make a
galaxy! We should subtract the "dark ages" time that has been shrinking
a LOT but should be at least 100 - 150 Million years. That leaves us
with only 350 Million years to form all those stars!

The estimated stellar mass is 1.7 x 10^9 solar masses. So that's a
star formation rate of about 5 solar masses a year by your
calculation, actually less than the current star formation rate (which
they seem to have estimated by adding the UV and IR numbers).


Looking this a little bit ore, I went to one of the many sites that
accept the BB Theory as true: The "James Webb Space Telescope" site of
NASA. There it says:

quote
Until around 400 million years after the Big Bang, the Universe was a
very dark place. There were no stars, and there were no galaxies.
end quote

This would mean that our galaxy make all the stars and all that dust in
100 million years, supposing that the authors of the paper are right whe
they suppose that the galaxy was fully developed at z=9.

A more troublesome fact for BB theory is the report of the Planck satellite:
(http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...smic-dark-ages)

quote
"After the CMB was released, the universe was still very different from
the one we live in today, and it took a long time until the first stars
were able to form," says Marco Bersanelli of Università degli Studi di
Milano, Italy. "Planck's observations of the CMB polarization now tell
us that these 'dark ages' ended some 550 million years after the Big
Bang – more than 100 million years later than previously thought," he adds
end quote

That would mean that this galaxy couldn't exist because according to
observations it was fully formed (and with a lot of DUST!) 700 million
years after the supposed "bang". It would need to be fully formed in
only 150 million years

!!!

Anyway:

What you calculate above is the rate needed to form the stars seen, but
the TOTAL number of stars created is MUCH higher since there must be a
lot of stars that were created, lived and died to make all that dust!

All that in just 150 million years.

In another message on Nov 24 2004 I was reporting that BB theory had
"exploded" because of the discovery of a black hole 1 billion solar
masses was discovered at 12.8 billion ly. Five days ago astronomers
discovered at the same distance a black hole with 12 billion solar
masses. As the observable universe expands (because of better telescope
technology) all my previous arguments are confirmed...

None of these are, or ever have been, arguments against the BB model
because they don't present any *quantitative* argument that these things
cannot be observed in the BB model.

The gas to dust ratio of a galaxy is not a *quantitative* argument?

???

Numbers matter.

Yes.

Waving your hands
about and claiming that selected observations are consistent with your
preconceptions is not science.


Sorry but I can repeat the same sentence to you. Waving your hands at
the mounting evidence that we are seeing in the supposed "dark ages"
fully developed and ancient galaxies is not science.

But we can just wait a little bit. ALMA is just BEGINNING to be used. In
this year or the next we will find an even OLDER galaxy much FURTHER away.

In article ,
jacob navia wrote:
That's exactly what I said. The same level of dust.

So why do you think that's relevant? What calculation have you done
that suggests that the *gas to dust ratio* should be different in a
young galaxy and the MW? In the BB model both gas and dust will evolve
with time...

Looking this a little bit ore, I went to one of the many sites that
accept the BB Theory as true: The "James Webb Space Telescope" site of
NASA. There it says:

quote
Until around 400 million years after the Big Bang, the Universe was a
very dark place. There were no stars, and there were no galaxies.
end quote

I'm not really interested in defending random websites, which are
often written by and for journalists...

This would mean that our galaxy make all the stars and all that dust in
100 million years, supposing that the authors of the paper are right whe
they suppose that the galaxy was fully developed at z=9.

..... but that basically means that the star formation rate would have
to be about the same through the galaxy's lifetime as the measured
value (given the errors). So what's the problem?

quote
"After the CMB was released, the universe was still very different from
the one we live in today, and it took a long time until the first stars
were able to form," says Marco Bersanelli of Università degli Studi di
Milano, Italy. "Planck's observations of the CMB polarization now tell
us that these 'dark ages' ended some 550 million years after the Big
Bang -- more than 100 million years later than previously thought," he adds
end quote

That would mean that this galaxy couldn't exist because according to
observations it was fully formed (and with a lot of DUST!) 700 million
years after the supposed "bang". It would need to be fully formed in
only 150 million years

Of course it's not fully formed, where do you get that from? It is
about 1% of the mass of the Milky Way at z=0, and a small fraction of
the physical size. However, it only needs to form 10 solar masses a
year to reach that mass. Again, you are claiming that's a problem
without any evidence to support your claim.

What you calculate above is the rate needed to form the stars seen, but
the TOTAL number of stars created is MUCH higher since there must be a
lot of stars that were created, lived and died to make all that dust!

Not really -- the number of stars that have died to make the dust will
be a pretty small fraction of the total mass. Look up the concepts of
'initial mass function' and 'main sequence lifetime of stars'. This is
all elementary first-year astronomy that it's really useful to know
before setting up as a cosmologist!

The gas to dust ratio of a galaxy is not a *quantitative* argument?

No, because it's not an argument at all. Prove to me from first
principles that that gas to dust ratio cannot possibly be achieved in
1-3 hundred Myr and I'll agree you have a point. (But you can't.)

Sorry but I can repeat the same sentence to you. Waving your hands at
the mounting evidence that we are seeing in the supposed "dark ages"
fully developed and ancient galaxies is not science.

Again -- describing this galaxy as 'fully developed' is nonsense, and
you have no evidence at all that it's 'ancient'.

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 9:51:32 AM UTC-5, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
In article ,
jacob navia wrote:
That's exactly what I said. The same level of dust.

So why do you think that's relevant? What calculation have you done
that suggests that the *gas to dust ratio* should be different in a
young galaxy and the MW? In the BB model both gas and dust will evolve
with time...

------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a direct, straightforward question that I would like to have answered.

What quantitative or unique qualitative empirical result would lead us
to think that there is a problem with our theoretical model of the
early period of expansion?

I presume that there are some limits to what the existing model could
account for. So what are these "lines in the sand" that do offer clear
and definitive tests of the model?

In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Here is a direct, straightforward question that I would like to have answered.

What quantitative or unique qualitative empirical result would lead us
to think that there is a problem with our theoretical model of the
early period of expansion?

I presume that there are some limits to what the existing model could
account for. So what are these "lines in the sand" that do offer clear
and definitive tests of the model?

Well, if we stick to galaxy evolution and want a killer observation of
a single galaxy, it would be very hard to explain a stellar population
that looked older than the universe (not impossible, because
estimating the age of stellar populations relies on the assumption
that the initial mass function is known, and if you can somehow
arrange for no massive stars to form you mimic an old stellar
population, but pretty hard). Of course, if there was no big bang but
redshift is a measure of distance (tired light?) then we should see
plenty of old stellar populations in high-redshift galaxies just as we
see plenty of old stellar populations in low-redshift galaxies: but we
don't. Or, to pick another example, we could find a galaxy so massive
that it's clearly impossible for it to have formed its stellar
population in the lifetime of the universe (but that's tough to prove
because it relies on knowing what an implausible star formation rate
is; and the current example clearly isn't such an object).

What people who are actually working in this area do is to try to
model the formation of galaxies based on what we know about the
initial spectrum of mass perturbations from the CMB and on the
relevant physics of dark matter, gas and star formation, and then see
if their models agree with observable properties of the galaxy
population (*not* of individual objects, since there will necessarily
be large scatter among galaxies). This is tough to do but one can
imagine that it could clearly lead to predictions that were completely
at variance with observations (and moreover *should* do so if the BB
model was wrong, since no other model will predict the same
relationship between the CMB fluctuations and the properties of
galaxies). But actually such models are in good agreement with what's
observed. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2685 is an example of this: first
ghit for 'high-redshift galaxy mass function'; haven't read any more
of it than the abstract.) Anyone wanting to demonstrate that the BB
model is wrong from galaxy formation needs to do it this way to be
taken seriously.

(There are of course many other tests of the BB model.)

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a direct, straightforward question that I would like to have answered.

What quantitative or unique qualitative empirical result would lead us
to think that there is a problem with our theoretical model of the
early period of expansion?


There are many possible clear and definitive tests but here's a simple
one -- find any object that has an origin more than 13.8 billion years
ago. This could be a globular cluster in our Galaxy more than 13.8
billion years old, or a galaxy at z = 7.5 that is more than 700
million years old.

Note that in both cases - Galactic globular clusters and high redshift
galaxies -- there are objects with an origin more than ~13 billion
years ago. But we have never found an object with an origin 14 billion
or more years ago.