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

Reflections on ULAS J1120+0641 and GN-z11



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 8th 17, 05:09 PM posted to sci.astro.research
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reflections on ULAS J1120+0641 and GN-z11

[[Mod. note -- I have rewrapped overly-long lines. -- jt]]

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 5:14:16 PM UTC-5, jacobnavia wrote:
Most of the original snipped ...

I worked a few hours for this post, and I think it contain physics
arguments that I calculated by hand. I think my calculations are right,
and I posted them to you.


Steve Willner has already asked you about several of these calculations of =
yours; I too am interested in reading more about why you think they are "ri=
ght".

Well, ULAS J1120_0641 is the most dstant quasar yet discovered. GN-z11
is the most distant galaxy ever seen... until tomorrow, of course.


First, thanks for this post. It gave me an excuse to read up on an active p=
art of contemporary astrophysics that I don't follow. I haven't yet had a l=
ook at papers on the history of formation of SMBH; maybe later.

And we have also GN-z11, a one billion solar masses galaxy at just...
400 Million years after that bang. I couldn't understand how people
could explain how that fits into our cosmological models and went to the=


original science article.


{snip}

But wait a minute here. We are just a few hundred million years after a
big "bang"... Can we apply any models based on data MUCH later in the
history of the universe?


{snip}

That is completely impossible. And we aren't done yet. I am sure in the
next time astronomers will discover EVEN FURTHER OUT galaxies since the
Hubble team says 90% of the galaxies are further out and are invisible
to us.

Just wondering...


There are quite a few papers which report the results of simulations
of galaxy formation (etc) in the early universe (z~5). One in
particular directly addresses GN-z11 (preprint:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08054). I recommend that you use ADS to
find papers this references, and others which cite it (and the
references) to dig into this topic in some detail. Figure 1 is, I
think, particularly impressive.

Myself, I was struck by just how conservative the models are! For
example, there's nothing about what effects CDM self-interaction
might have.

A suggestion or two: redshifts are more-or-less directly observed;
"Myr" (e.g. "million years after a big "bang"") is not. And so
actual values will depend on the (values of the) parameters used
in the models, such as the Hubble constant. In comparing "Myr"
values, don't you think it would be sensible to check what models
were used to estimate them, if only to see if they are compatible?

One more, out of order:

Stars form in VERY cold environments in galaxies, protected from
radiation by dust and cool gas.


A great many galaxies have intense star-formation in or near their
nuclei, and even our own MW has some very impressive star clusters
within a kpc or so of SgrA*. How do you explain the formation of
the stars in such clusters/environments?
  #2  
Old January 8th 17, 07:23 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Reflections on ULAS J1120+0641 and GN-z11

In article ,
writes:

A suggestion or two: redshifts are more-or-less directly observed;
"Myr" (e.g. "million years after a big "bang"") is not. And so
actual values will depend on the (values of the) parameters used
in the models, such as the Hubble constant. In comparing "Myr"
values, don't you think it would be sensible to check what models
were used to estimate them, if only to see if they are compatible?


Good point. While the values of the standard model appear to have
really converged and many people use them, older papers might use
different values not just for the Hubble constant, but for Omega and
lambda as well. While the Hubble constant scales inversely with the age
of the universe, the relationship of observable quantities on lambda and
Omega is more complicated.

Of course, time is more relevant than redshift for star formation.

Also, while lookback time increases relatively rapidly with redshift at
low redshift, at higher redshifts this is much less the case. After
all, the big bang was a finite time ago but at infinite redshift. So
while the difference between redshifts of, say, 1 and to corresponds to
a relatively big difference in lookback time, there isn't much
difference between redshifts of, say, 10 and 11. So even if galaxies
are discovered at higher and higher redshifts, the higher the redshift,
the less the relative increase in lookback time (and decrease in time
since the big bang).
  #3  
Old January 11th 17, 01:39 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacobnavia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Reflections on ULAS J1120+0641 and GN-z11

Le 08/01/2017 =E0 19:23, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a =E9crit :
In article ,
writes:

A suggestion or two: redshifts are more-or-less directly observed;
"Myr" (e.g. "million years after a big "bang"") is not. And so
actual values will depend on the (values of the) parameters used
in the models, such as the Hubble constant. In comparing "Myr"
values, don't you think it would be sensible to check what models
were used to estimate them, if only to see if they are compatible?


Good point. While the values of the standard model appear to have
really converged and many people use them, older papers might use
different values not just for the Hubble constant, but for Omega and
lambda as well.


I used Ned's calculator with the default options. I think that is enough.

While the Hubble constant scales inversely with the age
of the universe, the relationship of observable quantities on lambda and
Omega is more complicated.


I suppose Ned uses the latest value.

Of course, time is more relevant than redshift for star formation.


YES.

I am trying to calculate the threshold mass for star formation, that
depends on the temperature power 3/2, divided by the square root of the
density. Problem is, for a density we need mass and volume, and we have
the mass (1e9 Solar masses), just the volume in cubic meters is missing.
The units are difficult to follow for an uninitiated:

Half light radius... It is the radius of something, so probably a
volume, but I have to look it up. Once I figure out that, we can then
see how things come out.

[[Mod. note -- It's explained by the figure caption in the Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_radius
which is the very first result of a google search
galaxy "half light radius"
-- jt]]
  #4  
Old January 12th 17, 06:01 AM posted to sci.astro.research
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reflections on ULAS J1120+0641 and GN-z11

On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-5, jacobnavia wrote:
{snip}

I used Ned's calculator with the default options. I think that is enough.


For future reference, I think it would help your readers if you
state things like this explicitly, and copy the actual "default
options" (from my own experience, these change, as the authors
decide to update them).

While the Hubble constant scales inversely with the age
of the universe, the relationship of observable quantities on lambda an=

d
Omega is more complicated.


I suppose Ned uses the latest value.


I suspect there's a lot more involved than merely reading "the
latest value" ... there's the model (LCDM, but that's not set in
stone) as well as the actual values (three, not just H0). Also, I
suspect they're conservative, in the sense that the model and values
do not get changed unless they feel there's strong consensus, based
on published results.

Of course, time is more relevant than redshift for star formation.


YES.

I am trying to calculate the threshold mass for star formation, that
depends on the temperature power 3/2, divided by the square root of the
density. Problem is, for a density we need mass and volume, and we have
the mass (1e9 Solar masses), just the volume in cubic meters is missing.

{snip}

I would strongly recommend that you also include some estimate of
uncertainty, particularly where a variable depends sensitively on
one or more values of the input parameters, and/or the model used
in the derivation. Too, be very clear in your definitions; example:
"mass", as in "the threshold mass for star formation" ... do you
mean total mass (including dark matter)? total baryonic mass (i.e.
ignoring DM)? "cold gas" mass? ...
 




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
Reflections on ULAS J1120+0641 and GN-z11 Steve Willner Research 0 January 7th 17 10:31 AM
Beautiful Cosmic Reflections Dr. Tuan T. Ho[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 November 11th 08 06:40 PM
Beautiful Cosmic Reflections Rexsy Policy 1 November 8th 08 02:45 PM
Reflections from Coe: Looking In The Mirror Again... Lumpy Darkness Amateur Astronomy 30 August 11th 06 06:17 AM
"Reflections on Columbia" Stuf4 Space Shuttle 17 December 7th 03 12:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 PM.


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.