Jump to content
Science Forums

'Baby' Galaxy question


Remus

Recommended Posts

Hello everyeone. This is my first post here.

 

I have a question about this article:

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4056

 

It states that we see this galaxy when it was 800 Million years old and is "about as far away as the most distant known galaxies". My question is how far away do we see it? It would seem that we couldn't be seeing it as 13 Billion light-years away since what we are seeing is from a time that the universe was smaller than that. Or is that where my misunderstanding lies since I don't know how big the universe was during that time. Can anyone help me with this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the assumption is that the furthest perimeter observations happened closest to the beginning of the universe. This assumption may have some flaws. For that galaxy to be at the perimeter and be say 15 billion light years away would imply that it was at that distance 15 billion years ago for us to see that light today. We do not know what it is doing today, in real time, for another 15 billions years. It could have expired and all its stars exploded billions of years ago but we won't see than data for billions of years. The doppler shift at the perimeter represents the dopplar shift 15 billion years ago. Today, in real time, we do not know what the perimeter is doing. A better source of real time data are closer objects, i.e., less time uncertainty, these all have less red shift, implying deceleration.

 

Putting aside distance, if it did form 800 millions years into evolution that is another data point (plus superstructure data) that disproves a continuum expansion model of the universe. It suggests a quantum expansion scenario. Think of it, if our sun took billions of years to form from a cloud of dust how can a giant galaxy form and still create stars in a fraction of the time? Maybe the solar genesis theory is off target too because it also assume a continuum universe expansion percursor scenario for its genesis, which this galaxy disproves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydro, the birth of stars is easily observable since we can see stars be born in the universe today. But if you refer to the initial stars then yes, it is a problem that the early universe seems to be so mature. I think we posted a news item about that recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct about new stars being formed, but even this data is from the past. For example, if we sent a robot to pluto to walk around, as we watch what it sees through its eyeball camera ,we notice that it about to fall into a pit. We may react immediately to stir it clear but it already fell into the pit before the video signal reached us and our rapid response signal arrives even later. In other words, what we see is not really happening in the real time sense but is what happened some time back. The perimeter of the universe should be going faster than inside because it reflects signals from a time closer to an initial energetic expansion when temp and kinetic enery was extreme.

 

The analogy of the universe expanding equally in all directions like blowing up a balloon, appears to address these difference in velocity, since the perimeter would expand faster under the conditions of uniform expansion. However, with a uniform expansion we should find primordial things among the closest objects since they would have nearly overlapped the perimeter at the beginning, i.e., when the balloon had little air. Why are only traces of the earliest history of the universe found at the perimeter? Two answers are possible. One, the universe formed at the perimeter and moved toward center, thereby keeping the outside older than the inside. The other alternative is that the time delay of data causes us to see further in the past the further we out go. For example, say we put a robot on all the planets from mars outward, each at the starting line of a race. We then synchonize the digital starting gun so they all begin exactly the same earth time, the robot on Mars will appear to start and finish first, then the one on jupiter, etc. It will take longer for the TV signal to reach us the further out the robot is, it will appear to give it the slowest time. The stop watch is ticking on the earth while it just appears to stand there due to the time delay. If we assume a uniform expansion than closer object have less builtin time delay and can better reflect the state of the primal universe in current time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. There is something that still isn't clear for me though. Forgive my ignorance in this area. There are several aspects of cosmology that I'm still trying to get my mind around.

 

For that galaxy to be at the perimeter and be say 15 billion light years away would imply that it was at that distance 15 billion years ago for us to see that light today.

If it is at a distance of 15 billion light years, wouldn't that imply that what we see is at least that old? Let me tell you my line of thought. At 800 million years after the beginning, this galaxy could not be more than 800 million light years away from out present position. During the 13-14 billion years since, space has been expanding and this galaxy would appear to move to its present distance. Even if this galaxy is moving close to c, we would still see it as older than 800 million years. Where is the flaw in my thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paradox this creates is how can it get so far out and still retain an image of the past? The observation that the little galaxy could form so fast implies that the initial expansion had build it quantum density differences. The superstructure data says the same thing; it would take too long to form from a uniform expansion. But how could this quantum chunk get so far out? One logical way would be for the initial expansion creating dense chunks that expand uniformly with respect to each other. As some synchronized time, they all phase change into inertial reference, i.e., billions of mini big bangs. When the starting gun goes off, the distant chunks appear to just being starting the race due to the time delay of the signal reaching us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HydrogenBond, I am aware of how the propagation of light works. If you look at previous discussions in this forum you will find plenty of topics about the expansion of the universe, and also the balloon analogy.

 

The reason there is no prime material anywhere in the unverse, and no hint of a perimeter, is that all of the universe (according to the standard big bang theory) was born at the same instant, and as such there is no "outside" (C1ay will disagree with me here) - everything we see around us, and everything we will ever see, comes from the energy contained within the universe then, and will remain within our universe for as long as it lasts.

 

Thus the diameter of our universe is much larger than 13.7 billion light years (13.7 being the current estimate thanks to the COBE project). However, if the above theory is correct then nothing we can observe will be older than that because it did not exist prior to the big bang. Stars can however be further away than 13.7 billion light years and still be younger than that - because the expansion of the universe has not happened at the speed of light (in which case we would only be able to see our own galaxy), and because the universe does not have a "center" or an "edge" - everywhere has an equal claim to being "the middle".

 

This is why the observable universe appears to be a sphere with us in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyeone. This is my first post here.

 

I have a question about this article:

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4056

 

It states that we see this galaxy when it was 800 Million years old and is "about as far away as the most distant known galaxies". My question is how far away do we see it? It would seem that we couldn't be seeing it as 13 Billion light-years away since what we are seeing is from a time that the universe was smaller than that. Or is that where my misunderstanding lies since I don't know how big the universe was during that time. Can anyone help me with this one?

However, it is not possible to extrapolate the distance from the article, AFAIK. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!

Remus,

 

If they have dated it to 800 Million year after (very young), 13 Billion light-years is

about right. Currently as far as we can see is about 13.7 Billion LY. Not a lot of info

on how "big" the universe was then depending on which model you choose.

 

Tormod,

 

I think you are pretty much right-on. Though the reason (especially depending upon

Inflation, though also with VSL) is that we don't really know how big the universe really

is, just how far we can see (the observable universe). Some have speculated based

upon Inflation (in Greene's book mentioned elsewhere) that universe may be as big as

78 Billion LY. Also Michio Kaku has a new book, check it out as well.

 

maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard big bang theory has been proven false by this young galaxy. This galaxy formed so fast that the expansion had to have at least one major discontinuity right from the beginning or close to the beginning. The superstructure data says the same thing. So the early expansion was not entirely uniform at least at the particle level. It still may have been uniform at the galaxy level. The model I suggested starts at galaxy level discontinuiites, which is more consistent with this data. The details are foggy.

 

What makes no scense is that there is a primordial atom center of finite size and an edge of the universe, beyond that simple geometry and common sense does not apply. Maybe the universe needs to be this way because the current theory is wrong (this little galaxy disproves continuous particle expansion and random discontinuities).

 

The other alternative is that light can play tricks when flowing through the universe. The fact that we can see a central or primordial phenomena at the perimeter might imply we are seeing everything backwards; like looking in the mirror where the farthest objects behind us appear to be the farthest object in front of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can get silly and set up many mirrors, like a house of mirrors, with the many mirrors positoned at the distances found in space. This will create not only reflection, but also time delay and reflections of time delay, etc.. No matter where in the house one goes they will appear as the center, and the history of their walk through the house will eventually be reflected back to them and reappear later in their visit as though coming from the perimeter.

 

The galaxy level quantum expansion of the universe can accommodate the house of mirrors because rather than the universe beginning at particle chunks it began with larger quanta at the galaxy level. These expand with space similar to cell division at the speed of light, until bang they all phase change into inertial. The light of holographic creation is released into a holographic continuum of aging distortions in space and time, i.e, the house of mirrors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the standard BB theory is right the early universe of this galaxy WAS very much smaller. However it was then as it is now observable in all directions.

 

Look back in time and you look at a small universe, but you see it stretched over the whole sky in every direction. The galaxy must be a lot smaller than: (visible diameter)/distance would make it.

 

That is the theory. Surprisingly it has not yet been tested because:

 

1) Distant galaxies are different to nearby ones because they belong to a less evolved universe Like for like comparisons are difficult.

 

2) We just can't see enough details of the most distant galaxies to tell.

 

My guess is that we are very close to finding out. Sampling the Doppler shift due to rotation of a few of the most distant galaxies and the result should be definitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure is exiting for me. I'm not a fan of the BB. Not that it must be wrong but other theories deserve their fair quota of supporters. I am hoping for an upset

 

We know for sure of 2 ways of creating red shift. Gravity and velocity. I'm rooting for some version of the former being the cause of hubble red shift. If so the universe was as big then as it is now.

 

As for the BB, I was never convinced by the idea of the universe's matter originating as pure energy. There just isn't any real evidence that energy can by converted into anything other than equal quantities of matter and antimatter. There is plenty of experimental evidence that it can't. I'm rooting for the matter to have arrived in this universe as matter. presumably mostly hydrogen. If so there is no particular reason to suppose it all arrived at once. It might have arrived slowly or in a series of events. Ether would explain the presence of old galaxies in a (mostly) new universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting... I posed this exact question in my first post regarding a star/galaxy said to be viewed at 13 billion light years away. Is it then 13 billion light years away NOW or was that light given off 13 billion years ago? If it was given off 13 billion years ago, the universe was small enough that any 13-billion-year old light from any source would have surpassed us by now because the universe was more compact. On the other hand, if the source (star or galaxy) is 13 billion light years away NOW, that means it had to be 13 billion light years distance from us when the light was given off, which means the universe was at least that big that long ago, and is now much bigger and older than 13.7 billion years. For some reason Tormod ridiculed me for making such an inquiry because similar questons had been posed before... I'm not sure why he didn't do so in this post :confused:

 

The answer can be explained within the context of the big bang model, but it is somewhat complex and is never addressed or explained, which is very frustrating. My cosmological model will explain another possible solution to the paradox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason Tormod ridiculed me for making such an inquiry because similar questons had been posed before... I'm not sure why he didn't do so in this post :confused:

 

Hm...maybe you should try fo understand this thread before you slam me for anything. I don't see anybody claiming that the galaxy was 13 billion light years away from us when the light was emitted (apart from you, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...