Astronomers Find an Old-Looking Galaxy In the Early Universe 157
schwit1 tips news that a team of astronomers has studied one of the most distant galaxies ever observed and found puzzling results. The light we're seeing from this galaxy comes from roughly 700 million years after the Big Bang, so on the cosmic scale, it's quite young. But the galaxy appears much older than astronomers expected. Their paper was published today in Nature.
At this age it would be expected to display a lack of heavier chemical elements — anything heavier than hydrogen and helium, defined in astronomy as metals. These are produced in the bellies of stars and scattered far and wide once the stars explode or otherwise perish. This process needs to be repeated for many stellar generations to produce a significant abundance of the heavier elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen. Surprisingly, the galaxy A1689-zD1 seemed to be emitting a lot of radiation in the far infrared, indicating that it had already produced many of its stars and significant quantities of metals, and revealed that it not only contained dust, but had a dust-to-gas ratio that was similar to that of much more mature galaxies.
Are we looking through the center... (Score:1)
at a Galaxy on the far side of where the Big Bang occurred?
Re: (Score:2)
That was somewhat my thought. Some gravitational anomally that has bent light representing of as being in an area other than its real location giving the appearance of old-young.
Or perhaps there are more than one way for the heavier metals to form or our understanding is flawed. Its not like we can easily recreate the process we think is behind this.
If it smells like a duck... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or perhaps, like the lack of compliance with known physics of the purported monoblock, this is another indicator that the big bang theory is simply wrong.
Just perhaps.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not old, it's retro!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing like an ad hominem argument to drive home your point.
Re: (Score:2)
"Monoblock" or "the primordial monoblock" is a term for the presumed state of the presumed material comprising the presumed universe just before it presumably exploded. Everything, no exceptions, including space itself, all in one tiny... something, (tiny with respect to... something), that did.... something, and then [waves hands] Big Bang! Try this google search. [google.com]
Science can trace the expansion of the universe backwards quite a ways, within the bounds of our understanding of physics as it stands and it mak
STILL smells like a duck... (Score:2)
Yes, that's my point exactly. They don't. Because they can't. Because the theory is based on assuming something happened that our physics can't describe. BB theory is therefore incomplete in a way that makes it unable to stand in the face of what at this time appear to be some very simple and reasonable
Re: (Score:3)
Naw...distance is probably determined by red shifted light spectrum... so unless there is a huge, mass of some kind, something grossly larger than anything theorized to date, out there....hmmm
Re: Are we looking through the center... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No. First of all, we don't know whether the Big Bang had a center, it may have occurred everywhere at the same time throughout the infinite universe. But even if it did have a center, the light coming from the other side of that center would still have traveled the same long amount of time to get here, so it should still appear just as young as any other galaxy at that distance. The apparent age (how old it looks when we watch it through our telescopes) is not due to absolute location, but relative distance
Re: (Score:1)
His/her post was likely about the "relative distance" and "closer."
If it would be X light-years to the center in time and space and the galaxy would be 700 million along in development towards our side (X-n or whatever) "it should had looked 700 million years old" by that time.
Whereas if we looked passed the center it would still be .. oh wait, no, I possibly get it, to be able to see it that far it would had to be even older? .. anyway, the point I wanted to make is that if it was 700 million years along t
Re: (Score:1)
The big bang hypothesis is based on two things:
- Objects that are far away, also appear to be flying away from us at high speeds. Speed and distance even appear to be proportional. We can measure the speed quite easily using redshift: all light (and other electromagnetic radiation) is shifted to lower frequencies, the entire spectrum moves down (well below red, by the way). Spectrums have thin black lines corresponding to the presence of certain elements, and we see the same thin lines at lower frequencies
Re: (Score:2)
The perceivable universe is smaller than the actual universe. Our power to resolve distant detail is still growing. Maybe if we expand our horizons by improving our equipment we'll discover that parts of the universe appear to be getting closer, and what we took to be a big bang was just one bang of many.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful, or we would have seen large effects.
But what's possible is that this galaxy is moving towards us as far as movement goes, which counteracts some of the effects of the universe expanding. It is still "receding" because the expansion of the universe is much bigger than any movement can be, but slower than other objects at the same distance. Which allows for it to be older than average.
If so, of even more interest would be those galaxies that are moving the fastest from us (in physical movement), a
Re: (Score:3)
The big bang hypothesis is based on two things:
It is based on a bit more than 2 things. Early elemental abundance, cosmic microwave background radiation, large scale structure or lack thereof... etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And that last bit is what is causing the paradox with this new galaxy: although it is far away and should therefore appear younger (it is the same age today, but we see it as it was in the past), it looks much older than it ought to look.
"Today" makes no sense at intergalactic scales. There is no one clock that ticks for the entire universe that isn't bound to the cone of causality; time is only a local phenomenon.
If you could travel to that galaxy[*], it would be old when you reached it, but saying anything about its age now except that it is young from our point of view is wrong. There is no common frame of reference.
[*]: You can't, even at the speed of light. Due to the increasing rate of expansion of the universe, the galaxies near
Re: (Score:1)
"Today" makes no sense at intergalactic scales. There is no one clock that ticks for the entire universe that isn't bound to the cone of causality; time is only a local phenomenon.
(...)
Due to the increasing rate of expansion of the universe, the galaxies near the end of what we can observe will appear to recede at a speed faster than c
"recede at a speed faster than c" makes no sense at intergalactic scales. Speed is only a local phenomenon.
Of course, we could just agree to stop being pedantic and use the same coordinate system that pretty much everybody (including you, apparently) seems to be using: the one where space is roughly homogenous at large scales and the speed of light is the same everywhere, measured relative to local expanding space. Then you'll find that both my and your statements about "now" and "speed" end up making sense
Re: (Score:2)
The big bang and current theory say that space is expanding. That gives red shift over distance; no 'age' required. Obviously, age is implied over distance, given speed of light, which we only know to be constant within this particular 'space density' in which we now live.
We don't know that the speed of light was always as it is now. So, using it to measure both distance and age is a double assumption, truly the edge of theory with no other corroborating evidence.
Well, I take that back; we do have the CMB a
Re: (Score:2)
For speed of light to vary, either photons must have mass (so they don't need to move at c anymore), or the constant of nature c would need to vary over spaceitme. Either of these would have massive effects on pretty much everything: photons mediate electromagnetic force, which not only underlays all of chemistry, but combines with strong interaction to define stable elements and how much energy nuclear reactions release, while c defines the ver
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing, photons do have mass, which is how they push solar sails and are bent by gravity. If light had no mass, then black holes would be pretty bright.
You describe variations in spacetime, which is not what I said. I suggested that c (and so of course g, and all the other constants of nature) perhaps varied with the expansion of the universe. For sure, some 'constants of nature' have varied since the initial moment after the big bang.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
We don't know that the speed of light was always as it is now.
The speed of light is inversely proportional to two universal constants, the permittivity and permeability of free space. Both of these constants have observable effects, particularly permittivity which governs the strength of electrostatic interaction and therefore effects the absorption/emission spectra of atoms. We don't need to assume that the speed of light is constant at other regions in space. We can confirm it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Big Bang did not happen in one spot. It happened everywhere. Including where we are. Space itself expanded.
The universe continues to expand, and the distance to the parts the farthest away from us is growing faster than the speed of light, meaning that they disappear from our view, and we can never observe them again, except for the influence they have had on areas of space closer to us.
But both those parts and where we are were where big bang happened.
Headbender (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For a while after the big bang, the universe was opaque, so there would be nothing to see.
Re: (Score:3)
For a while after the big bang, the universe was opaque, so there would be nothing to see.
True. For those not familiar, after the big bang, the universe was really hot. Too hot for matter like we know it to even exist for long. A newly formed electron would just collide with another newly created electron or photons of sufficient energy to turn it also back to energy. As space time expanded, things cooled down because the energy density was reduced to the point that particles could form and not turn be turned back into energy. Even after normal particles of matter were able to exist, it was stil
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for expanding on that. I did not trust my science background to go into that much detail.
That's no mere galaxy; that's GALACTUS (Score:3)
Left over from the death of the previous Universe and those heavier elements came from absorbing & digesting the young, tender clusters of our nascent cosmos and will one day swallow us ALL!!!
EXCELSIOR!
Re: (Score:1)
What believe to be the age of universe is simply how far we can see.
That hasn't been true for decades.
It is massively egotistical that we think we know enough to understand
It is massively egotistical of a large portion of the internet who comments on such things thinking to know enough to understand, while not understanding basic concepts like comoving distances, despite how much free and easy to get intro level material is online already.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh shut up, you sanctimonious AC.
That is exactly what the internet, and specifically Slashdot, is for.
--
(Note that there is no -1 Wrong mod.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is very little effort to skim over a dumb post here.
I'm saying that the message board you want is probably hosted by Dartmouth or Harvard.
Re: (Score:1)
You're ignorance of cosmology is astounding. Almost as astounding as your unearned arrogance.
Read a fucking book by an actual cosmologist and get that idiotic chip off your shoulder. You're not important enough to have one.
Re: (Score:2)
Read a fucking book by an actual cosmologist
I had no idea they wrote books on that subject.
Re: That's no mere galaxy; that's GALACTUS (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the method where you come up with models with predictive power and test them against observation, as opposed to bring a pathetic loser who grape onto kookery in the vain hope that somehow it will make your intellectual laziness seem less obvious.
I spent years debating people like you, only to learn your type are too fundamentally pompous and inadequate to actually want to learn anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when that happens. For now we have a galaxy that no one thinks is older than the Big Bang which looks like it's further advanced than other galaxies of its age. That's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with your claim.
Re: (Score:1)
"This will happen." And you know this how?
Re: (Score:1)
Why 13.8?
Instead of just moping around and wondering why astronomers would pick such a number and precision, you could read about the topic. Actual discussion of the topic, and papers that such numbers are derived in, include error bars. You could look up how such error bars are derived for each measurement.
I prefer to apply Occam's Razor.
No, you prefer to just go with what you want to see, and then later attribute that to Occam's Razor, like far too many people on the internet. This data point does not exist in a vacuum, but exists among a lar
Re: (Score:2)
We can already see the point we call the big bang, it is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background.
Early Universe (Score:2)
Surely, according to the current theories, the "big bang" would be similar to just a "big supernova" in which heavy elements and very heavy elements are created. If the "big bang" fractured inconsistently, it is likely that it is not unreasonable that suretly after the "big bang" there would be many dense stars that go super-nova. Why they dont immediately fall back into into "black holes", all things considering, is another wonder
So much to learn... too many "theories".
Re:Early Universe (Score:5, Informative)
Uh no, the Big Bang explains the ratios of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the observable universe. All the other elements were created when the first stars went supernova. That is rather the point of the nucleosynthesis line of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger question - what caused the matter/antimatter imbalance we currently see?
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger question - what caused the matter/antimatter imbalance we currently see?
probably a slight difference in how much was initially formed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you think your word salad means something.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, according to the current theories, the "big bang" would be similar to just a "big supernova" in which heavy elements and very heavy elements are created
Nope. It was too hot for matter to exist. Particles didn't even start to form until some time after the Big Bang.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, according to the current theories, the "big bang" would be similar to just a "big supernova" in which heavy elements and very heavy elements are created.
No - I guess the simplest way to put it is that hydrogen and helium were the products of the big bang. Then as stars created heavier elements through fusion and "redistributed them through supernovas the products formed yet newer stars with more of the heavier elements in them.
Thinking of the big bang as an explosion isn't quite correct.
Infrared Reasons (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
A yellow wood? Stop peeing on it, I guess?
Quick, make up something dark (Score:5, Interesting)
Too much gravity to explain galaxies? 85% of it is dark matter.
Too little gravity to explain stuff at larger scales and times than that? 70% is dark energy.
Leaving ~5% as visible matter. If we adjusted our fundamental assumptions by assuming 95% of the universe is everywhere and otherwise undetectable to account for our observations being only 5% predictive, how exact do you think the overarching science really is to begin with?
IMO we'll need new and better detection techniques to make any real progress- or, if we are stuck with the current level of observations for a couple hundred years, maybe it'll be discerned that way. We just have a lot better luck with the former than the latter.
Re:Quick, make up something dark (Score:4, Informative)
The "dark" stuff is essentially a placeholder, its a different way of saying "we don't have the foggiest what is going on heree".
Re:Quick, make up something dark (Score:5, Interesting)
we don't know what dark matter is, but we have observed and measured it. we've measured the gravitational effects of dark matter, and their effect on the rotation speed of galaxies in addition to the effects of gravitation lenzing of the (predicted to exist beforehand) dark matter threads between the galaxies. and all those observations are in agreement about how much mass dark matter has.
so we know quit a bit. just not what kind of particle it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The "dark" stuff is essentially a placeholder, its a different way of saying "we don't have the foggiest what is going on heree".
AC or not, you should be modded to +5 now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"let there be light"--Azimov
Metals (Score:5, Funny)
"anything heavier than hydrogen and helium, defined in astronomy as metals."
The city employee that picks ip the recycling at this astonomers place is not going to be happy///
Re: (Score:2)
Just a thought... (Score:1)
A thought that occurred to me recently was could the Universe, instead of being expanding from a single point of origin, be much like the repeating pattern of concentric rings we see at the atomic level, the solar system and galaxies?
So large that the speed of light problem masks it's true structure.
Just asking, I'm not read up on astrophysics/physics enough to see any obvious problems with this idea...
Re:Just a thought... (Score:4, Informative)
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion; it was a rapid expansion of all space. There is no center.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Explosions have a center. The Big Bang did not. The Big Bang was not an explosion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Big Bang didn't have a center? Just pointing out that calling it "an expansion" also requires it to have a center within space.
Not really. As is usually explained, think of the universe as the surface of a ballon. Now blow the balloon up. The surface expands, but doesn't have a center just like the surface doesn't have any edges. Of course the surface of the balloon is 2D which we are describing in 3D. Our universe is 3D which is why it is often described in even more dimensions.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoramuses become less convincing with outrage, not more.
Re: (Score:3)
Explosion is an awful word because of all the semantic baggage. I prefer expansion, as does the vastr bulk of cosmologists. Inflation was also coupled with a period of supercooling, making it even less like an explosion in any classical sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Your inability to understand what physicists are saying is not the physicists' fault.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re-occuring and repeating patterns in nature. Fractal geometry.
There's even a spiritual/religious element to it in "the wheel of life"
I get the whole red-shift thing, even the need for "dark matter" to fill in the gaps.
Yet I can't help feel that we are back to the point at which we thought the earth was flat because of the limitation of our field of view.
Back then it was thought that you just fell off the end of the world, that made sense.
Just like dark matter and all the other fillers in our current theory
Re: (Score:2)
...sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
>I think this guy might be onto something
I don't.
Clear proof of time travel (Score:3)
Obviously an advanced life form has worm holed their entire galaxy to an earlier time.
The Big Bang Is Obsolete (Score:2, Informative)
They are going to find more and more distant stars.
There is no evidence that distant objects are younger objects, we see spiral armed galaxies (these require galactic collisions) at 13 B light years out and there are cosmic structures that take up a fair percent of the sky that could not have been formed quickly, maybe not even in 13 B years and certainly at vast distances not in 1 or 2 billion years.
The CMB does no
Re:The Big Bang Is Obsolete (Score:4, Informative)
Frequency and wavelengths are simply different ways to describe the same thing, periodicity of a wave. They are not "opposite units", just inverse of each other, like resistance and conductivity they describe the same bloody thing and you can convert at will. Look at your first link again, how is that not a perfect match?
Re: (Score:1)
It's human to think the universe has boundaries as our lives self are within the strict boundaries of our own dogma's. Even imagining that something just might be eternal and endless is for the brightest scientists a mere impossible task.
Let alone religious people ... they sometimes still believe Earth is the center of the universe.
Re: (Score:1)
What do you think will happen when immensely more powerful space telescopes are launched?
What do you think will happen once more efficient supersonic airliners are built? Funding of research and the rate of technological growth is in decline. We've peaked. At this point the discussions are likely to center around what color the next space telescope should be and whether test subjects relate to it. Pass me my rubber duck, I think I'm going to have another bath.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not obsolete. But perhaps not accurate for all cases. Assuming that redshift is proportional to distance for all cases may be in error if some phenomenon could cause a higher receeding galactic velocity. Something like a slingshot effect due to a close encounter with another galaxy, black hole or other massive object.
Hipster galaxy (Score:5, Funny)
This hipster galaxy had metals before it was cool.
Premature Grey (Score:1)
That's the Presidential Galaxy. It ages faster than normal due to stress.
Obviously (Score:1)
Gravitational redshift instead of Doppler's (Score:2)
Young galaxy? (Score:1)
Let me see if I'm understanding correctly. (Someone correct me if I'm not.)
A quick Googling says the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Another quick Googling says the Milky Way is 13.2 billion years old. The galaxy in this article would be about 13.1 billion years old.
Since the summary says this is a "young" galaxy, does that mean most galaxies we see are older than
Re: (Score:3)
Excession (Score:2)
It's a visitor from a different spacetime.
Eeew, leftovers. (Score:2)
That's what happens when you don't throw away everything in the old universe.
Re: (Score:1)
That's what happens when you don't throw away everything in the old universe.
I don't understand God. He throws out perfectly good organisms just because they get old, but he leaves all these old galaxies lying around gathering dust.
This brings into question our theories... (Score:2)
The big bang theory is just that: a theory. It is not yet proven indisputably as a law of nature.
New ideas and observations, such as this article on new equations [slashdot.org] and this article on lack of expected gravitational waves [slashdot.org] put the theorum to the test. Furthermore, the Pope declaring the 'big bang theory right' [slashdot.org] only increases the need to check our models and assumptions on this subject (and now that I think about it, wouldn't the church have a vested interest in a non-permanent universe to mesh with end-tim
Re: (Score:1)
The big bang theory is just that: a theory. It is not yet proven indisputably as a law of nature.
New ideas and observations, such as this article on new equations [slashdot.org] and this article on lack of expected gravitational waves [slashdot.org] put the theorum to the test. Furthermore, the Pope declaring the 'big bang theory right' [slashdot.org] only increases the need to check our models and assumptions on this subject (and now that I think about it, wouldn't the church have a vested interest in a non-permanent universe to mesh with end-times dogma)?
At least until we get some indisputable evidence, we need to continue to question our theories, record our observations - and try to see where the puzzle pieces fit. Being a dogmatic scientist is worse than being ignorant - the scientist should know better.
It's got a solid audience share, and is viewed by audiences in the coveted young adult age bracket.
jesus says (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Physicists tend to scoff at philosophers...
We don't scoff at philosophers, we just want to see their math.