Hubble uncovers tiny galaxies bursting with starbirth in early Universe

Nov 10, 2011
This image reveals 18 tiny galaxies uncovered by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The puny galaxies, shown in the postage-stamp-sized images, existed 9 billion years ago and are brimming with star birth. The dwarf galaxies are typically a hundred times less massive than the Milky Way galaxy but are churning out stars at such a furious pace that their stellar population would double in just 10 million years. Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 and Advanced Camera for Surveys spied the galaxies in a field called the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS). The galaxies' location in the GOODS field is marked in the large image. The galaxies stood out in the Hubble images because the energy from all the new stars caused the oxygen in the gas surrounding them to light up like a bright fluorescent sign. The rapid star birth likely represents an important phase in the formation of dwarf galaxies, the most common galaxy type in the cosmos. The galaxies are among 69 dwarf galaxies found in the GOODS and other fields. Images of the individual galaxies were taken November 2010 to January 2011. The large image showing the location of the galaxies was taken between September 2002 and December 2004, and between September 2009 and October 2009. Credit: NASA, ESA, A. van der Wel (Max Planck Institute for Astronomy), H. Ferguson and A. Koekemoer (Space Telescope Science Institute), and the CANDELS team

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using its infrared vision to peer nine billion years back in time, the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered an extraordinary population of tiny, young galaxies that are brimming with star formation.

The are churning out stars at such a rate that the number of stars in them would double in just ten million years. For comparison, the has taken a thousand times longer to double its stellar population.

These newly discovered are around a hundred times smaller than the Milky Way. Their rates are extremely high, even for the young Universe, when most galaxies were forming stars at higher rates than they are today. They have turned up in the because the radiation from young, hot stars has caused the oxygen in the gas surrounding them to light up like a fluorescent sign.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This video highlights 28 tiny galaxies uncovered by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The puny galaxies, shown in the postage-stamp-sized images, existed 9 billion years ago and are brimming with star birth. The dwarf galaxies are typically a hundred times less massive than the Milky Way galaxy but are churning out stars at such a furious pace that their stellar population would double in just 10 million years. Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 and Advanced Camera for Surveys spied the galaxies in a field called the UKIDSS Ultra Deep Survey, or UDS, (part of the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey). The galaxies stood out in the Hubble images because the energy from all the new stars caused the oxygen in the gas surrounding them to light up like a bright fluorescent sign. The rapid star birth likely represents an important phase in the formation of dwarf galaxies, the most common galaxy type in the cosmos. The galaxies are among 69 dwarf galaxies found in the UDS and other fields. The images were made from observations taken between August and December 2010. Credit: NASA & ESA

believe this rapid starbirth represents an important phase in the formation of dwarf galaxies, the most common galaxy type in the cosmos.

"The galaxies have been there all along, but up until recently astronomers have been able only to survey tiny patches of sky at the sensitivities necessary to detect them," says Arjen van der Wel of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, lead author of a paper that will appear in a forthcoming issue of the . "We weren't looking specifically for these galaxies, but they stood out because of their unusual colours."

The observations were part of the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS), an ambitious three-year survey to analyse the most distant galaxies in the Universe. CANDELS is the first census of dwarf galaxies at such an early epoch on the Universe's history.

"In addition to the images, Hubble has captured spectra from a handful of these galaxies that show us the detailed physics of what's happening within them and confirm their extreme star-forming nature," says co-author Amber Straughn at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, USA.

The observations of ancient galaxies are somewhat at odds with recent detailed studies of the dwarf galaxies that are currently orbiting the Milky Way.

"Those studies suggest that star formation was a relatively slow process, stretching out over billions of years," explains Harry Ferguson of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, USA, co-leader of the CANDELS survey. "The CANDELS finding that there were galaxies of roughly the same size forming stars at very rapid rates at early times is forcing us to re-examine what we thought we knew about dwarf galaxy evolution."

Team member Anton Koekemoer, also of STScI, who is producing the Hubble imaging for the survey adds: "As our observations continue, we should find many more of these young galaxies and gather more details on their star-forming histories."

The CANDELS team uncovered the 69 young dwarf galaxies in near-infrared images taken with Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 and Advanced Camera for Surveys. The observations concentrated on two regions of the sky called the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey-South and the UKIDSS Ultra Deep Survey (part of the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey).

The observations suggest that the newly discovered galaxies were very common nine billion years ago. But it is a mystery why the newly found dwarf galaxies were making batches of stars at such a high rate. Computer simulations show that star formation in small galaxies may be episodic. Gas cools and collapses to form stars. The stars then reheat the gas through, for example, supernova explosions, which blow the gas away. After some time, the gas cools and collapses again, producing a new burst of star formation, continuing the cycle.

"While these theoretical predictions may provide hints to explain the star formation in these newly discovered galaxies, the observed 'bursts' are much more intense than those reproduced by the simulations," says van der Wel.

The NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope, an infrared observatory scheduled to be launched later this decade, will be able to probe these faint galaxies at an even earlier era to see the glow of the first generation of stars, providing detailed information of the galaxies' chemical composition.

"With Webb, we'll probably see even more of these galaxies, perhaps even pristine galaxies that are experiencing their first episode of star formation," Ferguson says. "Being able to probe down to dwarf galaxies in the early Universe will help us understand the formation of the first and galaxies."

Explore further: Astronomers find 'cousin' planets around twin stars

More information: Research paper: www.spacetelescope.org/static/… _papers/heic1117.pdf

Related Stories

Small distant galaxies host supermassive black holes

Sep 15, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using the Hubble Space Telescope to probe the distant universe, astronomers have found supermassive black holes growing in surprisingly small galaxies. The findings suggest that central black ...

Herschel paints new story of galaxy evolution

Sep 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- ESA's Herschel infrared space observatory has discovered that galaxies do not need to collide with each other to drive vigorous star birth. The finding overturns this long-held assumption ...

'Dead' galaxies are not so dead after all

May 30, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- University of Michigan astronomers examined old galaxies and were surprised to discover that they are still making new stars. The results provide insights into how galaxies evolve with time.

'Big baby' galaxy found in newborn Universe

Sep 28, 2005

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope have teamed up to 'weigh' the stars in distant galaxies. One of these galaxies is not only one of the most distant ever seen, but it appears to be unusually ...

Survey Reveals Building Block Process For Biggest Galaxies

Apr 12, 2006

A new study of the universe's most massive galaxy clusters shows how mergers play a critical role in their evolution. Astronomers used the twin Gemini Observatory instruments in Hawaii and Chile, and the Hubble Space Telescope ...

Colliding galaxies make love, not war

Oct 17, 2006

A new Hubble image of the Antennae galaxies is the sharpest yet of this merging pair of galaxies. As the two galaxies smash together, billions of stars are born, mostly in groups and clusters of stars. The ...

Recommended for you

How small can galaxies be?

Sep 29, 2014

Yesterday I talked about just how small a star can be, so today let's explore just how small a galaxy can be. Our Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across, and contains about 200 billion stars. Th ...

The coolest stars

Sep 29, 2014

One way that stars are categorized is by temperature. Since the temperature of a star can determine its visual color, this category scheme is known as spectral type. The main categories of spectral type are ...

Simulations reveal an unusual death for ancient stars

Sep 29, 2014

(Phys.org) —Certain primordial stars—those 55,000 and 56,000 times the mass of our Sun, or solar masses—may have died unusually. In death, these objects—among the Universe's first-generation of stars—would ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nerdyguy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2011
Is it possible to look at that image and not be awestruck?
hmayle
2 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
I have always wondered how our solar system got here BEFORE the light from the early universe that is now reaching us after 13 billion years.
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
I have always wondered how our solar system got here BEFORE the light from the early universe that is now reaching us after 13 billion years.


Not sure I follow. Why would you assume that our solar system was here before that time? That light traveled for many billions of years to get here.
Pyle
4 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2011
I have always wondered how our solar system got here BEFORE the light from the early universe that is now reaching us after 13 billion years.

All of this is based on my understanding the current Standard model (LCDM).
The universe was something like 1/1,000th the size it is now at the surface of last scattering (400,000 yrs after the BB). But that is still really big. The light that has taken 13 billion years to reach us wasn't 13 billion light years away from us at the end of the dark ages (around 400 million years after the BB). The distance that light has traveled (13 gly) is more than the initial distance because of the expansion of the universe. Further, that light source is now more than 40 billion light years away from us and receding at faster than the speed of light due to expansion.

Basically, the light we see that left its source 13 billion light years ago was really far away from us when it was emitted. While it was travelling here we grew up.
that_guy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
@hmayle - Maybe my explanation will be simpler (no offense to pyle :)
- The Universe started out small.
- Some time after the big bang, and inflationary period happened where the universe and the fabric of space expanded faster than the speed of light.
- Now the light is catching up with us.

Obviously, there are more complex mechanisms at play as well, and some mind numbing geometry to go with it, but that is the simplest part of the explanation why we would be able to 'see' so far back into time.
Pyle
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2011
Allow me to obfuscate that a little bit. ;)

Inflation is our explanation for how the universe got so big so fast, but it stopped less than one billionth of a billionth of a second after the BB. All was dark (opaque) until about 400 million after the big bang.

Point simply being, the emitter of light that reached us after 13 billion years was really far away when the light was originally emitted, AND the light was emitted no sooner than 400 million years after the BB, not immediately after the inflationary period. Obfuscated!. Quick, somebody do the math and tell us how far the emitter was from the glob of hydrogen that became the Milky Way at the time the 13 bly old light we are now observing was emitted!
yyz
4.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Maybe these furiously active dwarf galaxies are more distant relatives of the recently discovered class of "green pea" dwarf galaxies seen at intermediate redshifts: http://www.physor...eas.html
that_guy
not rated yet Nov 10, 2011
Allow me to obfuscate that a little bit. ;)

Yes, but being technically correct makes it harder to explain to someone wondering how it could be possible.

To those reading - I am aware that my explanation was not technically correct, but it demonstrates some of the principles that make the it possible for this phenomenon to occur.

I suppose more accurately, I could say that due to the inflationary epoch, the universe became so large so quickly that something emitting light at 400 million years time on one side of the universe would need to travel a distance of 13 billion LY to catch up with us moving in the other direction. Isotropically speaking, which it isn't.

Hahaha.

Another interesting fact: the big bang/inflation theory actually resembles an inside out black hole.

Pyle
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
Green Peas! Is that idle speculation from yyz?!?! I am impressed!

that_guy: maybe the BB is an anti-matter BH turned inside out. Bazinga! Ok, yyz's speculation actually made sense. But I had to try.

Oh, and everyone go sign up for Galaxy Zoo instead of wasting your time playing MMORPG. Yeah, I am talking to you.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
Another interesting fact: the big bang/inflation theory actually resembles an inside out black hole.
L-DCM model is actually using the very same metric, just reversed in time dimension (FLRW metric). It can serve as an evidence of the dispersive (tired light) model of the red shift, because the light of black hole is driven with gravitational red-shift too.

http://en.wikiped...r_metric
andyd
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
@hmayle - Maybe my explanation will be simpler (no offense to pyle :)
- The Universe started out small.
- And then something magical happened
- Now the light is catching up with us.


Fixed that for ya.
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
"Green Peas! Is that idle speculation from yyz?!?! I am impressed!"

Well, to be honest, I also based my supposition on the observed properties of starburst dwarf galaxies seen in the nearby universe, such as DDO 68, SBS0335-052 W and, significantly, I Zw 18, all extremely metal-poor local galaxies undergoing a starburst phase( with very similar diagnostics).

A recent paper compared characteristics seen in I Zw 18 with some distant active dwarf galaxies, similar to those discussed here: http://arxiv.org/...93v1.pdf

While still a speculative notion, it does give one pause for thought.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Maybe we can all get together & figure out the meaning of all this.

The UDS & other observations I've read about, all seem to agree that the oldest galaxies are also small ones as compared to the Milky Way or Andromeda because these are more newly formed. It has appeared to me in my amateur studies of astronomy that no matter what arc any telescope is swung through (all the way to 360 degrees), the most powerful telescopes see only the smaller galaxy types from 10 to 13 billion LY. Now keep this picture in mind, a ring of galaxies on the edge of the observable universe 3-4 billion LY years wide encircle the more newly formed larger galaxies such as our own. DOES THIS NOT PLACE US NEAR THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE?

hmayle
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
Thanks for all the responses! I think I get the concept now.

Although the guy that said this may have had it right:

'My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.'


Thanks again!
Ojorf
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
DOES THIS NOT PLACE US NEAR THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE?


Not at all, remember the further out you look, the longer back in time you are seeing. What now seems to be a spherical shell of small galaxies surrounding us just indicates that long ago most galaxies were small.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2011
To clarify with a silly example.
If 10-13 billion years ago all galaxies were cubical, 7-10 b.y.a. all were spherical, 4-7 b.y.a all were doughnuts and less than 4 b.y.a all were spiral then looking out we would observe the following:
A series of concentric shells comprising different shaped galaxies starting with a sphere of spirals up to 4 light years out, followed with a concentric shell of doughnuts 4-7 l.y. away followed by spheres and then cubes at the appropriate distances.

The same view would be had from anywhere in the universe.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
DOES THIS NOT PLACE US NEAR THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE?


Not at all, remember the further out you look, the longer back in time you are seeing. What now seems to be a spherical shell of small galaxies surrounding us just indicates that long ago most galaxies were small.


I think I see the point you're making here, & it sounds similar to my original conjecture. When an explosion occurs, the first material to be ejected will be the material that forms the first galaxies, they will be smaller because mass is least dense at the surface of the mass from which the explosion originated, this forms the first & oldest ring of galaxies. Later as more dense material is ejected from the core, larger galaxies are formed thus creating an onion layer of galactic formation. Finally, as the densest material is ejected from the center mass of the explosion, we should expect to see the densest & thus largest galactic formations of the newer galaxies. Logical?
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
Its not the logic is the assumptions.

The BB was not an explosion (yes this theory but it is the theory you are talking about). It is the expansion of space-time it self.

What high density material. We are talking about energy, then quarks/leptons, then nucleie, then atoms and the atoms are mostly hydrogen then less than 10% helium then .. well thats pretty much it. Some hydrogen with a neutron for deuterium maybe some with two neutrons for tritium and lithium, all together less than 1%.

SO where are you going get that separation by density?

. Later as more dense material is ejected from the core,
There is no core to eject material from. It was just gas that was spreading out as the Universe expanded. Since the gas wasn't expanding INTO space but was dragged BY space it was pretty uniform.

All of space would have had the same density or nearly the same. We see this in the CMBR.

Ethelred
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
No, you missed my explanation, there are no spherical shells, it just looks like it since we are looking back at earlier times.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
More clarification (forget about the expansion of the universe, it is irrelevant to the point. Also, the big-bang happened at every point in the universe not some specific location)

In my silly example the first, oldest galaxies that formed were ALL cubical, they took a few billion years to ALL evolve to spherical, witch after a few billion years ALL evolved into doughnuts which ALL turned into spirals.
So now, at present, ALL are spirals, every single one of them. But looking out we see the shells explained because we are looking back in time. Do you understand now? Do you also understand why an observer ANYWHERE in the universe will see the same thing?
Ojorf
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Please note, for the idiot that gave me 1's, there are no cubical or doughnut galaxies, it's a fictitious universe I'm describing. I was illustrating a point you seem to have completely missed. It was meant to show how even though we might superficially seem to be at the center, we are NOT, there is no center (it is everywhere).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Maybe these furiously active dwarf galaxies are more distant relatives of the recently discovered class of "green pea" dwarf galaxies seen at intermediate redshifts: http://www.physor...eas.html
Sorry yyz. I could only give you a three on this speculation, as the green peas are "surprisngly close."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
There is no core to eject material from. It was just gas that was spreading out as the Universe expanded. Since the gas wasn't expanding INTO space but was dragged BY space it was pretty uniform.
Which if true, proves spacetime "constants" aren't constant. Who's to say a cyclic universe can't result from a spacetime crunch, in the future?

Benni
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Its not the logic is the assumptions.

. Later as more dense material is ejected from the core,
There is no core to eject material from. It was just gas that was spreading out as the Universe expanded. Since the gas wasn't expanding INTO space but was dragged BY space it was pretty uniform.

Ethelred


Explain how "space" has "dragged" anything so as to create a ring of older smaller galactic formations that we can observationally demonstrate as surrounding newer galactic formations.
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
"Sorry yyz. I could only give you a three on this speculation[intermediate redshift "green pea" galaxies being related to these distant starbursting dwarf galaxies], as the green peas are "surprisngly close."

Well, perhaps in cosmological terms "green peas" are "surprisingly close", but the original sample contained examples with redshifts of z=0.112-0.360, not exactly nearby, Local Cluster objects.

Sec. 5.3 of the discovery paper( http://arxiv.org/...55v1.pdf ) discusses similarities and differences between "green peas" and "UV-luminous high redshift galaxies", similar to the population discussed in the above article.

Interestingly, Cardamone et al find "green peas" may represent the last remnants of downsized versions of Lyman break galaxies and Lyman-alpha emitters found in the early universe.

It will be interesting to see just where these distant luminous dwarf galaxies fit in with current bottom-up LCDM galaxy formation models.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
Explain how "space" has "dragged" anything
Matter is within space. If space expands so does the matter. Overall near space is less dense than very far space because near space has had billions of years of expansion that had yet to take place in distant space.

The space between galaxies is now much less dense than it was 10 billion years ago.

create a ring of older smaller galactic formations that we can observationally demonstrate as surrounding newer galactic formations.
How about a link for that? New galactic formations, to the best of my knowledge, are all dwarfs. We do see what were then new galaxies billions of light years away as well. So a link to give me a clue as to what you mean would be helpful.

Perhaps I should have written it as space-time which has expanded. I get the feeling that you have yet to see the balloon analogy.

http://astro.ucla...on0.html

http://astro.ucla...on2.html

Ethelred
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Explain how "space" has "dragged" anything
space between galaxies is now much less dense than it was 10 billion years ago.

create a ring of older smaller galactic formations that we can observationally demonstrate as surrounding newer galactic formations.
How about a link for that? New galactic formations, to the best of my knowledge, are all dwarfs. We do see what were then new galaxies billions of light years away as well.

I get the feeling that you have yet to see the balloon analogy.

Ethelred


I well understand the "balloon", the galaxies on the surface of that balloon are supposedly the oldest & smallest, those inside are younger & larger because they were in an area where space was more dense for accretion of material to form larger galaxies. Anything I've read in cosmology implies that galaxies like Andromeda & Milky Way were formed more recently than the ones at 10 - 13 billion LY, skin of the balloon.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
So a link to give me a clue as to what you mean would be helpful.

Ethelred


I studied a couple sites which discussed berylium content to determine the age of a star. Even inside the Milky Way there are stars with critical berylium content to be as old as 13.7 billion years. I presume this implies the Milky Way may be nearly that old.

Until I read about berylium content, I was assuming the age of the entire galaxy would be the same age as our sun which seems to get variable estimates, but all are much less than 13 billion years, I presume based on berylium content.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Well, perhaps in cosmological terms "green peas" are "surprisingly close", but the original sample contained examples with redshifts of z=0.112-0.360, not exactly nearby, Local Cluster objects.
Sure, but they're only 2 or 3 billion years in the past as we see 'em, so they're definitely relative newcomers to the universe's 13.7b years. And, their surroundings are littered with ordinary galaxies, demonstrating that a youthful universe is not a prerequisite for this type of galaxy.

Interestingly, Cardamone et al find "green peas" may represent the last remnants of downsized versions of Lyman break galaxies and Lyman-alpha emitters found in the early universe.
That they're metal poor is interesting, but why are they so apparently "young" in an older universe?

It will be interesting to see just where these distant luminous dwarf galaxies fit in with current bottom-up LCDM galaxy formation models.
Indeed.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2011
Please note, for the idiot that gave me 1's, there are no cubical or doughnut galaxies, it's a fictitious universe I'm describing. I was illustrating a point you seem to have completely missed. It was meant to show how even though we might superficially seem to be at the center, we are NOT, there is no center (it is everywhere).

@Ojorf: Don't bother getting upset about this character. "Orac" is a sockpuppet, possibly electronic. (There are a couple of others.) 'It' seems to up-rank and down-rank at random and has been doing this to all of us. It's most noticible in the physics threads and getting on all of our nerves. I've done some up-ranking for you (5's), to help counter the 'drag' on your average. Btw, my marks aren't just for show, they also show my 'like' for your answers. :)
Cheers, DH66
Ojorf
5 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2011
Thank you DarkHorse, much appreciated.

Benni, did you read my attempt to explain to you why we see these galaxies, mentioned in this article, all at a distance of 10 - 13 b.l.y. away? We are NOT in the center of a ring of them, implying we are at the center of the universe. It is an illusion, as I explained. Your problem seems to be that you have a quite mistaken idea about what the Big Bang was. Please read this:
Thank you DarkHorse, much appreciated.

Benni, did you read my attempt to explain to you why we see these galaxies, mentioned in this article, all at a distance of 10 - 13 b.l.y. away? We are NOT in the center of a ring of them, implying we are at the center of the universe. It is an illusion, as I explained. Your problem seems to be that you have a quite mistaken idea about what the Big Bang was. Please read this:
http://www.thekey...eory.htm
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2011
@Ojorf: Yes, I did read it, I understand your point. I'm a member of an amateur astronomy club, about half a dozen of us meet once a month, and if it's a decent evening we'll try for some unique observances and have discussions about latest discoveries by Hubble, etc.

We are especially intrigued by the latest Hubble discovery that shows a new galactic discovery with extreme redshift > 7, a mere 200 - 500 million years after the BB. It is small in nature. We discuss issues like "inflation" vs "big bang", but never coming to a consensus because even the experts seemingly have none. The "experts" always frame the age of stellar objects in "post-big bang" terms, never "post-inflation", as if they are two unrelated issues. We often times find ourselves caught up in a conundrum, is this or is it that. So lately we've been studying "beryllium content" of stars to see if that can lead us to determine ages of galaxies, but the limitation of this is extreme redshift of distant galaxies.

Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2011
I well understand the "balloon", the galaxies on the surface of that balloon are supposedly the oldest & smallest,
That is not well understood. The surface is everything in the Universe. Its a 2D surface on a 3D object as a analogue to a 3D space it a 4D hyperspace.

those inside are younger & larger
There is no inside. You do not understand the balloon.

Anything I've read in cosmology implies that galaxies like Andromeda & Milky Way were formed more recently than the ones at 10 - 13 billion LY, skin of the balloon.
Well you may have misunderstood. The Milky Way started the same all those others did and at around the same time.

Even inside the Milky Way there are stars with critical berylium content to be as old as 13.7 billion years.
Exactly, except that date is too early, this galaxy started early. There are some stars left from the very beginning when this was probably similar to those dwarf galaxies we see very far away and thus long ago.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2011
Until I read about berylium content, I was assuming the age of the entire galaxy would be the same age as our sun
Wrong assumption. Our Sun is pop 1 star and those others are pop 2. The pop numbers is assbackwards as pop 3 are the oldest.

We discuss issues like "inflation" vs "big bang", but never coming to a consensus because even the experts seemingly have none.
Inflation is an idea of why the Universe seems flat. It makes sense but could be wrong. For instance the BB could be wrong in the first place but the Universe definitely used to be much smaller. The question is how small was when it started up. In the Brane hypothesis it could have been a cold possibly infinite space to start with and the two branes collided in a higher dimension that branes are embedded in. Energy is released in the collision and space expands, with seeing as far a light has traveled in the meantime. I am not really fond of that idea myself.>>
Ojorf
5 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2011
We discuss issues like "inflation" vs "big bang", but never coming to a consensus because even the experts seemingly have none. The "experts" always frame the age of stellar objects in "post-big bang" terms, never "post-inflation", as if they are two unrelated issues.


Benni, inflation is part of the Big Bang theory not something different. Inflation is also completely unrelated to the issue of galaxy formation. According to theory inflation started just 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang and was over in less than 10^-4 seconds, the first atomic nuclei were only synthesized between 3 and 20mins after the Big Bang and galaxy formation only started millions of years later.
Post inflation and post Big Bang are practically the same thing as the difference is much less than a second.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
You also seem to misunderstand the balloon analogy and taking it too literally. The 2D surface of the balloon represents 3D space, all of it. You have to think of JUST the surface, a 2D object and that is it, ALL of it. There is no outside or inside to a 2D surface, it is 2D. The fact that a balloon is a 3D object with a inside and a outside and when blown up expands into 3D space is WRONG for the purposes of the analogy and confuses the issue.
ALL of space-time apparently originated with the Big Bang, and like the balloon being blown up, expanded. BUT it is not expanding into some as yet unfilled space, like the balloon. You have to imagine JUST the balloon's surface, nothing more.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
Let me say that again, the reason we use the balloon surface analogy and 'throw away', or ignore, one dimension is because it is easy to understand and picture. It is easy to see that a sphere's surface has no boundary and no center even though it has a finite surface area. People find it impossible to picture a 3D hypersphere which is without a boundary or a center and of finite volume, as our universe probably is. All the same principals that apply to the surface of a sphere applies to a 3D hypersphere, just with one less spatial dimension.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2011
Sorry this sat so long. My connection went down

consensus because even the experts seemingly have none. The "experts" always frame the age of stellar objects in "post-big bang" terms, never "post-inflation", as if they are two unrelated issues.
That is because the BB really only goes bag to when the original plasma phase ended and the Universe became transparent. Everything before that is just math. Inflation makes the end of the plasma phase very even.

So lately we've been studying "beryllium content" of stars to see if that can lead us to determine ages of galaxies
The age of stars and galaxies used to be a rather bad fit. They are pretty close now with newer modeling. However new galaxies, they all seem to be dwarfs, are still forming. Presumably from gas that was much less dense than our galaxy started from.

Ethelred
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2011
@Ethelred
@Ojorf

I'm enjoying your comments. Our astronomy club is fairly new, less than a year, but we have a good time trading ideas. I'm printing out your commentaries for use in a presentation at our next meeting. Your commentaries are nicely condensed as opposed to having to spend hours trying to interpret papers professional astro-physicists prepare after presenting an abstract.

A couple of us are in an engineering discipline and are the ones the remainder of the group depend on to wade through the math when we encounter it.

Ojorf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2011
Benni, it's a pleasure, glad to help.
It sounds like your astronomy club should forget about any astro-physics papers and maths for now and get the basics of cosmology under the belt first. You seemed to have jumped in at the deep end and none of the stuff makes much sense (or the wrong sense) if you don't have a good grip on the basics first.
Do you understand the balloon analogy yet?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2011
Do you understand the balloon analogy yet?


It was two meetings ago, this was the topic we discussed. And someone brought up the "inside of the balloon", & what is going on there. She had an article that suggested galaxies inside the balloon skin(my terminology, not the article) were younger & larger than the ones on the surface. So we batted that one around the entire evening, mostly just trying to have serious fun guessing at the possibilities, but that's what amateurs do.

Next month it's my turn to make the group presentation (we take turns) & I'm working on "star content of beryllium", and how it is used to determine the age not only of a star but maybe even a galaxy. Wish me luck
Ojorf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2011
someone brought up the "inside of the balloon", & what is going on there. She had an article that suggested galaxies inside the balloon skin(my terminology, not the article) were younger & larger than the ones on the surface.

It is a common misconception when people do not understand the analogy, the fact that she had an article is just plain weird.

Good luck and let us know how it went!
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
Possibly these distant small galaxies are a subset of the 'green-pea' type low-metallicity nearby small galaxies, where the core-star (central 'gray-hole') is presently in an active state, seeding the galaxy from within, precipitating star formation. Likely the greater population of this class of distant dwarf galaxy is not simply visible since most will be in the inactive state (SQK model).

This would explain why nearby dwarf galaxies surrounding the Milky Way can be slow forming. The vast majority of the dwarf galaxies will be in the inactive state, as it's central core-star is likely relatively small, in proportion to the mass of it's host galaxy. As the core star grows in mass, it's more likely to be in the active state, as we see in more massive galaxies.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2011
In the Brane hypothesis it could have been a cold possibly infinite space to start with and the two branes collided in a higher dimension that branes are embedded in. Energy is released in the collision and space expands, with seeing as far a light has traveled in the meantime. I am not really fond of that idea myself.>>

Understood. Jump starting violates the idea of zero total energy in the U. That is, as in the cyclic U, energy (and I would say time) is just borrowed from one source and paid back in the collapsing phase.

Also as I see it the U is going nowhere in space or time. And time runs in two opposite directions (one for matter, the other antimatter) as well as expanding in opposite directions in space.