Japan astronomers find most distant galaxy cluster

Apr 25, 2012
This 2008 handout photo from NASA shows the Coma Cluster of galaxies captured by the Hubble Space Telescope. Japanese astronomers said Wednesday they had found a cluster of galaxies 12.72 billion light-years away from Earth, which they claim is the most distant cluster ever discovered.

Japanese astronomers said Wednesday they had found a cluster of galaxies 12.72 billion light-years away from Earth, which they claim is the most distant cluster ever discovered.

Using a powerful telescope based in Hawaii, the team peered back through time to a point just one billion years after the Big Bang, the birth of the universe.

"This shows a galaxy cluster already existed in the early stages of the universe when it was still less than one billion years into its history of 13.7 billion years," the team of astronomers said in a press release.

The discovery was jointly made by researchers from the state-run Graduate University of Advanced Studies and the of Japan using the in Hawaii.

They found a "protocluster of galaxies", which is expected to help scientists understand the structure of the universe and how galaxies developed.

The study is to be published in the Astrophysical Journal of the United States.

Researchers using NASA's have previously announced the discovery of a possible around 13.1 billion light-years from Earth, but that has not yet been confirmed, the Japanese researchers said.

Explore further: The changing laws that determine how dust affects the light that reaches us from the stars

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Massive galaxy cluster found 10 billion light years away

Jun 06, 2006

A University of Sussex astronomer is the lead researcher for a project that has led to the discovery of the most distant cluster of galaxies observed to date. The cluster, which is 10 billion light years from Earth, is also ...

Heavyweight galaxies puzzle astronomers

Apr 02, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers have discovered large galaxies some two thirds of the way back in time to the big bang. This surprising find casts doubt on theories of how the biggest galaxies form.

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 ...

The most distant mature galaxy cluster

Mar 09, 2011

Astronomers have used an armada of telescopes on the ground and in space, including the Very Large Telescope at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile to discover and measure the distance to the most remote mature ...

Recommended for you

ESO image: A study in scarlet

18 hours ago

This new image from ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile reveals a cloud of hydrogen called Gum 41. In the middle of this little-known nebula, brilliant hot young stars are giving off energetic radiation that ...

Astronomers: 'Tilt-a-worlds' could harbor life

Apr 15, 2014

A fluctuating tilt in a planet's orbit does not preclude the possibility of life, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington, Utah's Weber State University and NASA. In fact, ...

Pushy neighbors force stellar twins to diverge

Apr 15, 2014

(Phys.org) —Much like an environment influences people, so too do cosmic communities affect even giant dazzling stars: Peering deep into the Milky Way galaxy's center from a high-flying observatory, Cornell ...

Image: Multiple protostars within IRAS 20324+4057

Apr 14, 2014

(Phys.org) —A bright blue tadpole appears to swim through the inky blackness of space. Known as IRAS 20324+4057 but dubbed "the Tadpole", this clump of gas and dust has given birth to a bright protostar, ...

User comments : 34

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
2 / 5 (25) Apr 25, 2012
a point just one billion years after the Big Bang

The trick to note here is that these are CLUSTERS. This means of course that singular galaxies had to have formed before this supposed time. BUT according to the BB theory they were not supposed to until AFTER this time. How now, brown cow?
Please, kindly correct me if I'm straying from the correct doctrinal understanding.
AtlasT
2 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2012
kindly correct me if I'm straying from the correct doctrinal understanding
This single observation still doesn't disprove the Big Bang cosmology with certainty, but it apparently exerts a stress to the mainstream L-CDM model, in which matter was formed in finely diluted state during the inflation. We are finding more and more objects with heavy elements, which simply would have no time for its formation in this model.
roboferret
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
Kev,

Science is an ongoing process of discovery. "the correct doctrinal understanding" is a massive case of projection on your part. This discovery adds to the body of information about how the "big bang" happened, it doesn't call into question whether it happened at all. The mountain of evidence is too great. This is a case of the details being straightened out. Immovable and baseless dogmas are the business of religions.
jvander
2 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
pres68y, hate to break it to you.. but....

we are not the center of the universe. Therefore, the matter that makes up what these scientists found didn't form 2 miles out from where we are, then migrate 12 bn ly away. It just adds more mystery and elusion to the idea.
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 25, 2012
LaViolette disproved the Big Bang Fantasy in a paper published in 1986.

http://cdsads.u-s...f4e25584

Astronomers should be ashamed to continue to support the Big Bang Fantasy. Shame.
Origin
1.5 / 5 (13) Apr 25, 2012
This discovery adds to the body of information about how the "big bang" happened, it doesn't call into question whether it happened at all.
This is exactly what the application of doctrine in science means: all new findings are tried to interpret like the consequences of this doctrine first, instead of evidence for its falsification. This indeed violates the Popper's methodology of science, which is falsification based.
The mountain of evidence is too great
It's mostly fabricated ad-hoc to suit the Big Bang model in similar way, like the most of observational evidence has been used for support of epicycle model in Galileo era. If this evidence didn't fit the epicycle model, this model had been adjusted instead of falsified. The consequences of this biased approach violating the Popper's methodology of science are generally known.
El_Nose
2.2 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
@robo

i hate to break it to you but once again kev makes a valid arguement and someone else brings religion into the equation? -- he asked a question --

I voted you up kevin

to answer the question : which would have been reasonable --

present Big bang theory puts galaxy formation at somewhere around 7% of present age of the universe or at .95 billion years I do not know what the degree of certainty is to add the /-. As you see this gives plenty of time for a few galaxies to be around at 1 billion yr post bang. I used 13.7 billion yrs as the approximate age of the galaxy.
EnderWiggin
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
Yeah, in a little more than one billion years, after the supposed Big Bang, this cluster of galaxies moved 13 billion light years away from us and had already produced billions of suns and planets.

I suppose that you could believe that if you also believe "war brings peace"?
Give me a break!


@pres68y: The universe is estimated to be about 13.75 /- 0.11 billion years old (wikipedia). This means that the most distant object observed by humans was about 13.75 billion light-years away, or it took 13.75 billion years for the light emitted by it to reach us. So a cluster of galaxies that is 12.72 billion light-years away means that light has been traveling for about a billion less years. So the newly discovered clusters were a billion years younger than the most distant objects.
hdfw
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
A couple of valid points were made and I would like to bring them up. The earth is not the center of the universe so during the big bang the galaxy the earth is in could've been 1-6 billion light-years closer to the cluster being discussed, meaning the cluster the Japanese astronomers found wouldn't have to travel 12.75 light-years to get to where it is now. Also the galaxies are constantly moving away from each other, and we don't know if some galaxies move faster than others! Both of these points added together makes it perfectly possible for this galaxy to be that far away.
EnderWiggin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
kindly correct me if I'm straying from the correct doctrinal understanding
This single observation still doesn't disprove the Big Bang cosmology with certainty, but it apparently exerts a stress to the mainstream L-CDM model, in which matter was formed in finely diluted state during the inflation. We are finding more and more objects with heavy elements, which simply would have no time for its formation in this model.


AtlasT, would you mind expanding on your point a bit?
brodix
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2012
It takes our galaxy 225 million years to make one rotation. As Atlas points out, matter was presumably finely distributed after inflation, so in the time it would take our galaxy to spin about 4.4 times, these galaxies managed to first develop a gravitational point of focus, pull in sufficient matter and energy from across areas 100's of millions of lightyears across, concentrate it to the point of ignition and then shine across 13.7 billion lightyears to us!!!???
It's a good thing these people are astronomers and not accountants, or the IRS would have had them in jail years ago. That emperor is not only naked, but fat and ugly.
EnderWiggin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
hdfw, thanks for your input and even temperament.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012
AtlasT, would you mind expanding on your point a bit?
Of course. The length of travel is irrelevant here. The galaxy found at distance 12.75 light-years simply means, this galaxy was formed before 12.75 gigayears. The era of reionization started 150,000 years after the Big Bang and ended 1,000,000 years after the Big Bang (which is supposed to happen before 13.7 gigayears), which means, every massive body inside of observable part of Universe cannot be older than 12,75 gigayears. Which implies, the galactic cluster above discussed had to be formed right at the end of reionization era.
Radiopaque
4.8 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
Yeah, in a little more than one billion years, after the supposed Big Bang, this cluster of galaxies moved 13 billion light years away from us and had already produced billions of suns and planets.


Actually the age of the universe is closer to 12 billion years old. It isn't hard to believe in phenomena like the Big Bang because was have solid evidence supporting it. Lots of it. It's a whole lot more credible than a talking snake.
shayneo
2 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
The universe is about 13.1 billion years old at our best guess (at least based on the distribution of the background microwave radiation spectrum) , so the "gotchya" of "the universe is only a billion years old" is nonsensical. The *earth* is older than that!

Brodix, your extrapolating the behavior of these distance galaxies based on the milky way. Thats not reasonable, the milky way is one of many types of galaxies, and its behavior is that of an older galaxy. More to the point these things are not happening in sequence. The article is not saying they are seeing an elderly galaxy like the milky way, they are clearly seeing a galaxy thats under billion years old at a time early in the universes development.

I'm not sure where some of the funny ideas folks in this discussion are wielding are coming from? wheres this story linked?
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2012
Big Bang is another word for Amen-Ra, i don't buy it!
Terriva
2 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
Actually the age of the universe is closer to 12 billion years old... The universe is about 13.1 billion years old at our best guess
Actually you're just inventing stuffs, which can be found very easily at the web. The Wikipedia source speaks rather clearly: the age of Universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years. Everything else is just a crackpot speculation waiting for its publishing in peer-reviewed press.
brodix
2 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
shayno,
I'm not necessarily comparing it to the Milky Way. Just the time frames. Remember all that mass/gas/plasma/etc. didn't coalesce at the speed of light. Presumably after inflation everything is moving away from everything else. So it would have to slow down, orient into local clusters, then gravitationally draw into them, across areas 100's of lightyears. This doesn't happen at C. Far, far from it. To say this could happen in the time it takes the sun to revolve around our galaxy 4.4 times, would be like saying the time from the invention of the wheel to the development of the Model T is about as long as it would take today to drive around NYC 4.4 times. To believe that, you may as well believe the earth is only 6000 years old, because the Good Book says so and the GB is never wrong.
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
most distant observable cluster*
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
the density fluctuations in the cmb show matter was not "finely distributed". the fluctutions seeded these early structures and the voids we see. its not hard to believe they formed that fast at all.
Shinichi D_
2 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
Presumably after inflation everything is moving away from everything else. So it would have to slow down, orient into local clusters, then gravitationally draw into them, across areas 100's of lightyears.


Not necessarily. Today, some regions of space pulling together, while the whole is expanding. Star formation, galaxy formation and galaxy cluster formation could have happend in the same time. Like with the solar system, planet formation didn't started when the sun entered main sequence. It's not a step by step process, it's all happening in a parallel manner. Even today the process of stellar evolution and galactic evolution is going on.

theon
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
* please give the redshifts in this type of articles

* LCDM seems to be attacked once more

* AtlasT: there may never have been a "dark age" and "reionization". These are LCDM assumptions
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
OK, then....

Every 'next better' telescope sees galaxies/clusters further/younger' than before.

This latest one sees galaxies/clusters almost at the limit of 'earliest time/distance' that galaxies could have formed/reached according to Big Bang scenario.

So what happens if 'next better' telescope allows us to see even further/earlier back in distance/time' and find still more galaxies/clusters?

What then for Big Bang model?

Is there any projection/speculation from professional cosmologists/astronomers to whether 'further/earlier' galaxies/clusters remain to be found by 'next better' telescope?

Perhaps we should rethink the 'redshift evidence' for Big Bang 'recession/age' correlations? Maybe 'redshift' is due to one/more factors having nothing to do with a 'Big Bang', and is just being 'misinterpreted' as 'recession' purely because the redshift values are being 'shoehorned' into recession interpretation instead of just distance when formed?

Thoughts, info, anyone?

Cheers!
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
In dense aether model the red shift is the product of light dispersion at the density fluctuations of vacuum. The similar effect happens with ripples at the water surface: their wavelength expands, as the spreading of these ripples continues. This model has its testable consequences, as for long-wavelength waves (i.e. longer than the CMBR wavelength) this effect should be reversed. Which means, in radiowave spectrum our Universe should exhibit the blue shift, thus falsifying the Big bang model completely. We already know, for CMBR microwaves various red-shift effects (like the ISW effect) disappear (the CMBR photons which are the source of light dispersion cannot disperse itself) and the distant radiowave sources do exhibit a positive violation of inverse square law http://arcade.gsf...006.html
brodix
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
Today, some regions of space pulling together, while the whole is expanding. Star formation, galaxy formation and galaxy cluster formation could have happend in the same time. It's not a step by step process, it's all happening in a parallel manner.


Yes, lots of things are happening in parallel, but the purpose of inflation is to explain why the cosmic background radiation is uniform in all directions, when there presumably isn't time for it to even out through entropy. So this exceedingly finely distributed energy had to first slow down from that inflation stage, where it all is moving apart(inflation, remember), orient towards local areas of attraction, then these local gravity fields continue coalescing. When you think of it, this would have to be a very slow process, since there would be fairly even distributions and the pull would be in multiple directions, like a network. Eventually this field would break into ever more concentrated regions, which would still be quite s
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012
separate, because the original expansion would be much more powerful in the early stages. Until finally enough matter had accumulated to create giant galaxy clusters, powerful enough to shine across billions of lightyears.
And all this happened within a billion years. Not to mention the fact that these distant galaxies are simply the furtherest our telescopes can see and there might be even further ones buried in the infrared end of the spectrum.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
OK, then....

Every 'next better' telescope sees galaxies/clusters further/younger' than before.


Stop, this isn't true, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (36) Apr 26, 2012
False. Co-evolution of both large and small scale structures will have occurred, and in fact the large scale structures can be anticipated to be more advanced than the small scale structures.

"This means of course that singular galaxies had to have formed before this supposed time." - Kevin
Shinichi D_
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2012

Yes, lots of things are happening in parallel, but the purpose of inflation is to explain why the cosmic background radiation is uniform in all directions, when there presumably isn't time for it to even out through entropy. q

The CMBR is uniform in all directions, but not perfectly smooth. It carries a pattern of early density fluctuations, the earliest sign of structure formation. It's the first stage of galaxy formation, hiding in plain sight.
okyesno
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
The second law is a problem for the big bang. Entropy always increases so the big bang must have been very low entropy. This is a problem because such a high ordering is extremely unlikely and contradicts the notion of a chaotic event like the bb.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
The second law is a problem for the big bang. Entropy always increases so the big bang must have been very low entropy. This is a problem because such a high ordering is extremely unlikely and contradicts the notion of a chaotic event like the bb.


Entropy does not always increase... stop talking, you're always wrong and you're a creationist so you don't belong on a science website in any case.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
A black star with a radius slightly greater than the predicted event horizon for an equivalent mass black hole will appear very dark, because almost all light produced will be drawn back to the star, and any escaping light will be severely gravitationally redshifted. It will appear almost exactly like a black hole. It will feature Hawking radiation, as virtual particles created in its vicinity may still be split, with one particle escaping and the other being trapped. Additionally, it will create thermal Planckian radiation that will closely resemble the expected Hawking radiation of an equivalent black hole.


Debunks the big bang hypothesis for me.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2012
@RealityCheck:

If you want to get a real education about "redshift", type into your search engine: "redshift calculator". Several will come up, all of them have a problem, they are only useful to about z=10, redshifts beyond that are "almost meaningless", because they cease to integrate with correspondingly increased distances.

Every calculator uses 13.7 Gyr as the upper limit on the integral, meaning the closer you claculate to that limit, the higher the redshift becomes, when you hit 13.7 on that limit you will get an unrealistically high number which for practival intents should be infinity, but most calculators will fudge the number.

The most distant galaxy we've been able to observe is HUDF-JD2 which is at 13.2 Gyr, about z=6. It takes a distance of 13.2 to get to z=6, but when you enter 12 into the calculators it only advances about another 500 milion light years, this is double the redshift for a mere fraction of the distance....are you following me?
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2012
Entropy does not always increase
The Big Bang singularity is really considered as the Universe state of highest entropy in mainstream cosmology. Second law of thermodynamics clearly states, that the entropy of closed system can never decrease spontaneously.

More news stories

Meteorites yield clues to Martian early atmosphere

(Phys.org) —Geologists who analyzed 40 meteorites that fell to Earth from Mars unlocked secrets of the Martian atmosphere hidden in the chemical signatures of these ancient rocks. Their study, published ...

Let's put a sailboat on Titan

The large moons orbiting the gas giants in our solar system have been getting increasing attention in recent years. Titan, Saturn's largest moon, is the only natural satellite known to house a thick atmosphere. ...

Red moon at night; stargazer's delight

Monday night's lunar eclipse proved just as delightful as expected to those able to view it. On the East Coast, cloudy skies may have gotten in the way, but at the National Science Foundation's National Optical ...