Baby galaxies grew up quickly

May 16, 2012
All objects in the image are distant galaxies - not stars. Early galaxies from the infancy of the Universe more than 12 billion years ago evolved much more quickly than previously thought, new research shows. This means that already in the early history of the Universe, there was potential for planet formation and life. (Hubble Space Telescope)

Baby galaxies from the young Universe more than 12 billion years ago evolved faster than previously thought, shows new research from the Niels Bohr Institute. This means that already in the early history of the Universe, there was potential for planet formation and life. The research results have been published in the scientific journal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters.

For several thousand years after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the consisted of a hot, dense of gases and particles. But the Universe was expanding rapidly and the primordial soup became less dense and cooled. However, the primordial soup was not evenly distributed, but was denser in some areas than others. The density in some of the densest areas increased due to gravity and began to contract, forming the first . This took place approximately 500 million years after the .

The earliest were probably comprised of primitive, that consisted of only hydrogen and helium. There were no heavier elements. They first appeared later in the evolution of the Universe, created by nuclear processes in the stars.

Researchers have studied 10 galaxies in the early universe by using quasars as light sources. In order to use quasars as light sources the quasar has to lie behind the galaxy you want to observe. By looking at the light from the distant quasar (A) that shines through the galaxy (B) on its way to Earth, researchers can determine which elements the galaxy contains from the light that is absorbed. This is seen as lines in the spectrum of the quasar. Credit: Lorena Fuentealba

Cosmic cycle

A star is a giant ball of glowing gas that produces energy by fusing hydrogen and helium into heavier and heavier elements. When no more energy can be extracted the star dies and massive and gas are flung out into space. These large clouds are condensed and recycled into new stars in a gigantic cosmic cycle. The that are formed will have a higher content of heavier elements than the previous and for each generation of there are more and more of the heavy elements and metals. And heavy elements (especially carbon and oxygen) are necessary for the formation of planets and life, as we know it.

To the left is an image from the Nordic Optical Telescope of one of the quasars researchers have looked at. After having removed the quasar light from the image, the distant galaxy appears, which is indicated by an arrow in the image to the right. They discovered that the galaxies from the very early universe had a surprisingly large quantity of heavy elements. Credit: Nordic Optical Telescope

Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.

"We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.

Lighthouses of the Universe

The galaxies are so far away that you normally do not have the opportunity to observe them directly, but the researchers have used a special method.

"There are some extreme objects in the Universe called quasars. Quasars are gigantic black holes that are active and when matter falls into them, they emit light that is as strong as thousands of galaxies. They are like a kind of lighthouse that lights up in the Universe and can be seen very far away," explains Jens-Kristian Krogager, PhD student at the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University Copenhagen. He explains that in order to use quasars as light sources the quasar must lie behind the galaxy you want to observe.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Astrophysicist Jens-Kristian Krogager explains about baby galaxies from the young universe more than 12 billion years ago evolved faster than previously thought. This means that already in the early history of the universe, there was potential for planet formation and life. Credit: Niels Bohr Institute

"We then look at the light from the quasar and can see that some light is missing. The missing quasar light in the image has been absorbed by the chemical elements in the galaxy in front of it. By analysing the spectral lines we can see which elements there are and by measuring the strength of each line we can see the amount of the elements," explains Jens-Kristian Krogager.

Life in the early Universe

They discovered not only that the galaxies from the very early Universe had a surprisingly large quantity of heavier elements, but also that one of the galaxies in particular was especially interesting.

"For one of the galaxies, we observed the outer regions and here there was also a high element content. This suggests that large parts of the galaxy are enriched with a high content of and that means that already in the early history of the Universe there was potential for and life," says Johan Fynbo.

Explore further: Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?

More information: Article in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10… 012.01272.x/abstract

Related Stories

New insights into the 'hidden' galaxies of the universe

Jun 14, 2011

A unique example of some of the lowest surface brightness galaxies in the universe have been found by an international team of astronomers lead by the Niels Bohr Institute. The galaxy has lower amounts of ...

Growing galaxies gently

Oct 13, 2010

The first galaxies formed before the Universe was less than one billion years old and were much smaller than the giant systems -- including the Milky Way -- that we see today. So somehow the average galaxy ...

'Teenage'-galaxies booming with star births

Oct 12, 2010

Scientists from the Niels Bohr Institute have been studying distant galaxies, which are among the most active star-forming galaxies in the Universe. They form around 1,000 new stars a year – a 1,000 times ...

New stars from old gas surprise astronomers

Feb 18, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Evidence of star birth within a cloud of primordial gas has given astronomers a glimpse of a previously unknown mode of galaxy formation. The cloud, known as the Leo Ring, appears to lack ...

Recommended for you

Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?

Dec 24, 2014

Bright stars top Christmas trees in Christian homes around much of the world. The faithful sing about the Star of Wonder that guided the wise men to a manger in the little town of Bethlehem, where Jesus was ...

Hubbles spies the beautiful galaxy IC 335

Dec 24, 2014

This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the galaxy IC 335 in front of a backdrop of distant galaxies. IC 335 is part of a galaxy group containing three other galaxies, and located in the Fornax ...

Image: Multicoloured view of supernova remnant

Dec 22, 2014

Most celestial events unfold over thousands of years or more, making it impossible to follow their evolution on human timescales. Supernovas are notable exceptions, the powerful stellar explosions that make ...

Ultra-luminous X-ray sources in starburst galaxies

Dec 22, 2014

Ultra-luminous X-ray sources (ULXs) are point sources in the sky that are so bright in X-rays that each emits more radiation than a million suns emit at all wavelengths. ULXs are rare. Most galaxies (including ...

When a bright light fades

Dec 22, 2014

Astronomer Charles Telesco is primarily interested in the creation of planets and stars. So, when the University of Florida's giant telescope was pointed at a star undergoing a magnificent and explosive death, ...

User comments : 67

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (12) May 16, 2012
More problems for the standard model.
Origin
1 / 5 (15) May 16, 2012
In dense aether model these galaxies were already there... Measurements have shown, that there is no significant difference betweens the metallicity of galaxies close to earth (i.e. old galaxies) and remote galaxies (i.e. young galaxies). Frankly, during last few years I didn't met with any observation, which would support the Big Bang cosmology directly.
ccr5Delta32
4.3 / 5 (11) May 16, 2012
More problems for the standard model.

We may have to upgrade to the deluxe model
stellar-demolitionist
4.4 / 5 (14) May 16, 2012
The link "origin" (or whoever he used to be) is to a creationist (Genesis-literalist type) web site. It offers no credible evidence of anything astronomical (or otherwise).
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
This fact is commonly known for astronomers, because the metallicity of distant active galactic nuclei has been studied extensively (see Hamann & Ferland 1999 for a review). Nagao et al. (2006a) measured emission-line flux ratios of SDSS quasars, which are sensitive to metallicity. The authors found that there is no redshift evolution of the broad-line region metallicity in the redshift range of z= 2.0 - 4.5. Using near-infrared spectroscopic observations of six luminous quasars at z = 5.8 - 6.3. Jiang et al. (2007) found no strong evolution of the broad-line region metallicity up to z 6. Juarez et al. (2009) investigated the broad-line region metallicity of a sample of 30 quasars in the redshift range of z = 4.0 - 6.4 through the emission-line flux ratio and found that the metallicity is very high even in quasars at z > 6.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
Moreover, most studies have reported that the broad-line region metallicity is significantly higher than the solar value (Hamann & Ferland 1992; Dietrich et al. 2003; Nagao et al. 2006a; Jiang et al. 2007), even fifteen-times higher than the Sun metalicity in the most extreme cases (Baldwin et al. 2003b; Bentz et al. 2004). These extremely high metallicities are very hard to reconcile with most Big Bang evolutionary models (Hamann& Ferland 1993; Ballero et al. 2008)....

Therefore it's questionable, whether you're competent to discuss this subject at all.
theon
1.8 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
Time will come when eyes open up for a top-down theory of structure formation, without dark ages. One such theory is gravitational hydrodynamics. Not popular at the moment, but explaining new observations instead of running more and more in troubles.
yyz
4.4 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
Terriva/Origin/Zephir,

If you notice, the studies to which you refer are looking at galaxies with active galactic nuclei (i.e. Seyferts and quasars), where rapid cycling of the ISM results in the solar and super-solar metallicities observed. The study reported here is also looking at galaxies with AGN(quasars).

Studies of SMBHs in nearby AGN also exhibit this rapid recycling and, along with various feedback mechanisms, are thought to result in rapid enrichment and enhanced metallicity in these galaxies. I fail to see how these observations constitute a "problem" for most Big Bang galaxy evolution models.

Rapid recycling and subsequent enrichment of the ISM in AGNs is well established, whether for nearby or distant galaxies.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (11) May 16, 2012
Another point in which the remote galaxies are similar to close ones is. they're surrounded with empty space as far we can see. It means, all galaxies are recycling the matter in their close neighborhood only. If we realize how slow such recycling actually proceeds by now, we should ask, where the galaxies inside of Hubble deep field took the time for their formation? The condensation of gas is exponential process - if it proceeds so slowly with existing compact galaxies - how slowly it would occur, when the Universe was homogeneously dispersed?
stopneutrinos
2 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
Origin,

How's working at Inware going?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
It is unstated, but presumed that they separated the spectra of the source from the spectra of the closer galaxy by means of the relative spectral shifts of the source and absorber.

They should see an absorption spectrum that is shifted with respect to the emission spectra of the remote quasar.

The observation of metal abundances similar to more modern galaxies that have gone through longer evolution is certainly a challenge to existing cosmological models.

"The study reported here is also looking at galaxies with AGN(quasars)." - yyz

Pressure2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 16, 2012
It appears the Big Bang model is now sitting on a one legged stool, the observed red-shift.
jsdarkdestruction
3.5 / 5 (11) May 16, 2012
"Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium"

til now you say? we've been seeing them say things like this for a few years now. i could track down the articles and papers but im lazy. this isnt anything new earth shaking like they try to make it sound.also- it doesnt refute "the standard model", it strengthens it by clarifying the early stages better.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (8) May 16, 2012
The standard model starts with almost no "metal". Yet 2 billion years after the start we see metal abundances equivalent to modern galaxies.

This is challenging to the standard model. How did "metals" get produced in such abundance so quickly?

"it doesnt refute "the standard model", it strengthens it by clarifying the early stages better." - Isdarkandempty

Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
Their conclusion of early metal formation rests on the assumption that the Big Bang Fantasy is reality. It is simply another patch to prop up the theory. Yes, the stool has only one leg, which is being whittled away.

How about this puzzle of enormous amounts of carbon in the early universe?

http://phys.org/n...ack.html

Again, the conclusion rests on the one legged stool. Note: a one-legged stool is an inherently unstable system. Time to take a fresh look at tired-light models.
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (10) May 16, 2012
The standard model starts with almost no "metal". Yet 2 billion years after the start we see metal abundances equivalent to modern galaxies.

This is challenging to the standard model. How did "metals" get produced in such abundance so quickly?

"it doesnt refute "the standard model", it strengthens it by clarifying the early stages better." - Isdarkandempty


did you read yyz's post?
simplicio
4 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
Before this finding (and other similar ones), assumption was life could not develope until much, much later when metallicity became available in newer gen stars, but now that opens window for life wide open.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
"did you read yyz's post?" - Isdarkinthere

Yup.

It is possible to explain high metal concentrations. It is just hard do to so without odd assumptions.
Anda
4 / 5 (4) May 17, 2012
Terriva/Origin/Zephir.

Callippo/Rawa1/"waterripples"...

What's ur "standard model" Vendicar? ...
Just keeping here on learning, discovering and adjusting our theories to what we know: more every day and less than tomorrow.
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2012
odd assumptions? why wouldnt it makes sense quasars would be very active in the early universe?
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
here's why galaxies formed so quickly:-
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Origin
2.6 / 5 (5) May 17, 2012
odd assumptions? why wouldnt it makes sense quasars would be very active in the early universe?
Yes, the quasars in generally believed to be a matter of distant Universe, i.e. older than 3 GYears. The cumulation of "young" luminous active galactic nuclei in distant Universe would support the Big Bang theory. But these "distant" quasars often don't exhibit red shift, which would mean, they're closer, than their luminosity corresponds - or they simply don't recede - which would support steady-state model instead.
Origin
3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
How did "metals" get produced in such abundance so quickly?
The question isn't, how did metals get produced so quickly in distant universe, because you can always bring some explanation for it - no matter how ad-hoced it can be. But the question is, why the same mechanism didn't apply to the close Universe, i.e. why we don't observe higher metalicity of nearby galaxies. Many nearby large galaxies are of low metalicity and the question is, what prohibited them in fast cumulation of metals, while these remote ones all have high metal content.
Benni
3.3 / 5 (7) May 17, 2012
More problems for the standard model.

We may have to upgrade to the deluxe model


And the "deluxe model" may require resetting the age of the Universe from 13.7 Gyrs to a much, much, higher number. With present day optics clarity of stellar masses can be observed only to about z=10 redshift & that is stretching it, beyond that Astronomers think only primordial gas exists & there are no more galaxies beyond that point.

With new optics coming into use in the future, we may be able to see through that all that so-called primordial gas & CMBR fuzz & find a Universe a lot bigger than we imagined. When the first quasar is observed "behind" the so-called "primordial gas", as has been observed behind the galaxy in this article, the 13.7 Gyr age of the Universe will be thrown into shambles. This will entail revision to the upper limit of the integral used to calculate redshift & then watch the revisionism.



Cynical1
3.9 / 5 (7) May 17, 2012
Note: a one-legged stool is an inherently unstable system. Time to take a fresh look at tired-light models.

Note: Unless that one leg is a tree trunk...
CardacianNeverid
4 / 5 (11) May 17, 2012
And the "deluxe model" may require resetting the age of the Universe from 13.7 Gyrs to a much, much, higher number -BenniSansJets

Nope. All roads lead to Rome being built 13.7 billion years ago.

With new optics coming into use in the future, we may be able to see through that all that so-called primordial gas & CMBR fuzz & find a Universe a lot bigger than we imagined -BenniSansJets

Nope. The cosmological dark age is aptly named.

This will entail revision to the upper limit of the integral used to calculate redshift & then watch the revisionism -BenniSansJets

Nope. You're full of shit. Do some learnin'.

kaasinees
1 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
yyz is afraid of losing his job.
Shinichi D_
4.2 / 5 (5) May 17, 2012
Benni:
Can you answer me these two questions please:

What do you think was first, the first hydrogen atoms, or the first stars?
And do you think you will ever, ever see light from a star that traveled for longer time in space, than the light emitted by the first hydrogen atoms?
brodix
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2012
It appears the Big Bang model is now sitting on a one legged stool, the observed red-shift.

Which would make alternative explanations for redshift a field of interest. One model I find interesting:
http://www.fqxi.o...kets.pdf
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
Benni:
Can you answer me these two questions please:

What do you think was first, the first hydrogen atoms, or the first stars?
And do you think you will ever, ever see light from a star that traveled for longer time in space, than the light emitted by the first hydrogen atoms?


Just wait until that first quasar or GRB shows up behind all that so-called primordial gas & CMBR & the Universe is discovered to be a lot more than 13.7 Gyrs & a lot bigger than presently assumed, then what will you think? After that it won't matter what you think came first because suddenly we will be dealing with parameters we didn't know could exist, and that may very well be where science in this area is headed.

I remember a recent post where somebody stated Einstein said the universe is "flat" & "steady state". Really? And did you challenge the ludicrous statement? Talk about the need for learning General Relativity and a little math (some calculus would work nicely here).
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
Just wait until that first quasar or GRB shows up behind all that so-called primordial gas & CMBR & the Universe is discovered to be a lot more than 13.7 Gyrs & a lot bigger than presently assumed, then what will you think? -BenniTard

I will think that you are some kind of excellent genius. Until then I will continue to think that you're a bit of a moron.
Origin
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
The dense aether model apparently leads to the dispersive model of the observable Universe. We are like the solitons/foam sitting at the water surface and interacting with both smaller, both larger ripples. Because we are relatively large solitons, this view is essentially symmetric and both smaller, both larger distance scale the object observer appear regular and symmetric (atom nuclei and the stars composed mostly of atom nuclei). It's sorta moire effect and the consequence of observation of random universe with random object via transverse waves. With increasing distance from this distance/mass energy density scale the appearance of Universe becomes random and chaotic again. It indicates, that the water surface analogy of tired light model is correct. But the random Universe model implies, that the water surface assumed in the role of space-time can be never flat. There is actually no god reason for it.
Origin
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
In dense aether model the scale invariant unparticle geometry of Universe is similar to clouds or Perlin noise. It means, it doesn't matter where you appear, you're always a part of larger/more dense system, which has the same random geometry. This random geometry could be approximated with hyperbolic geometry. If you take a small piece of randomly undulating water surface, it always appear like saddle-like curve. And the same geometry can be seen at geometry of both CMBR noise at small scale, both the Doppler's anisotropy of the CMBR at the large scale. Therefore both Big Bang models, both steady-state Universe models have their limits. Actually, just the Doppler's anisotropy of the CMBR, which seemingly violates the Big Bang model can point to the evidence, that the observable Universe changes in time. Inside of random dense gas no fluctuation appears at the exactly the same place again.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
In opinion of respected astronomer Laura Mersini the observable Universe appears like the giant quantum fluctuation, which travels from place to place and it wipes the observable matter from it and/or ignites a nucleosynthesis there. IMO this perspective is a consequence of dense aether model too and it fits the duality of steady-state and big bang models. The random Universe neither emerged from single point, neither remains completely steady-state at its very global scale. It's simply less probable, than the assumption, the origin of Universe is something inbetween.

Despite of this, the acceptance of this unbiased model is probably the matter of too distant future. In the era of Big Bang theory the steady-state model could bring more new insights, because the human understanding evolves in circles. These circles mutually converge and overlap, so we should never throw out the child together with bath water of older model. We should simply forget the ideology and think in rational way
Origin
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
I will think that you are some kind of excellent genius. Until then I will continue to think that you're a bit of a moron.

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin: [g]When you're one step ahead of the crowd you're a genius. When you're two steps ahead, you're a crackpot. [/g]The observable reality appears random, chaotic and fuzzy, when being explained from perspective of deterministic waves. But during evolution of human understanding the character of these waves alternate in similar way, like during spreading of ripples at the water surface. First they're formed with random Brownian waves which are longitudinal and chaotic. Later with regular capillary waves, which are transverse. But even later these regular waves disperse again and change into gravity waves, which are of longitudinal character again. But you cannot skip these two wave generations and to remain completely deterministic during this.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
For layman people, who have no factual informations it's difficult to distinguish a crackpot from expert - they're both saying the things, which are giving no sense. For people, who don't have a time to become an experts too there is no other option, than to believe in some general clues, which enable to distinguish the crackpots from experts without actual understanding of what these people are saying. These clues usually work, but sometimes not and the similar general clues could be applied to their opponents. Being a skeptic doesn't mean, you're right automatically - it just means, you're relying into intersubjective opinion. But such conservative stance cannot move you forward. And from time to time such a conservative stance can even become a brake of the further evolution. It's time to accept this duality as bare fact and work with it for future.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
Just wait until that first quasar or GRB shows up behind all that so-called primordial gas & CMBR & the Universe is discovered to be a lot more than 13.7 Gyrs & a lot bigger than presently assumed, then what will you think? -BenniTard

I will think that you are some kind of excellent genius. Until then I will continue to think that you're a bit of a moron.


A posting troll who is the PERFECT example of someone who can't do the math & is unable to understand Einstein's GR & who probably thinks the Universe is flat. Einstein didn't resort to name calling in his disputes with Bohr & others, he produced the math. It's easy to ferret out the mathematically challenged posters, they spend most their time dwelling on name-calling than on science simply becaused they are challenged by the rigors of the maths.
CardacianNeverid
4.8 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
A posting troll who is the PERFECT example of someone who can't do the math & is unable to understand Einstein's GR & who probably thinks the Universe is flat.

Wrong on all accounts. I am comfortable with mathematics, understand GR far better then you ever will, it seems (from your past posting history), and the universe is flat (see WMAP). And it has zero total energy. So, just in that one sentence, you expose the limits of your knowledge. But there is more.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
Einstein didn't resort to name calling in his disputes with Bohr & others, he produced the math.

Those two were intellectual giants and sparred with intellectual and scientific arguments of the highest order. They did not need to resort to childish name calling.

When valid arguments were made, they had the capacity to acknowledge them and come up with better arguments.

But with idiots, name calling is a result of exasperation because the idiots have shown repeatedly the inability to even consult and understand the copious evidence that is freely available to them. Classic examples include Zephir, Kevin, QC and yes, you. Have you even bothered to answer Shinichi D's question? No, you sidestepped it. Why? Just a couple of minutes on wiki and other sites would inform you why you are wrong? Why don't you look into it? Knowledge is liberating.

Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 18, 2012
A posting troll who is the PERFECT example of someone who can't do the math & is unable to understand Einstein's GR & who probably thinks the Universe is flat.

Wrong on all accounts. I am comfortable with mathematics, understand GR far better then you ever will, it seems (from your past posting history), and the universe is flat (see WMAP). And it has zero total energy. So, just in that one sentence, you expose the limits of your knowledge. But there is more.


You're not only trolling me but you are also trolling Einstein who flatly stated that the Universe is not flat, you'd know that if you really have studied his GR, so here Mr Wizard of Smart, I'll quote it for you .....cont'd
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 18, 2012
Albert Einstein: Relativity - Section 30
Written 1916 (revised edition 1924)
Part III : Considerations on the Universe as a Whole

The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity

"If we are have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, that is the universe will be quasi-spherical, but it will be necessaily finite. In fact the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 18, 2012
Einstein's footnotes to the above:

Closed Universe: Density of matter is above critical density producing a spherical universe caused by gravitational attraction exceeding outward expansion.

Flat Universe: Density of matter is equal to critical density causing expansion to cease after infinite time.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 18, 2012
Einstein's footnotes to the above: Closed Universe: Density of matter is above critical density producing a spherical universe caused by gravitational attraction exceeding outward expansion.
It's commonly know, the Einstein considered the closed universe model just after he was forced to remove cosmological constant from his equations in accordance to the Hubble red shift finding.
..the cosmological constant... was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging...
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
You're not only trolling me but you are also trolling Einstein who flatly stated that the Universe is not flat, you'd know that if you really have studied his GR, so here Mr Wizard of Smart, I'll quote it for you -BenniTard

LOL trolling Einstein! You really are a moron. What's the point in quoting old musings on the distribution of matter and energy in the universe (when there was no understanding of inflation, dark energy, dark matter, universe size, etc), and when recent actual observations have conclusively proved that the observable universe is flat (to 0.5% error margin).

The reason that you are a moron is because you have been given many opportunities to check up on the facts of the matter (in case you were wrong), but you have not done so. I even gave you a reference, WMAP. So now I'll lead you to water, will you drink it? Here:
http://map.gsfc.n...ape.html
Shinichi D_
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2012

Benni: From your previous posts i think you got the concept of cosmic expansion wrong. It's not like parts of the universe moving away from each other according to classical mechanics. The age and the size of the universe are not proportional to each other that way. Everyday experience and logic won't help you here.
The region we see emitting cmbr is now roughly 46 billion ly away. Yes, we think there are galaxies beyond that distance. You got the size of the universe right. (probably)
What you got wrong is the age. Early in the universe, when building material of galaxies existed in the form of primordial plasma, all galaxies were like that. Those 'beyond' galaxies you think of, were already there in this early age, but they too existed as glowing plasma cloud. You can't find a mature galaxy behind another one, that so early in the evolutionary phase, it's just in the process of emitting cmbr. There are not old enough structures to shine through the cmbr.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
..It's not like parts of the universe moving away from each other according to classical mechanics..
Unfortunately it is, because the contemporary cosmology interprets the Hubble red shift with Doppler shift, i.e. with classical mechanics. Note that even founder of this shift, Edwin Hubble did not agree with this interpretation: "there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today" Actually, the proponents of Universe expansion often saying, it's not the space-time which expands here, as the massive bodies don't expand by itself - but this is exactly, what the mechanical interpretation of Universe expansion means.

My conclusion therefore is, you're all confused in this matter a bit, not just Benni.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2012

The region we see emitting cmbr is now roughly 46 billion ly away. Yes, we think there are galaxies beyond that distance. You got the size of the universe right. (probably)
What you got wrong is the age.

There are not old enough structures to shine through the cmbr.


But how do you know there are not "old enough structures to shine through the cmbr" when present day optics do not have observational capability beyond 14Gyrs or redshift of z>10 with meaningful clarity. The metallicity content of the most distant galaxies defy your postulate that there are not "old enough structures" to shine through the CMBR, you're just guessing, & your guesswork is based on the constraints of present day technology.

Radioactive decay is one of the methods used to determine the 13.7 Gyrs age of the universe, that now has been turned upside down as we discover what we thought were young early galaxies having similar metallicity content as our own.
CardacianNeverid
4.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
My conclusion therefore is... -ZephirTard

Wrong, as usual.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
But how do you know there are not "old enough structures to shine through the cmbr" -BenniTard
It's called being scientifically informed. Still not drinking the water, eh? Here's more for your edification, should you choose to accept it - Big Bang nucleosynthesis:
http://en.wikiped...ynthesis
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2012

It's called being scientifically informed.

Being "scientifically informed" is the reason I posted above a synopsis of quotes from Einstein's GR which you have already clearly stated you refute, ie, your "flat universe" vs. Einstein's "spherical universe". You haven't studied GR because you clearly don't know what Einstein stated as I posted it above, thus casting in doubt your claims to your background in science.

I surmise you think name calling makes you smarter than Einstein.
CardacianNeverid
4.4 / 5 (7) May 19, 2012
Benni, I'm done with you. If you insist on remaining a tard, that is your choice. I actually thought you were different to the likes of Zephir, but you have proved me wrong. I won't waste any more time on you.
Shinichi D_
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012


But how do you know there are not "old enough structures to shine through the cmbr"


The answer is there in my previous post. I think you know, that according to BB, there was a time in the very early universe, when all particles existed in a form of hot plasma. If every particle is in a plasma state, then it means every. There are no particles that are excluded from *every*. So no particles to form stars and galaxies. Regardless how distant two galaxies are from each other, there was a time when both were just a cloud of hot plasma. Either both of them plasma, or both of them galaxies.
What you say, is like: When ALL living organism on earth were single-cell organisms, some dinosaurs, like the T-Rex used to feed on them. But there is no T-Rex in an age, when ALL organisms are single-cell organisms.
When ALL particles are in plasma state, there are no atoms, stars and galaxies.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
I actually thought you were different to the likes of Zephir,


He denies Einstein too, that places you in great company along with the rest of the AWT "infinity" quacks looking to recreate the Universe as a perpetual motion machine.

You "flat universe" perpetual motion quacks live in a make believe universe of infinity because you do not understand Conservation of Energy, the basis for Einstein's declaration of a spherical universe, in short, you do not understand why a "sphere" is the ultimate shape that forms the basis of Conservation of Energy & all thermodynamic properties that follow & are contained within Einstein's GR.

Good luck, and may Conservation of Energy smile on all your future endeavors.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 19, 2012


But how do you know there are not "old enough structures to shine through the cmbr"


I think you know, that according to BB, there was a time in the very early universe, when all particles existed in a form of hot plasma. ..... Regardless how distant two galaxies are from each other, there was a time when both were just a cloud of hot plasma. .........When ALL particles are in plasma state, there are no atoms, stars and galaxies.


Agree, but so what, none of this adresses the actual issue of "age", that is how many years ago all this started, and that is what the newly uncovered "metallicity" content of stars in distant galaxies is now bringing into question.

Look, there is now a new radioactive decay issue that was once thought to be settled science involving the metallicity content of the early universe which pegged the age of the universe at 14-17 Gyrs, it's on the verge of going into the dust bin of archaic hypotheses.
Shinichi D_
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
"Agree, but so what, none of this adresses the actual issue of "age", that is how many years ago all this started.."

When Hubble developed the method to estimate tha age of the universe, the CMBR was not yet discovered. It didn't actually happened in Hubble's lifetime. He never "saw" the particle horizon.
He's method was to link the redshift of galaxies to their distance, which was determined with the help of cepheid variable stars. He found, that all of the distant galaxies, given their receding velocity and distance, had to be 0 ly away roughly 15 billion years ago. That is the time when the universe started to expand. He never knew about the CMBR, that knowledge isn't important to determine the age of the universe. Hubble studied galaxies from several dozen million ly to maybe less than a billion ly. All of those had zero distance from the milky way 13.7 billion years ago. That is the time of Big Bang, and the age of the universe.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 19, 2012
He's method was to link the redshift of galaxies to their distance, which was determined with the help of cepheid variable stars. He found, that all of the distant galaxies, given their receding velocity and distance,


Redshift is just one of three methodologies used as a tool in calculating age. Radioactivity has been the primary methodolgy, and if that changes, as it looks like it could if metallicity content of what were thought to be the earliest galaxies changes, the entire 13.7 Gyr age will tumble like a house of cards.

Metallicity content is anything not hydrogen & helium & is directly related to radioactivity of the elements contained therein, it varies with the age of the star and/or position in relation to galactic core. In the past, metallicity of galaxies near the primordial gas had been "presumed", that presumption is now in question due to this new discovery. If this new discovery is upheld by further testables, 13.7 Gyrs will change.
Terriva
2.8 / 5 (6) May 19, 2012
Redshift is just one of three methodologies used as a tool in calculating age. Radioactivity has been the primary methodolgy..
LOL, radioactivity measurements are age estimation tool in archeology, not cosmology. Who ever measured the radioactivity of distant stars? You're confusing the apples with potatoes here. The person who is willingly capable of such sloppy thinking at public may actually act even worse when analyzing more complex questions - so I really don't expect nothing special from you from this moment. You got at my personal black list with it.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2012
Note: Unless that one leg is a tree trunk...

But it has the whole universe resting on it...!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 24, 2012
..It's not like parts of the universe moving away from each other according to classical mechanics..
Unfortunately it is, because the contemporary cosmology interprets the Hubble red shift with Doppler shift, i.e. with classical mechanics.


Large scale cosmology is certainly classical but it is not based on Doppler shift, it is interpreted as due to the expansion of the distance between source and observer. This is equivalent over short distances but deviates at higher redshift. Above z~1.7 the distance is increasing at a rate greater than 1 light year per year.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 24, 2012
But how do you know there are not "old enough structures to shine through the cmbr" when present day optics do not have observational capability beyond 14Gyrs or redshift of z>10 with meaningful clarity.


Because the CMBR is the material which was doing the shining, and it is almost homogenous and completely fills the sky, hence it filled the whole volume of space at the time from which we see it.

Radioactive decay is one of the methods used to determine the 13.7 Gyrs age of the universe ...


No it isn't. For a basic estimate, you measure the present value of the Hubble Constant and get the age from the Friedmann Equations. (More accurate numbers need consideration of the equation of state and other factors.)
Benni
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2012


Radioactive decay is one of the methods used to determine the 13.7 Gyrs age of the universe ...


No it isn't. For a basic estimate, you measure the present value of the Hubble Constant and get the age from the Friedmann Equations. (More accurate numbers need consideration of the equation of state and other factors.)


Fleet: This time you are wrong.....in the late 90's Crown wrote a paper on measuring the thorium content of stars, it's at the UCLA site "Age of the Universe", type it into a search engine.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 24, 2012
Radioactive decay is one of the methods used to determine the 13.7 Gyrs age of the universe ...


No it isn't. For a basic estimate, you measure the present value of the Hubble Constant and get the age from the Friedmann Equations. (More accurate numbers need consideration of the equation of state and other factors.)


Fleet: This time you are wrong.....in the late 90's Crown wrote a paper on measuring the thorium content of stars, it's at the UCLA site "Age of the Universe", type it into a search engine.


Ah, that's slightly different. Crown used thorium to determine the age of the star, not the universe. Obviously if the star were older than our value for the universe, it would be a problem but as long as it is less old, it only sets a lower limit for the universe.

There's a useful table at the bottom of Ned Wright's page summarising different method results:

http://www.astro....age.html
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 24, 2012
@Fleet:

My whole point being that radioactivity is relevant, it's one of many pieces of a puzzle that demands it's unique position in creating the final picture of the entire puzzle. I'm not suggesting, or even alluding to, it being the last piece of a puzzle which we know consists of many pieces.

And what is the Universe if not the consistancy of its' contents? Stars..... and I might add Stars spread across the Universe in uniform density. Stars are not all the same for several different reasons, which is why we group them in three types.

When you have a huge mature galaxy like HUDF-JD2 positioned so close to the so-called "primordial gas cloud", it is only rational to consider that the presently accepted basis for aging the Universe can based solely on redshift.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 25, 2012
My whole point being that radioactivity is relevant, it's one of many pieces of a puzzle that demands it's unique position in creating the final picture of the entire puzzle.


Thorium has been used on one star.

I'm not suggesting, or even alluding to, it being the last piece of a puzzle which we know consists of many pieces.


Exactly.

.. it is only rational to consider that the presently accepted basis for aging the Universe can based solely on redshift.


Predominantly yes, but that's not what you said before:

Redshift is just one of three methodologies used as a tool in calculating age. Radioactivity has been the primary methodolgy, and if that changes .. the entire 13.7 Gyr age will tumble like a house of cards.

.. If this new discovery is upheld by further testables, 13.7 Gyrs will change.


The age of the one star measured using thorium might change slightly, the age of 13.7 Gyr for the universe based on redshift would not.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2012
@Fleet:

While using thorium may only slightly change the "age", the thrust of new aging technology with this methodology is adding to evidence of the finite spherical universe as Einstein laid forth in his GR. He did not postulate age in GR or ultimate size, only shape, and this is what so many miss.

And by the way, radioactivity is the primary methodolgy of determining the age of everything in existence. How do you think we know the age of the solar system? Earth? Moon? And wherever else you want to go? You want to stop at the edge of the solar system?
DarkHorse66
not rated yet May 25, 2012
here is some more for your discussion:
http://journals.c...fc6608c7
http://astro.berk...age.html
(note:this bit has quite a bit more detail about the method, but also points out that this is an INDIRECT method: "Unfortunately there is no direct way of inferring the initial concentration of these elements.However, the concentration can be estimated indirectly using our understanding of the initial generation of heavy elements(both radioactive and nonradioactive) in supernovae.")
about the 1 star:
http://ned.ipac.c...6_2.html
Btw, sure we date with radioactivity, but we use different clocks for different time periods. A shorter period will yield a more accurate result,ie smaller uncertainty. Most common clock: carbon14. Don't forget too, the older the object, the more error creeps in. Otherwise,good discussion :)Best regards, DH66
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 26, 2012
While using thorium may only slightly change the "age",


Thorium won't change our age for the universe at all.

the thrust of new aging technology with this methodology


It is not "new technology", Cowan used it on one star in 1997 and two more in 2002. The problem is that it can only be used on unusual stars where the thorium lines can be discerned.

And by the way, radioactivity is the primary methodolgy of determining the age of everything in existence.


I determine my age by counting my birthdays, I think that is the most commonly used method.

Joking aside, the real point here is that radioactive dating is one of the least useful methods in cosmology, the method by which we get 13.7 billion years doesn't use it at all.

As for the shape of the universe, that is determined by the various densities and is again unlikely to be affected by stellar aging techniques.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.