Granny galaxies discovered in the early universe

Mar 11, 2014
UDS (UKIDDS Ultra Deep Survey) astronomical field, with four of the 15 mature galaxies, based on the infrared light of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxies exhibit the typical red colors of mature galaxies. Most of the other galaxies in the image are much closer. Credit: Caroline Straatman.

(Phys.org) —An international team of astronomers have discovered the most distant examples of galaxies that were already mature and massive – not just young, star-forming galaxies in the nursery-room of the early Universe but also old, 'retired' ones – 'granny galaxies'.

A new paper, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters by researchers from Macquarie University, the Australian Astronomical Observatory (AAO) and Swinburne University of Technology raises new questions about the early Universe, and what forced these mature to grow up so quickly.

"Scientists have known about large numbers of young galaxies in the early universe actively forming new stars," says co-author Dr Lee Spitler. "The ones we've found have already gone through this phase: they have actually taken an early retirement from , when the universe was only 12% of its current age. Because they grew up so quickly, it's likely they underwent an explosive period of new star formation – a brief, so called starburst phase – then retired."

Spitler, a joint appointment between Macquarie University and the AAO, joined the team in using deep images at near-infrared wavelengths to search for galaxies in the early universe with red colors. The characteristic red colours indicate the presence of old stars and a lack of active star formation.

"These distant and early massive galaxies are one of the Holy Grails of astronomy," Professor Karl Glazebrook, Director of the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing at Swinburne University of Technology, said. "Fifteen years ago they were predicted not to even exist within the cosmological model favoured at the time. In 2004 I wrote a paper on the discovery of such galaxies existing only three billion years after the Big Bang. Now, with improved technology we are pushing back to only 1.6 billion years, which is truly exciting."

The team located 15 galaxies at an average distance of 12 billion light years, only 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang. The galaxies are barely detectable at visual wavelengths and are easily overlooked, but in the new near-infrared light images they are easily measured, from which it can be inferred that they already contained as many as 100 billion stars on average per galaxy.

The finding raises new questions about how these galaxies formed so rapidly and why they stopped forming stars so early.

"The very fact that they exist is puzzling to astronomers," says Spitler. "Galaxies, like people, take time to grow up. Something dramatic, like a starburst phase, might have caused galaxies to grow up or mature so quickly. You also may need something equally dramatic to cause the galaxies to retire and no longer produce new stars. We'll be examining even more distant galaxies next year to try and understand this better."

The galaxies were discovered after 40 nights of observing with the FourStar camera on the Magellan Baade Telescope in Chile and combined with data from Hubble's Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey and the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey. Using special filters to produce images that are sensitive to narrow slices of the near-infrared spectrum, the team were able to measure accurate distances to thousands of distant galaxies at a time, providing a 3-D map of the .

Explore further: Universe's early galaxies grew massive through collisions

More information: "A substantial population of massive quiescent galaxies at z~4 from ZFOURGE," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 18 February 2014, C. Straatman, I. Labbé, L. Spitler, R. Allen, B. Altieri, G. Brammer, M. Dickinson, P. van Dokkum, H. Inami, K. Glazebrook, G. Kacprzak, L. Kawinwanichakij, D. Kelson, P. McCarthy, N. Mehrtens, A. Monson, D. Murphy, C. Papovich, S. Persson, R. Quadri, G. Rees, A. Tomczak, K. Tran, V. Tilvi, DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L14

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Looking back to the cradle of our universe

Feb 10, 2014

(Phys.org) —NASA's Spitzer and Hubble Space Telescopes have spotted what might be one of the most distant galaxies known, harkening back to a time when our universe was only about 650 million years old ...

Galaxies the way they were

Apr 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —Galaxies today come very roughly in two types: reddish, elliptically shaped collections of older stars, and bluer, spiral shaped objects dominated by young stars. The conventional wisdom is ...

Recommended for you

Image: Multicoloured view of supernova remnant

1 hour ago

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

1 hour ago

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

1 hour ago

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, ...

Image: Horsehead nebula viewed in infrared

2 hours ago

Sometimes a horse of a different color hardly seems to be a horse at all, as, for example, in this newly released image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The famous Horsehead nebula makes a ghostly appearance ...

The Milky Way's new neighbour

2 hours ago

The Milky Way, the galaxy we live in, is part of a cluster of more than 50 galaxies that make up the 'Local Group', a collection that includes the famous Andromeda galaxy and many other far smaller objects. ...

Image: Hubble sweeps a messy star factory

2 hours ago

This sprinkle of cosmic glitter is a blue compact dwarf galaxy known as Markarian 209. Galaxies of this type are blue-hued, compact in size, gas-rich, and low in heavy elements. They are often used by astronomers ...

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

billpress11
1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
First astronomers had to add the "inflationary period" to explain away the flatness of the observable universe. Later they had to add the "accelerating expansion" of the observable universe to explain away the fact that distant supernova are dimmer than their distance would indicate. What is next? How are these "old granny" galaxies going to be explained away?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
I'm not sure they need to be 'explained away'. Early stars should have been mostly of the very big/very short lived type and galaxies were closer together.
So it wouldn't surprise me that after a quick starburst phase you'd get some galaxies which are subsequently relatively starved of matter (because the initial matter got blown out by the large radition pressure and many supernovae - as well as syphoned off by other, larger galaxies in the vicinity)

We'll need to wait for the spectral analysis of these granny galaxies to see how long (how many star generations) it took them to get to that state.
BoojumusMaximus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2014
Interesting take Bill. It's almost as if you simultaneously want to critique the process on its merits, and dismiss the process because it isn't giving you the answer you want.

Maybe when you're ready to actually let the Universe tell you about itself, BIll, you won't get so frustrated when it gives you the wrong answers. Hint: the Universe is up there, over your head. That book you're looking at, is NOT the Universe.
Rimino
Mar 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2014
Say it ain't so! Long live the Huge Bang Fantasy. It is hilarious how precious this idea of an 'ultimate beginning' is in the fanciful minds of modern astronomers. They will accommodate all kinds of observational problems in order to hold on to this illogical conclusion. Quick. We need another patch, to sustain this fanciful world view.
billpress11
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
Say it ain't so! Long live the Huge Bang Fantasy. It is hilarious how precious this idea of an 'ultimate beginning' is in the fanciful minds of modern astronomers. They will accommodate all kinds of observational problems in order to hold on to this illogical conclusion. Quick. We need another patch, to sustain this fanciful world view.

Right on the money Tuxford, if this observation stands up we will need another ad-hoc patch!
Bonia
Mar 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marklade
Mar 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
pandora4real
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2014
I'm done with reading popular press astronomy. The mendacious, gratuitous anthropomorphizing is off-putting in the extreme. This is 21st century marketing. Water down your product so that people that don't like it will bite and screw the ones that really do because all that matters if volume, volume, volume. And funding from anti-intellectual nitwits.

Metaphors are to make an analogy that is difficult to conceptualize otherwise. This article is nothing but pandering to anti-intellectuals; the metaphors are not and never were necessary.
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
The massive self-propagating photons, composed of equal but opposite charges, though "defined" as zero due to their vanishingly small mass, actually defeat "universal expansion" which requires their mass to be zero. See http://www.photon...ang.html for the story of the Belgian priest/physicist (who Einstein discounted) Georges Lemaitre's theory being "enforced" by Hubble's assistant Humason, by denying access to the Mount Wilson Observatory to non-believers of his theory. Also "The Mass of the Photon", by Alfred Goldhaber and Michael Nieto (LANL) in the May 1976 issue of Scientific American.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
It's normal religion, nothing else...And their priests are collecting profit with it in the same way, like the mainstream physicists. The common aspect of both groups is their opened unwillingness to accept any evidence for dual perspective

@Zeph
youve been pushing this same diatribe for a long time with absolutely no proof other than your personal conjecture and some hallucinations that you seem to think applies to reality, much like your inability to differentiate between mechanical actions in plants and sentient intelligent behaviour.
When are you going to give us proof other than your supposition and claims of DAW/AW tripe?
And before you post LENR stupidity... none have the ability to viably create a reactor with measurable output for use, as can be proven by the incredibly LACK of working models.
extrapolating the theory/maths means nothing if ya cant make it work for real!

(by the way... want to buy a LENR reactor factory? I have one to sell... cheap! really!)
TheMandorian
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
First astronomers had to add the "inflationary period" to explain away the flatness of the observable universe. Later they had to add the "accelerating expansion" of the observable universe to explain away the fact that distant supernova are dimmer than their distance would indicate. What is next? How are these "old granny" galaxies going to be explained away?


Would you care to share how any of that has anything to do with the biblical account of creation? "he made the stars also" is not a scientific statement of any kind and never will be. Coming up with new theories as you learn more is not "explaining away" anything.

Perhaps you would like to explain how the bible puts forth the idea that the earth is flat, that the stars are just little dots in the dome of the earth and that the sun goes into its secret place under the earth at night.

Id like to see you "explain away" some of that.

TheMandorian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Say it ain't so! Long live the Huge Bang Fantasy. It is hilarious how precious this idea of an 'ultimate beginning' is in the fanciful minds of modern astronomers. They will accommodate all kinds of observational problems in order to hold on to this illogical conclusion. Quick. We need another patch, to sustain this fanciful world view.


And what pray tell is your alternative view? That the universe had no beginning?

Actually that is also a current scientific hypothesis. That the universe is really a multidimensional-multiverse and we are just one little tiny grain of sand in it.

You should read the book Our Mathematical Universe, by Max Tegmark.
Bonia
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
which do violate the Big Bang theory.

How so? It just says that there are galaxies that stopped making stars very soon - nothing more nothing less.
billpress11
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
TheMandorian, I'm not the one stuck into a religious belief about the need for a beginning of the universe. It is the believers of the BB theory that are into that stuff. The most likely alternate view is that the universe is infinite is size and age and recycles over perhaps trillions of years.

One thing that has been coming very clear lately is the BB theory has needed ad-hoc patches to remain viable. And all of these patches have had to resort to some sort of magic, that is science at its worst. The BB rest on a one legged stool, the observed red-shift.
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
billpress11
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
which do violate the Big Bang theory.

How so? It just says that there are galaxies that stopped making stars very soon - nothing more nothing less.

That is just the problem, why would it stop making stars so soon? That is the violation, just as the flatness of the universe violates the BB Theory.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
why would it stop making stars so soon?

Like any other galaxy: it runs out of material (for one reason or another).
Why do you think that there should be no region at all in the early universe that had little gas (or could have lost its gas due to other, close-by attractors)?
janani_matthew
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2014
Bill, it's to good buddy . At the same time, willing to, so to speak in its own right to find fault with the process, and you left an answer you do not want any.

http://everestind...s.co.in/
billpress11
1 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
Quote from article: "new questions about the early Universe, and what forced these mature galaxies to grow up so quickly." And: "he finding raises new questions about how these galaxies formed so rapidly and why they stopped forming stars so early." Also: "The team located 15 galaxies at an average distance of 12 billion light years, only 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang. The galaxies are barely detectable at visual wavelengths and are easily overlooked,"

If they are easily overlooked it is very likely many more will be found in the future.

AP, maybe you don't find these very early massive mature galaxies creating a problem for the BB theory, well they apparently think answers will be needed.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
If they are easily overlooked it is very likely many more will be found in the future.

So?

Sure these findings will lead to original research on galaxy formation and early universe gas distribution - but I still see no real argument here why this would put the BB model in doubt (certainly I see no one proposing anything better).
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
Tegmark has no idea what he's talking about.


Why are they paying him to talk and ignoring you Zeph?
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2014
AP, how many of these short lived massive mature galaxies have we observed within 1.6 billion lightyears of our own? If none or very few this is a problem.

It is the accumulation of evidence that is putting the BB theory in doubt, magic wouldn't save it in the long run. Just remember at one time most people thought no one had a better proposal than a flat earth.
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
Quote from article: "new questions about the early Universe, and what forced these mature galaxies to grow up so quickly." And: "he finding raises new questions about how these galaxies formed so rapidly and why they stopped forming stars so early." Also: "The team located 15 galaxies at an average distance of 12 billion light years, only 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang. The galaxies are barely detectable at visual wavelengths and are easily overlooked,"

If they are easily overlooked it is very likely many more will be found in the future.

AP, maybe you don't find these very early massive mature galaxies creating a problem for the BB theory, well they apparently think answers will be needed.


There will ALWAYS be new questions and new observations. The bar you set is a false. Science ALWAYS adjusts the models as new data permits refining your constrains. You are demanding that they have 100 % accurate models and just go home because all is finished.
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
If they are easily overlooked it is very likely many more will be found in the future.

So?

Sure these findings will lead to original research on galaxy formation and early universe gas distribution - but I still see no real argument here why this would put the BB model in doubt (certainly I see no one proposing anything better).


A galaxy of mature stars, none of which can be older 1.6 billion years if the BB theory is correct.

Keep dreaming.

Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
It is the accumulation of evidence that is putting the BB theory in doubt, magic wouldn't save it in the long run. Just remember at one time most people thought no one had a better proposal than a flat earth.


There is no accumulation of evidence that is putting the so-call "BB theory" in doubt. Quite the opposite, the evidence for it accumulating and becoming more robust. Saying "doubts are accumulating" is nothing more than sloganeering.

These findings in no way create "doubts" on the model, they only affect the way that large structure forming time-lines are understood. Adjusting or tweaking those time-lines does invalidate the overall model, it only gives additional constrains to make the model more precise.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
AP, how many of these short lived massive mature galaxies have we observed within 1.6 billion lightyears of our own?

Since stuff we observe close to us is not as old - what's your point? There was an entire evolution of gas distributions and interactions (14 billion of years worth). Galaxies can be reignited by collisions so I wouldn't expect current distributions to mirror ancient ones much.
The local group alone has examples of all sorts of galaxies (spanning several orders of magnitude in mass, of various ages and metallicities)

It is the accumulation of evidence that is putting the BB theory in doubt,

To put something in doubt it must PERTAIN to the something it is putting in doubt. That you collect surprising evidence of flower pollination does not put Relativity in doubt. You're jumping to conclusions. The scientists who reported this would most certainly have remarked on it if they thought this would put the BB in doubt in any way.
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2014
We aren't discussing your religion here, but the experimental findings presented in current article. The religion of yours is irrelevant for it and off-topic here. Can you understand it?


Better than you understand how irrelevant your religion centered on the AWT and cold fusion "before twenty years" is apparently.

Try to live with it - I'm not interested about it.


I'll try Zeph. I'll try really hard, but it may be impossible for me to go on living if you're not going to be interested in it.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2014
I love a good old fashioned discussion of the facts in the morning.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Q-star quote: "There will ALWAYS be new questions and new observations. The bar you set is a false. Science ALWAYS adjusts the models as new data permits refining your constrains. You are demanding that they have 100 % accurate models and just go home because all is finished."

That statement may or may not be true. It is settled that the earth is round, that matter and energy are interchangeable, that energy and momentum are conserved, and many more examples.

BUT one thing that scientist should not do is resort to magic to answer a question raised about a previously settled(?) theory. That is exactly what the believers in the BB theory have had to resort to.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
That is exactly what the believers in the BB theory have had to resort to.

We use the theory that fits the facts best (current AND past). If you have a better one: propose it. But until you have one that fits the facts BETTER we should stick with the one that describes the facts best, don't you think?
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Quote AP: "To put something in doubt it must PERTAIN to the something it is putting in doubt."

The need for an inflationary period and recently an acceleration in the expansion rate certainly should raise doubt. And those CERTAINLY does pertain the the BB theory. If it doesn't raise doubt especially when magic is used to adjust the facts to fit your preconceived theory, well that is your problem not mine.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
It is settled that the earth is round,


You started with a poor example. The earth WAS thought to be round. Then we discovered it is not PERFECTLY so. The mechanics were continually tweaked and still are being tweaked, it doesn't cast doubt on the theory of self gravitation and hydrostatic equilibrium. The earth's equatorial diameter is greater than it's polar diameter, does that cast doubt on the "round earth" thing, all the world-globes in all the classrooms must be recalled?

BUT one thing that scientist should not do is resort to magic to answer a question raised about a previously settled(?) theory.


Filling and refining details is not resorting to magic.

If you think the Lambda CDM model of the universe is "magic", then you must have some better internally consistent model to reflect reality with, what is it? Is it complete (meaning does it answer everything)? Is it compatible with all observations? Does it make predictions? What are they?
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
That is exactly what the believers in the BB theory have had to resort to.

We use the theory that fits the facts best (current AND past). If you have a better one: propose it. But until you have one that fits the facts BETTER we should stick with the one that describes the facts best, don't you think?

One could argue you are not using the best facts when one has had to resort to magic.
I have proposed what I think is a better idea in a previous posting, a recycling universe that is infinite in size and age. And another explanation for the observed red-shift. That explanation may or may not be correct, it is at this link, only time will tell: http://www.The Waves of Particles Theory of Light
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
a recycling universe that is infinite in size and age.

Which sort of simply ignores the problem: Causality without a start. You see no inherent problem in this? It's a contradiction at the most basic level.
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2014
a recycling universe that is infinite in size and age.

Which sort of simply ignores the problem: Causality without a start. You see no inherent problem in this? It's a contradiction at the most basic level.

Not really, the BB theory has the exact same problem.
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2014
Not really, the BB theory has the exact same problem.

The BB does not propose infinities as your 'theory' does. Infinities are the ultimate cop-out (no different than proposing a god).

Unless you have a reason to suspect that infinities are real? And what would those reasons be?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
a recycling universe that is infinite in size and age


And you don't think that is "magical"? Without evidence and a good reason to assume it, an a priori condition is by definition magical.
TheMandorian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2014
You should read the book Our Mathematical Universe, by Max Tegmark
Such an hyperdimensional universe just violates the concept of Mathematical Universe, because it's merely random. The projection of many dimensions into 3D space is random. Tegmark has no idea what he's talking about. After all, he's one of most iconic apologists of Big bang theory and whole the confused reductionist approach in physics of the last fifty decades.


Have you actually read the book? Because you don't really seem to understand what he has said at all. So Tegmark.. one of the most well read, researched and tenured physicist and mathematicians who has been on the inside and at the ground level of research for 20 years "has no idea what he is talking about" but you.. oh internet wise man who understands all things well.

Maybe I should bow... or ask for an autograph. Everyone be quiet we are in the presence of greatness here.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2014
Why do you think, the medieval astronomers did adhere on epicycle model? The geocentric model was supported with establishment (Holly Church) and they could compute well payed horoscopes for privileged persons with it

@Zeph
1- its holy, holly is a plant
2- maybe they were all on the same page because to speak out against the church brought a painful fiery death? So your argument is non-sensical in the light of modern times... I dont see a bunch of physicists/theorists burning other physicists at the stake (or even just shooting them) for not believing mainstream dogma
From the same reason the research of cold fusion is ignored

cold fusion is ignored because it is impractical, it cannot manifest enough reaction to build a viable working machine to supply electricity, and even with the NON CRACKPOT theories, no one has been able to apply it to generate reproducible results to create a working machine
TheMandorian
not rated yet Mar 12, 2014
a recycling universe that is infinite in size and age


And you don't think that is "magical"? Without evidence and a good reason to assume it, an a priori condition is by definition magical.


go where the evidence leads and question everything.

and I will add to that... the numbers are never wrong always follow the math.
TheMandorian
not rated yet Mar 12, 2014
BTW I do not have a fixed in stone view of the universe. I am not a research scientist. I simply read a lot of books and I respect the experts who have spent their entire lives working on these issues.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Not really, the BB theory has the exact same problem.

The BB does not propose infinities as your 'theory' does. Infinities are the ultimate cop-out (no different than proposing a god).

Unless you have a reason to suspect that infinities are real? And what would those reasons be?

But it does propose "something from nothing". Now that is a god like answer, little better than what most religions propose.

Quote Q-star: "And you don't think that is "magical"? Without evidence and a good reason to assume it, an a priori condition is by definition magical."

As for infinities, well that is something that can not be proven. One can only prove something is NOT infinite.
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
But it does propose "something from nothing". Now that is a god like answer,


The Lambda CDM model (which I think is what you mean by BB theory, correct me if I'm wrong on that) does NOT propose "something from nothing". There is no theoretical consensus on what initial conditions existed before time = 10 ^ - 43 seconds.

Quote Q-star: "And you don't think that is "magical"? Without evidence and a good reason to assume it, an a priori condition is by definition magical."


The Lambda CDM model does not assume anything a priori other than the physical processes hold for all times covered in the models. Particle physics, nuclear physics, thermodynamics, electromagnetic, gravitation work the same way everywhere and everytime back to t = 10 ^ - 34 seconds

As for infinities, well that is something that can not be proven. One can only prove something is NOT infinite.


Infinity is no more than a one word statement of: "I don't know", and that is magical.
billpress11
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
Quote Q-star: "Infinity is no more than a one word statement of: "I don't know", and that is magical."

True just as you and the BB theory have no answer to what went on before 10 to the -34 seconds. Furthermore you cannot give any answer as to why or what started the BB.

And yes it does rely on an unknown or if you prefer magic. The difference, that is the only magic that needs to be use in a recycling universe. That is only the beginning of the use of "magic" in the BB theory.

I just skip that problem by admitting I do not know and replacing it with a recycling universe that has always existed and probably always will.
Rimino
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 13, 2014
Seems y'all are quibbling over start vs no start. What is "magic" about no start? Why not just "is" and always "was"? a "Start" seems more magical... Just because everything else in the universe has a beginning, why does a universe have to? why not just causality being a result of itself?
After that, you can just go out and have a drink...
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2014
4% luminous matter, 24% dark matter and 72% dark energy = 100% knowledge of the universe.

How much knowledge have the science of the universe? 100%? 50%? 25%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0,001%? or ?
Bonia
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
http://en.wikiped...HUDF-JD2

Hey gang, this one is even further away than the galaxies they're talking about here. Imagine a mature galaxy the size of Andromeda just a little over 800 million years from the BB. That puts this thing right on the edge of the "primordial cloud".
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 15, 2014
Could the "fuzzy" light at the beginning of the universe just be the point when "expansion" exceeds the speed of light?
Meaning - there's a whole other half of the universe we can't see yet...?
Bonia
Mar 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 15, 2014
@Gyre: Why just other half? Astronomers already http://www.techno...ogists/, that the cosmos is at least 250x bigger than visible universe...

Just providing a simple starting point....
Simon Lock
not rated yet Mar 18, 2014
@billpress11 :

True just as you and the BB theory have no answer to what went on before 10 to the -34 seconds. Furthermore you cannot give any answer as to why or what started the BB.


Yes, that's my unresolved question with regards to the BB theoretical model too !

Just as with yesterday's announcement of evidence of "Gravitational Waves" in support of the BB theory, what it does NOT answer is "What was the cause of the start of the Inflation process itself ?", or in other words : "What set it all off to begin with ?"

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.