Extreme turbulence roiling 'most luminous galaxy' in the universe

January 15, 2016
Artist impression of W2246-0526, a galaxy glowing in infrared light as intensely as 350 trillion suns. It is so violently turbulent that it may eventually jettison its entire supply of star-forming gas, according to new observations with ALMA. Credit: Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF; Dana Berry / SkyWorks; ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO)

The most luminous galaxy in the Universe - a so-called obscured quasar 12.4 billion light-years away - is so violently turbulent that it may eventually jettison its entire supply of star-forming gas, according to new observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA).

A team of researchers used ALMA to trace, for the first time, the actual motion of the galaxy's interstellar medium - the gas and dust between the stars. What they found, according to Tanio Díaz-Santos of the Universidad Diego Portales in Santiago, Chile, is a galaxy "so chaotic that it is ripping itself apart."

Previous studies with NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) spacecraft revealed that the galaxy, dubbed W2246-0526, is glowing in infrared light as intensely as approximately 350 trillion suns.

Evidence strongly suggests that this galaxy is an obscured quasar, a very with a voraciously feeding supermassive black hole at its center that is completely obscured behind a thick blanket of dust.

This galaxy's startling brightness is powered by a tiny, yet incredibly energetic disk of gas that is being superheated as it spirals in on the . The light from this blazingly bright accretion disk is then absorbed by the surrounding dust, which re-emits the energy as infrared light.

"These properties make this object a beast in the infrared," said Roberto Assef, an astronomer with the Universidad Diego Portales and leader of the ALMA observing team. "The powerful infrared energy emitted by the dust then has a direct and violent impact on the entire galaxy, producing extreme turbulence throughout the ."

The astronomers compare this turbulent action to a pot of boiling water. If these conditions continue, they say, the galaxy's intense infrared radiation will boil away all of its interstellar gas.

This galaxy belongs to a very unusual type of quasar known as Hot, Dust-Obscured Galaxies or Hot DOGs. These objects are very rare; only 1 out of every 3,000 quasars observed by WISE belongs to this class.

The astronomers used ALMA to precisely map the motion of atoms throughout the entire galaxy. These atoms, which are tracers for interstellar gas, naturally emit , which becomes shifted to millimeter wavelengths as it travels the vast cosmic distances to Earth due to the expansion of the Universe.

"Large amounts of ionized carbon were found in an extremely turbulent dynamic state throughout the galaxy," Díaz-Santos describes. The data reveal that this interstellar material is careening anywhere from 500 to 600 kilometers per second throughout the entire galaxy.

The astronomers believe that this turbulence is primarily due to the fact that the region around the black hole is at least 100 times more luminous than the rest of the galaxy combined; in other quasars, the proportion is much more modest. This intense yet localized radiation exerts tremendous pressure on the entire galaxy, to potentially devastating effect.

"We suspected that this galaxy was in a transformative stage of its life because of the enormous amount of infrared energy discovered with WISE," said Peter Eisenhardt with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Now ALMA has shown us that the raging furnace in this galaxy is making the pot boil over."

Current models of galactic dynamics combined with the ALMA data indicate that this galaxy is unstable and its is being blown away in all directions. This suggests that the galaxy's Hot DOG days are numbered as it matures into a more traditional unobscured quasar.

"If this pattern continues, it is possible that in the future W2246 ends up shedding a large part of the gas and dust it contains," concludes Manuel Aravena also from the Universidad Diego Portales. "Only ALMA, with its unparalleled resolution, can allow us to see this object in high definition and fathom such an important episode in the life of this galaxy."

Explore further: Hubble sees a supermassive and super-hungry galaxy

More information: "The Strikingly Uniform, Highly Turbulent Interstellar Medium of The Most Luminous Galaxy in the Universe", by T. Díaz-Santos et al., and will be published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Related Stories

Hubble sees a supermassive and super-hungry galaxy

January 11, 2016

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the spiral galaxy NGC 4845, located over 65 million light-years away in the constellation of Virgo (The Virgin). The galaxy's orientation clearly reveals the galaxy's striking ...

Image: The Stephan's Quintet of galaxies

December 21, 2015

The Stephan's Quintet of galaxies was discovered by astronomer Édouard Stephan in 1877. At the time, however, he reported the discovery of 'new nebulae', as the concept of other galaxies beyond our Milky Way was only formalised ...

Could the Milky Way become a quasar?

February 27, 2015

A quasar is what you get when a supermassive black hole is actively feeding on material at the core of a galaxy. The region around the black hole gets really hot and blasts out radiation that we can see billions of light-years ...

Hubble sees a galaxy with a glowing heart

July 14, 2014

(Phys.org) —This view, captured by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, shows a nearby spiral galaxy known as NGC 1433. At about 32 million light-years from Earth, it is a type of very active galaxy known as a Seyfert galaxy—a ...

Recommended for you

Khatyrka meteorite found to have third quasicrystal

December 9, 2016

(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers from the U.S. and Italy has found evidence of a naturally formed quasicrystal in a sample obtained from the Khatyrka meteorite. In their paper published in the journal Scientific Reports, ...

Scientists sweep stodgy stature from Saturn's C ring

December 9, 2016

As a cosmic dust magnet, Saturn's C ring gives away its youth. Once thought formed in an older, primordial era, the ring may be but a mere babe – less than 100 million years old, according to Cornell-led astronomers in ...

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2016
is a galaxy "so chaotic that it is ripping itself apart."


And I predicted this condition years ago (Dec 2010 comment) as the final stage of galactic evolution: galactic destruction leaving the massive core bare ejecting massive winds of newly formed matter in all directions.

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

The article fails to offer a mechanism for sufficient accretion to occur in such a violent environment? Just more propaganda from the merger maniacs. Astronomers simply don't like to admit their profound confusion.
barakn
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2016
The article fails to offer a mechanism for sufficient accretion to occur in such a violent environment?

The accretion mostly occurred before the violence and the accretion disk is now magnetically tangled with the spinning black hole, causing the material to be inexorably drawn towards the black hole despite the high radiation environment (which is actually helping by completely ionizing the incoming material and therefore ensuring that it is susceptible to magnetic fields). Your ignorance of the mechanism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
RealScience
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2016
And I predicted this condition years ago (Dec 2010 comment) as the final stage of galactic evolution


I see... the final stage ... so that's why it was found in the closest / oldest galaxies that are nearby...

Oh wait - 12.4 billion light years away isn't very close to here, is it?
So it would be 12.4 billion years YOUNGER than nearby galaxies, which does not match with your 'final stage' prediction.. Care to roll the dice and try again?
Tuxford
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
These objects are very rare; only 1 out of every 3,000 quasars observed by WISE belongs to this class.


Sure. I can spell it out for you Batman. This 'roiling' transition phase is transitory, and thereby rare (short-term). Therefore one needs a much larger data set to find these rare objects. Thus, one is far more likely to observe this object at extreme distances where the data set grows huge. And, for the same reason, we see many more of these quasar objects at extreme distances. Remember, the universe is much older, and did not start with a bang.

It is not rocket science, but still beyond the limited view of most astronomers, who are subject to institutional 'group think'.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
So basically what you are saying is that you, Tuxford, whoever or whatever that may be, outshine the entire astronomical and astrophysical science.
You're a supernova, Tuxford !
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2016
Thus, one is far more likely to observe this object at extreme distances where the data set grows huge...


It is harder to see farther objects, so the data set of extremely distant observed objects is much smaller than for intermediate distances. However since HOT DOGs are the most luminous objects known, let's give your statement the benefit of the doubt and assume that distance makes no difference out to 10 billion light years (BLY).

Wise data revealed >1000 HOT DOGs candidates, so if you are right the same data set should have ~8 within 2 BLY. These would be >25x brighter and stand out like a sore thumb!

Instead, the ~100 checked with Hubble by 2013 were found to be 'about 10 BLY away', which would be expected if these are early-stage in a BB universe but not late-stage in a SS universe.

Yes, their methods of picking candidates could be biased, but WISE data is public so comb through the data set yourself and prove astronomers wrong!
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2016
P.S. I actually intuitively like SS better than BB, but the evidence so far is that the universe doesn't listen to me.

So I HOPE that you comb through the WISE data and do a statistical analysis that shows that HOT DOGs are evenly distributed in space, and that this is thus NOT BB evidence, or, even better, find some evidence FOR a SS universe. That would be really cool!

But I won't hold my breath while waiting, because I suspect that the astronomy community has already done a reasonable job. While there certainly is group think, there are also plenty of people who would jump at the chance to make a major discovery by looking at the data differently.

So I genuinely wish you good like in finding evidence for some non-standard theory, but until you actually have evidence, your countless posts are not productive and are an annoying waste of pixels.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
I actually intuitively like SS better than BB, but the evidence so far is that the universe doesn't listen to me.
Consider also:

If BBang hypothesis was correct, then most, if not all, the galaxies at every similar distance from us would be roughly in the same evolutionary state/trajectory; which in turn would mean that at the most distant 'observational shell' around us would be almost ALL quasars!

Yet we are finding vast diversity including innumerable dwarf and low-surface-brightness etc galaxies. This implies that every observable region of infinite energy-space is undergoing natural cycling of its expanse of energy-space fundamental constituents; though the unceasing dynamics/forms, from fundamental-to-higher-to-highest evolved and back around again via deconstructing processes like polar jets etc whereby 'deconstructed material' returns to deep space to evolve anew according to local conditions that produce the 'variety' observed.

Cheers. :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
If BBang hypothesis was correct, then most, if not all, the galaxies at every similar distance from us would be roughly in the same evolutionary state/trajectory; which in turn would mean that at the most distant 'observational shell' around us would be almost ALL quasars!


That would be true IF all galaxies evolve at the same rate, AND IF quasars were continuously active throughout a phase of the galaxy's life. But if quasars are intermittent (like BH feeding appears to be), then if they are active only x% of the time at a certain age we'd expect to see only x% of the galaxies at that distance active. And small galaxies and big galaxies and spirals and ellipticals and loners and cluster members may all evolve at different rates, too.

It is one of those things where intuition is great for thinking up questions, but it takes careful analysis of massive quantities of data to narrow down the range of models that match what we see.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
If BBang hypothesis was correct, then most, if not all, the galaxies at every similar distance from us would be roughly in the same evolutionary state/trajectory; which in turn would mean that at the most distant 'observational shell' around us would be almost ALL quasars!
That would be true IF all galaxies evolve at the same rate, AND IF quasars were continuously active throughout a phase of the galaxy's life....
All you say only begs the question rather than counter the point raised. :)

Ie, what MADE far galaxies evolve so differently in similar 'shell distance' regions so 'early on' if BBang was correct and ALL evolving from diffuse matter? :)

That's what an infinite SS universe constantly recycling its various finite regions of energy-space DOES allow; whereas a finite BBang universe must explain not only it's origins but also such enormous variability within/between regions which purportedly started evolving in/at similar stage/states. :)
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
@rc
You raise a good point, "what MADE ...". This requires an answer, but that does not mean that it did not happen. Population III stars could have created inhomogeneity, if they were big and violent enough to blow gas away at the end of their short lives.
https://en.wikipe...II_stars
RealScience
5 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
All you say only begs the question rather than counter the point raised. :)

It doesn't counter the point raised - it just shows that the point raised does not strike a blow to BB and so is not evidence for either theory. If you had said 'what we see locally is compatible with SS' I would agree, but it is not INCOMPATIBLE with BB as you alleged. The burden of proof is on those challenging the main stream...

what MADE far galaxies evolve so differently in similar 'shell distance' regions so 'early on' if BBang was correct and ALL evolving from diffuse matter?

In BB, quantum fluctuations started the inhomogeneities; modelling this works out pretty well with twiddling a few knobs (mainly DM temperature). I like models with fewer knobs, but it is nowhere near as bad as epicycles yet!

The great thing is that in a decade or so we'll have orders of magnitude more data, so I'm keeping an open mind until then.
Tuxford
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
So basically what you are saying ... !

As I recall, LaViolette made no prediction that the core would eventually dissipate the entire galaxy, limiting his model to explaining Hoag objects with propagating cosmic ray super waves.

However, given the likely extreme age of our detectable subset of the universe in which we exist, it seemed logical to me that the AGNs would eventually grow so powerful to dissipate the surrounding stars, since they are generally propagating outwards.

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

And since their internal growth accelerates further with further growth, it seemed logical that they might eventually reach a state where their growth rates exceeds their potential matter ejection rates. This might lead to an explosive ending, further seeding the core region to begin the condensation process again. This might explain the dual cores now observed perhaps even in our galaxy, and the origin of galaxy clusters, etc.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2016
'Extreme turbulence roiling 'most luminous galaxy' in the universe'

Why is this framed as though it is happening now?
RealScience
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
@Tuxford - Thank you for the refreshing tone that an alternate model 'might be' and 'seems logical' to you, rather dismissive attacks on astronomers as a whole. I hope that it leads to productive discussions replacing the unproductive flame wars.


However, given the likely extreme age of our detectable subset of the universe in which we exist, it seemed logical to me that the AGNs would eventually grow so powerful to dissipate the surrounding stars, since they are generally propagating outwards.

AGNs do not appear to grow steadily more powerful.
They have recently been seen to quiet down from flare-ups, and evidence has been found (e.g. XMM-Newton) that our own galaxy has been more active in the past.

What evidence is there that 'they are generally propagating outward?
Or that 'their internal growth accelerates further with further growth' (which would also fit for accretion)?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
If you had said 'what we see locally is compatible with SS' I would agree, but it is not INCOMPATIBLE with BB as you alleged. The burden of proof is on those challenging the main stream...
I have always agreed that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....which is precisely what those making extraordinary claims for BBang/Inflation?Expansion/DE/DM have failed to do. :)

Consider:

Prior to 'extraordinary' BBang Hypotheses/claims, there was the prevailing 'ordinary' SS Hypotheses/claims based on 'ordinary' scientific logics/extrapolations from observations and application of Occams Razor principle...all of which indicated/supported the 'ordinary' hypothesis/claims for Infinite/Eternal universal phenomena consisting of the most irreducibly simple self-identical quantum entities manifesting as the void/vacuum 'substrate' from which all higher complex/evolving processes/features arise and subside in unceasing CHAOS dynamics/forms.

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
...cont: @RealScience

Then along came the 'extraordinary' BBang Hypotheses/claims...all of which have YET to be conclusively confirmed via the necessary 'extraordinary evidence' which the scientific method DEMANDS before we abandon the PRIOR 'ordinary' paradigm based on Occams Razor/scientific/logical 'ordinary evidence' indicating an Infinite/Eternal chaos dynamical simple fundamenatl universal substrate producing all the various scales/complexities of processes/features observed.

As for the claims that 'there IS extraordinary evidence' supporting BBang Hypotheses/claims, said 'evidence' ALSO supports the PRIOR paradigm and is increasingly being shown by mainstream observations to be NOT really supporting evidence for BBang/Inflation/Expansion UNLESS the observations are 'interpreted' in a CONFIRMATIONALLY BIASED manner through self-serving 'exercises' riddled with data analysis/observational constructs/techniques such as exemplified by initial BICEP2 'exercise'.

cont...

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
...cont further: @RealScience

Similarly, all 'exercises/results' claimed as 'supporting' BBang/Inflation/Accelerated Expansion etc are now found to be NOT SO. Eg, the CMB can be produced as part of an overall 'background level' of electromagnetic radiation 'fog' traveling in and contributed to all the infinity of 'local observable' finite regions of the infinite/eternal SS-type chaotically-cycling universal physical quanta/entities/dynamics. In addition, the 'velocity' Rotation Curve observations were simplistically 'averaged' for thr accretion disc as a whole, BUT, as more sensible observations increasingly confirm, the disc stars are NOT in 'neat circular orbital trajectories' around the central galactic black holes; but rathe in a range of inwardly/outwardly spiraling, random 'ejection/infalling trajectories due to gravitational/tidal/extreme novae/aupernovae events/winds etc.

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
...cont further still: @RealScience

So let's examine the 'extraordinary evidence' depended on by those making 'extraordinary' BBang/Inflation/Acceleration/DM/DE etc: Inflation/Expansion/Acceleration claims NOT unequivocally supported by recent observations, thus making 'extraordinary' BBang hypothesis/claims, and all subsequent 'ad hoc' attempts to 'fix' obvious flaws/gaps in the associated assumptions/claims, a failure at providing the 'extraordinary evidence' demanded by scientific method before abandoning prior SS-type paradigm.

Obviously, BBang claimants been trying to REVERSE the 'burden of proof' onto those who agreed with the prior 'ordinary' SS-type paradigm....but every time they attempt it they are met with 'ordinary evidence' from recent mainstream observations which support the logically/scientifically/Occams Razor based 'ordinary' claims of SS-type paradigm.

In short: I agree with you re burden of proof; and re SS-type paradigm being most tenable. Cheers. :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
I have always agreed that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....which is precisely what those making extraordinary claims for BBang/Inflation?Expansion/DE/DM have failed to do. :)

Consider:

Prior to 'extraordinary' BBang Hypotheses/claims, there was the prevailing 'ordinary' SS Hypotheses/claims based on 'ordinary' scientific logics/extrapolations from observations and application of Occams Razor principle.


SS was not a well-established theory supported by evidence, it was merely an untested intuitive assumption. When the increasing red-shift with distance was found, SS postulated matter creation; however no solid evidence for this was found. BB postulated a sudden beginning, and for a while no evidence was found there either.

However BB got microwave background before SS had any solid evidence, so BB became the default assumption of astronomy as a whole.

-continued-
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
-continued-

BB then added nucleosynthesis in predicting H / He / Li ratios, while SS did not, for a while, add comparable evidence.

BB has had its share of surprises (e.g., homogeneity needing inflation, more-developed galaxies than expected at ages near the BB, DE and the accelerating expansion, all of which fit better or conflict less with SS than with BB), but it has managed to find explanations. In the meantime SS has had fewer problem but also less accumulation of supporting evidence. (Either DM or MOND is a surprise in either SS or BB - perhaps the resolution of that will illuminate SS vs BB.)

In the meantime some BB variations are becoming more like SS - (e.g., eternal inflation), and some SS variations are becoming more like B (be.g., lack holes re-emitting as 'white holes' in other universes).

We are getting more and more data, and now some raw data is public so we will see a ranges of theories tested. I am expecting an exciting decade in astronomy!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
SS was not a well-established theory supported by evidence, it was merely an untested intuitive assumption.
No, far from it! That is what BBang claimants want to imply. Not only do they want to reverse the burden of proof but also rewrite history.

Consider: thousands of years of ancient greek/indian etc 'natural philosophy' thought (precursor to modern scientific thought/method) and later hundreds of years of modern scientific thought/observation/theorizing and logical/observational/Occams tests etc led to the reasonable conclusion that UNLESS one can identify HOW, WHERE and WHEN and in WHAT INITIAL STATE and SUBSEQUENT PROCESS it ORIGINATED by/from, then the ONLY tenable 'ordinary' claim is that the universe MUST be infinite/eternal and simple at its most fundamental state and chaotically spontaneous in its unceasing recycling processes having NO 'beginning' overall and producing all the self-similar/interactive features/processes observed.

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
...cont @RealScience. :)
When increasing red-shift with distance was found, SS postulated matter creation...
Redshift with distance is now being reviewed as to cause(s). Recent supernovae observations indicate 'standard candles' not so 'standard' after all due to local variable energy/mass etc conditions/intervening attenuation of light signal/strength from those distant 'events'.

Matter 'creation' for SS to 'explain' how assumed-to-be-expanding volume of BB scenario can maintain steady energy-matter 'density/isotropy at large scales...it isn't necessary if there IS NO such expansion! The confirmationally-biased 'misinterpretation' so far of both CMB and redshifting etc are in no way unequivocal 'extraordinary evidence' for 'extraordinary' BB interpretations/claims.

And Quantum Vacuum IS NOW scientifically proven/understood as unceasing/chaotic creation/destruction system at its most fundamental level...particle-pair production/destruction even observable!

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
...cont further @RealScience

BB then added nucleosynthesis in predicting H / He / Li ratios, while SS did not, for a while, add comparable evidence.
The nucleosynthesis is now being explained by all the constructive/deconstructive energetic/extreme processes/events like polar jets and super explosions etc, which continually expel deconstructed energy-matter into iG and IS space to reform into 'pristine' elementary energy-matter entities/features which 'mimic' the purported BBang 'original pristine' stuff. So the 'breation/destruction is conitinous process producing the elementary abundnces observed at any one stage in any one volume entrained by the local quantum/energy-space cycling up/down the possible form/complexity scales/ranges according to local conditions at that juncture.

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
...cont further still @RealScience. :)
BB has had its share of surprises (e.g., homogeneity needing inflation, more-developed galaxies than expected at ages near the BB, DE and the accelerating expansion, all of which fit better or conflict less with SS than with BB), but it has managed to find explanations.
Agreed. Moreover, if infinite/eternal process, then universe does NOT 'need' Inflation or any other ad hoc 'fix' to cover the many, various and 'fatal' BBang flaws/self-contradictions which 'a beginning' inherently involves. And so-called 'explanations' by/from BBang hypotheses fixes and claimants are NO LONGER tenable OR 'needed', as mainstream observations themselves increasingly indicate BBng is NBOT 'the beginning' OF the universe and that it may after all not be expanding as assumed/interpreted from confirmationally-biased 'interpretations' of the objective CMB/MOTIONAL/VARIATIONAL astronomical events/data/observations.

cont...

RealScience
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
ancient greek/indian etc 'natural philosophy' thought (precursor to modern scientific thought/method)


Most ancient philosophical thinking had a beginning or at least an overall progression, or in some cases cyclical thinking (another BB flavor that's becoming more like SS).

Furthermore we have since discovered that while some amazing things were conceived, so many intuited things were also so wide of the mark as to steer thinking in counterproductive directions that while ancient intuited 'knowledge' may be good for inspiration, it is not in itself 'scientific evidence'.

-continued-
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
...cont yet still further @RealScience.
In the meantime SS has had fewer problem but also less accumulation of supporting evidence... ...some BB variations are becoming more like SS - (e.g., eternal inflation), and some SS variations are becoming more like B (e.g., black holes re-emitting as 'white holes' in other universes).
Not so. Accumulating evidence NOT CONFIRMATIONALLY BIASED (by BBang 'interpretations/assumptions), increasingly supports main aspects of SS-type (with minor modifications due to more knowledge) paradigms which prevailed BEFORE extraordinary and increasingly untenable claims for BBang etc paradigm took hold based on flawed/self-selecting assumptions/interpretations etc of the objective phenomena observations.

And Quantum Mechanical 'no loss' medium underlying all phenomena increasingly confirmed...so paradigms entailing some kind of 'ether' medium not so 'discredited' after all.

As for a complete ToE for ALL observations...I'm on it! Cheers. :)
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
Redshift with distance is now being reviewed as to cause(s).


The expanding universe was established long before the SN-1a work. It was more a test of the deceleration parameter than it was the expansion of the universe. Even if you ignore time dilation in supernovae then you have the original evidence for the redshift distance relation and more modem tests. Cepheids, Tully-Fisher relation, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (predicted by the BB, it's shear existence is yet to explained in steady state), Redshift Space Distortions and the CMB powerspectrum. I'm sure you will handwave these all away without a thought but in real science it isn't that easy.

The nucleosynthesis is now being explained


An ad hoc fix you might say. Show us the calculation.
RealScience
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2016
hundreds of years of modern scientific thought/observation/theorizing and logical/observational/Occams tests etc led to the reasonable conclusion that UNLESS one can identify HOW, WHERE and WHEN and in WHAT INITIAL STATE and SUBSEQUENT PROCESS it ORIGINATED by/from, then the ONLY tenable 'ordinary' claim is that the universe MUST be infinite/eternal


Gosh - do you apply the same claim to the origin of life and conclude that life on earth has been here forever?

To me, 'the universe is infinite and has been here forever', 'the universe is finite and has been here forever', 'the universe is infinite and had a beginning', and 'the universe is finite and had a beginning' all look pretty equal through 'Occam Eyes'.

As long as a theory has just one universe, I personally don't see Occam's razor coming in until one gets to the details, which were not even dreamed of before modern astronomy, so I don't see this history as 'evidence'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
...so many intuited things were also so wide of the mark as to steer thinking in counterproductive directions that while ancient intuited 'knowledge' may be good for inspiration, it is not in itself 'scientific evidence'....
Mate, you could be describing precisely what happened when Einsteinian abstractions led everyone onto the dead end of abstraction-upon-abstraction rather than retain the reality-based intuitive and logically/scientifically tenable ether/SS/Infinite etc paradigms/approaches to further theorizing/interpretation of that reality observed! It was precisely that abstractions diversion that let to all these ad hoc and fanciful BB 'beginning/process' without explanation in reality-terms; based instead on UNreal mathematical/geometrical 'models' which took away ALL physically REAL attributes previously understood to be UNAVOIDABLY possessed/expressed by any tenable version of universal phenomena at its most fundamental level and above. :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
BB then added nucleosynthesis in predicting H / He / Li ratios, while SS did not, for a while, add comparable evidence.


The nucleosynthesis is now being explained by all the constructive/deconstructive energetic/extreme processes/events like polar jets and super explosions etc, which continually expel deconstructed energy-matter into iG and IS space to reform into 'pristine' elementary energy-matter entities/features which 'mimic' the purported BBang 'original pristine' stuff.


That's already sounding more complicated than the BB nucleosynthesis (although not quite to the extent that BB inflation is much more complicated than the natural homogeneity from SS).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
Gosh - do you apply the same claim to the origin of life and conclude that life on earth has been here forever?
Do you see that is an unfair and self-serving strawman analogy? There's no logical/scientifc/Occam's Razor basis for directly comparing obviously finite SUB-set with Infinite WHOLE of SUB-sets making up universal infinity. Please resist temptation to make such glib/irrelevant 'counterarguments'. Thanks. :)

To me, 'the universe is infinite and has been here forever', 'the universe is finite and has been here forever', 'the universe is infinite and had a beginning', and 'the universe is finite and had a beginning' all look pretty equal through 'Occam Eyes'.
Not at all 'equal'. To LIMIT universe's spatio-temporal/other conbtinuous process extents/potentials/dynamics one must explain how/why etc such 'limits' obtain, in real terms, not just abstract maths/geometric and UNreal 'solutions/terms' therefrom. BBang HAS no such explanations. :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2016
Mate, you could be describing precisely what happened when Einsteinian abstractions led everyone onto the dead end of abstraction-upon-abstraction rather than retain the reality-based intuitive...


Actually, Einstein based his work on intuition (and then followed it up with math to see where it led), and so far his predictions / theories have held up pretty well.

While BB has had to add more 'tunable parameters' than SS, that is at least largely because BB has made a lot more predictions and tested a lot more hypotheses against data than SS has.

When I was younger I jumped to conclusions based on both philosophical preferences and on insufficient data, and although most conclusions were right, enough were wrong to convince me that unless there is really solid evidence, it is best to keep an open mind.

I have not yet seen a conclusive argument either way, but humanity will have ~10x the data in a decade so I hope to see one soon!

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
That's already sounding more complicated than the BB nucleosynthesis (although not quite to the extent that BB inflation is much more complicated than the natural homogeneity from SS).
Not "more complicated". We have enough observational evidence for Quatum Vacuum entities/fields/dynamics/processes etc which continue through up the complexity/extent scales to whole laxy/cluster stage. And at all stage/scale we observe annihilation/deconstruction producing JETS of energy-matter deconstructed and/or further fused dependig on local process/conditions/energy levels etc involved.

We know also at all stages/levels there are vortices/solitons/flows/compressions/explosions etc (in LHC etc we observe 'recycling' of the incident energy-space involved in containment/collision event, which 'exits' the event as lower-level quanta/plasma (quark-gluon etc@) 'jets/flows' which REFORM again into elementary particles. Galactic etc 'jets' being macro-scale versions. :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2016
Do you see that is an unfair and self-serving strawman analogy? There's no logical/scientifc/Occam's Razor basis for directly comparing obviously finite SUB-set with Infinite WHOLE of SUB-sets making up universal infinity. Please resist temptation to make such glib/irrelevant 'counterarguments'. Thanks. :)

I do NOT see it as unfair, self serving, OR glib. We are having a civil discussion, and as far as I know I have never interjected an unfair, self serving, or glib comment into a civil discussion in my entire time on phys.org. I only use glib comments in response to glib statements (such as Tuxford made to start this thread, and even there I thanked him and gave him a '5' when he switched to civil conversation).

I submitted it as evidence that one can not draw a "reasonable conclusion" about something not having a beginning simply because one does not understand "HOW, WHERE and WHEN and in WHAT INITIAL STATE and SUBSEQUENT PROCESS it ORIGINATED by/from".

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
Actually, Einstein based his work on intuition (and then followed it up with math to see where it led), and so far his predictions / theories have held up pretty well.
BUT they REMAIN abstract models, not real explanations. In short, maths/geometry abstractions/modeling are great for describing/calculating/predicting some prhnomena, but at no stage does it address the underlying fundamental physically REAL (not abstract) entities/processes from which his model was abstracted. Einstein admitted as such in his Leyden Address, wherein he said that his model/explanations would no longer address these real underlying entities/processes, but concentrate instead of purely abstract constructs which 'conveniently' took away from the ether any physical properties it may have had. So Relativity/BB/QM etc etc remain UNREAL models not explaining anything of the underlying reality in real physical entities/processes terms.

Thanks for your open-minded discourse! :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
And at all stage/scale we observe annihilation/deconstruction producing JETS of energy-matter deconstructed and/or further fused dependig on local process/conditions/energy levels etc involved.

So why do the jets not have equal matter/antimatter (not that the BB folks have explained that very well yet)?

vortices/solitons/flows/compressions/explosions etc (in LHC etc we observe 'recycling' of the incident energy-space involved in containment/collision event, which 'exits' the event as lower-level quanta/plasma (quark-gluon etc@) 'jets/flows' which REFORM again into elementary particles. Galactic etc 'jets' being macro-scale versions. :)

But the LHC doesn't create new matter/energy in doing so, with most SS models would require...
And if white holes are added to solve that through recycling, then why do we have the average matter/energy density we have, unless that is a 'tunable parameter' added to SS?
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Thanks for your open-minded discourse! :)
And thank you for yours.

BUT they REMAIN abstract models, not real explanations. In short, maths/geometry abstractions/modeling are great for describing/calculating/predicting some prhnomena, but at no stage does it address the underlying fundamental physically REAL (not abstract) entities/processes from which his model was abstracted.

That doesn't make them wrong, or even unreal; that just make then things that work for which no underlying explanation has yet been found (or at least widely published).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)

I'm not Tuxford/anyone else. :)

My responses to you have addressed only your comments to me. I called 'strawman' ONLY re that "Earth-Infinite Universe" analogy/comparison you introduced to voice your own opinion that thinking re Earth's beginnings claims/logics was comparable with thinking about a potentially infinite/eternal UNIVERSE's 'beginnings' claims.

Can you not see the unfair use of such a dodgy comparison to attack another's tenable statements re universe beginnings being 'iffy' UNLESS one can address/explain what a 'universal beginning' WAS in real physical contexts/terms/logics and Occams Razor principle perspective?

You may have NOT intended to make such a strawman, but it was in effect a strawman....as it reversed burden of proof onto ME instead of keeping it on those claiming universe HAD 'a beginning' and all implications/claims that follow.

I took no offense; hope you likewise. You're probably the most open-minded interlocutor here! :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
took no offense; hope you likewise.[/q[
I took no offense (and I've been around long enough to have a thick skin anyway), but I do not see it as a strawman.

You stated that not understanding "HOW, WHERE and WHEN and in WHAT INITIAL STATE and SUBSEQUENT PROCESS it ORIGINATED by/from" about SOMETHING justified an assumption about the origin of that SOMETHING, so I showed as succinctly as I could that this is not true as a general case (the universe could be a special case, but I haven't seen an argument for that).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
So why do the jets not have equal matter/antimatter...?
Those familiar with high energy processes involving plasma of any kind also know that there are internal/external perturbatory dynamics which affect the 'outcome' in any particular/localized context/event. The same unbalanced 'excursions' that occur in Fusion Tokamaks etc also occur at all scales, including the internal/external 'excursions' exhibited even in the largest observed galaxy 'accretion disc' and 'polar jets' processes/outcomes.

But LHC doesn't create new matter/energy in doing so, with most SS models would require...
I never implied 'new' matter/energy, merely 'recycling' of same, as explained already. And SS-type models do NOT 'need' new matter/energy if there is NO BBang (hypothetical) expansion. So universal energy-space (and further evolved energy-matter features) content is what it is fundamentally, and remains so, merely 'recycled' unceasingly as I earlier explained. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience.
I took no offense (and I've been around long enough to have a thick skin anyway)
Thank you! At last, a sensible, reasonable intellect encountered on the internet! Wonders will never cease! Kudos. :)

You stated that not understanding "HOW, WHERE and WHEN and in WHAT INITIAL STATE and SUBSEQUENT PROCESS it ORIGINATED by/from" about SOMETHING justified an assumption about the origin of that SOMETHING, so I showed as succinctly as I could that this is not true as a general case (the universe could be a special case)
Its NOT "justified an assumption about the RIGINS of SOMETHING"...it's "CHALLENGED an assumtion about the ORIGINS of SOMETHING"...which is what BBang hypotheses based on when all confirmation-biased 'interpretations/evidence' removed; thus leaving BBang as THE 'extraordinary' ASSUMPTION about origins OF a BBang YET to be supported by 'extraordinary evidence' FOR said assumption.

And THE UNIVERSE is the ONLY 'case' of its kind/extent. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Hi RealScience.
Thanks for your open-minded discourse! :)
And thank you for yours.
Always open minded, especially when in conversation re objective reality with an equally objective mind. Cheers. :)

That doesn't make them wrong, or even unreal; that just make then things that work for which no underlying explanation has yet been found
It's not so much "wrong" as 'incomplete'; misleading under certain circumstances where aim is to actually explain underlying real physical entities/processes rather than just being satisfied with abstract models/constructs (however useful for abstract/practical descriptions/calculations/predictions...like math/geometry 'Epicycles' models/abstractions' were at one time).

We're moving beyond mere abstraction/prediction; seeking real explanations of real things from most fundamental to most evolved/larger scales and back again.

ToE/GUT effort is all about that. Thanks for intelligent discourse, mate. Rare on internet! :)
Tuxford
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
What evidence is there ...? Or that 'their internal growth accelerates further with further growth'

If you are truly interested in the model, you may well be the first. I have found mostly derision heretofore, without any true interest in understanding. And from my perspective, astronomers deserve ridicule for promoting such a ridiculous fantasy model onto the general public. Moreover, it seems ridicule is the only way forward that might help wake them up from their prolonged fanciful dream.

My aim is simply to test the model against observations, to see if the shoe fits. So far, it does. I have yet to find a conclusive objection not based on mainstream assumptive conclusions.

Smaller AGN's will likely be cyclic, depending on their stage of development.

Galactic stars are migrating away from center, rather than the reverse.

The model predicts faster growth in regions of greater matter density. Big AGN's would be the extreme case.
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2016
Its NOT "justified an assumption about the ORIGINS of SOMETHING"...it's "CHALLENGED an assumption about the ORIGINS of SOMETHING".

But it was quite clearly phrase as support for SS; "then the ONLY tenable 'ordinary' claim is that the universe MUST be infinite/eternal". No case jumps to my mind where a lack of knowledge about something justifies making an assumption about that thing (including, in this case, BB or SS). To me a lack of knowledge justifies keeping an open mind.

It's not so much "wrong" as 'incomplete'; misleading under certain circumstance

I don't think Einstein was misleading, and I think that we will discover the physical reasons why the math works as well as it does. But we may well find that the math is only an approximation that breaks down under extreme circumstances... so it may mislead people who assume that it must always work.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2016
I have found mostly derision heretofore ... And from my perspective, astronomers deserve ridicule for promoting such a ridiculous fantasy model onto the general public. Moreover, it seems ridicule is the only way forward that might help wake them up from their prolonged fanciful dream.


Ridicule is seldom a way to make anyone listen - people harden their positions when attacked!
For example, has the derision you have received here caused you to be more likely to change your mind?

If you are truly interested in the model

Starting thread after thread with claims that some phenomenon conflicts with mainstream astronomy and so is a sure sign of your theory being right, when most of the time the phenomenon does NOT conflict with the way the readers understand mainstream astronomy, causes readers to not to listen.

More people would be interested if only solid evidence were presented, and it was discussed in a calm, well-thought-out way.
Tuxford
3 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2016
More people would be interested if only solid evidence were presented, and it was discussed in a calm, well-thought-out way.


You simply have not been around long enough to know that that approach is the way I started, but led to many attacks. People hate new ideas, especially ideas that disturb the way they view themselves, especially their own intellect, for which they must defend.

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

This idea is so different that a little by little approach is simply ignored. So embarrassment is coming to the community eventually. Just wait and see.

My predictions are on record, and recent observations such as this one continue to support them. So if the model is so wrong, how did I make correct predictions for otherwise unexpected observations?? Am I really just that smart??

http://phys.org/n...ays.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2016
Hi RealScience. :)
Its NOT "justified an assumption about the ORIGINS of SOMETHING"...it's "CHALLENGED an assumption about the ORIGINS of SOMETHING"
No case jumps to my mind where a lack of knowledge about something justifies making an assumption about that thing (including, in this case, BB or SS)
True...BUT...there is PLENTY of knowledge/facts consistent with prior SS-type paradigms. It's 'interpretation' of said knowledge/facts that is at issue; as BBang hypotheses/claims, and so-called 'supporting evidence', proving increasingly 'iffy'.

I don't think Einstein was misleading, and I think that we will discover the physical reasons why the math works as well as it does.......it may mislead people who assume that it must always work.
Abstraction always 'misleads' if reality-based efforts/explanations being intentionally sidelined/derailed and 'pooh-poohed' by flawed/undue 'abstractionist' orthodoxy/preference in profession/literature/journals.

Cheers. :)
my2cts
1 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2016
Abstraction always 'misleads' if reality-based efforts/explanations being intentionally sidelined/derailed and 'pooh-poohed' by flawed/undue 'abstractionist' orthodoxy/preference in profession/literature/journals.

Nonsense. Look at that text. Don't post this nutty stuff..
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
Abstraction always 'misleads' if reality-based efforts/explanations being intentionally sidelined/derailed and 'pooh-poohed' by flawed/undue 'abstractionist' orthodoxy/preference in profession/literature/journals.

Nonsense. Look at that text. Don't post this nutty stuff..
How so? What text? I was discussing a specific point with RealScience IN CONTEXT of what had transpired in our specific exchange on the issue of abstraction-versus-reality based approaches to the universal observations/interpretations/explanations etc. :)

And as for "posting nutty stuff", I just posted a helpful FYI based on KNOWN SCIENCE fact re 'magnetic field line' mis-understandings to Protoplasmix in thread...

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

...and got arrogantly, unheedingly downvoted by Vietvet/barakn....for posting KNOWN SCIENCE facts!

If that sort of silliness isn't "nutty stuff", then I don't know what is, mate. Take care. :)
my2cts
1 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2016
Let's look at you sentence in detail. There are 48 ways in which I can read it.
More is less in this case.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)

For mutual communicatory success, the parties involved need a minimum 'common understandings' base as to language and knowledge. Then in comes 'context' to further constrain possible misunderstandings as to meanings. Then comes also a willingness from both parties in communication to allow for all sorts of other extenuating factors which may come into play; such as limited text formats and complex concepts having to be conveyed/explained etc in such limited formats/texts not so conducive to the 'smooth flow' of both the exchange and the contextual continuity. Then of course there is the "in good faith" objectivity and lack of prejudice aspects which, if not scrupulously adhered to at all times, makes for all sorts of intentional/unintentional misunderstandings and cross-purpose impediments which prevent the message being received as intended. Finally, cheap-shot/game-playing trolls/saboteurs who take delight in 'muddying' a discussion (...not you, my2cts!). :)
NiteSkyGerl
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2016
RealityCheck 1/5 (5) 19 hours ago

For mutual communicatory success, the parties involved need a minimum 'common understandings' base as to language and knowledge. Then in comes 'context' to further constrain possible misunderstandings as to meanings.


Or you could notice that it's you or tuxturds blathering on and give it a miss.
Tuxford
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2016
A likely intermediate state of the AGN evolution, eventually leading to the extreme case in this story.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

And an even earlier state such as eventually likely in our own galaxy:

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv
my2cts
3 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2016
@RC
So let's not use quotes except fro quoting and no slashes please.
For reference check out WordCrimes:
https://www.youtu...0H-vPoDc
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2016
Hi NiteSkyGerl. :)
For mutual communicatory success, the parties involved need a minimum 'common understandings' base as to language and knowledge. Then in comes 'context' to further constrain possible misunderstandings as to meanings.
Or you could notice that it's you or tuxturds blathering on and give it a miss.
Why the insults, NSG? In case you haven't kept up to date, I have many times posted known science and got downvoted by trolls who make cheapshots like you just did. And many times I pointed out where some mainstreamer claims were bogus, and I was proven correct. But still the trolls keep pretending they were "right" and me "blathering". If you want to learn the correct known science, and also what is being corrected even as we speak, then keep your kneejerks and trolls to yourself...and read/listen closely so as to discern between what is posted by others and what is posted by me. I am not Tuxford/anyone else. Please don't lump all into one. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2016
Hi my2ts. :)
@RC. So let's not use quotes except fro quoting and no slashes please.
For reference check out WordCrimes:
https://www.youtu...0H-vPoDc
A worse crime is intentional trolling tactics by those using typos, possible alternative meanings of words etc, in order to construct strawmen attacks and sabotage discussion with irrelevant crap based on intentional misinterpretation of what was written. You've seen such tactics used; to derail/disparage discourse/persons by trolls more interested in 'winning even if wrong' instead of objectively addressing the science.

If you can GUARANTEE such trollish tactics will no longer happen here, and that text limits will be increased dramatically, then maybe such "punctuations/contractions/connections" won't be needed to ensure words/content/intent isn't taken out of context intentionally by those who try to score cheap points while cluttering up science discourse as in the past.

Can you so guarantee, my2cts? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2016
Double post blanked by me.
my2cts
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2016
@RC
Is that a rhetorical question ?
Let's just do and say what we think to be right and what we can back up
and not involve in tactics to fight any trolls.
The proper way to fight them is a ban.
In absence of that, expose them and dispose of them.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
Is that a rhetorical question?
Yes, rhetorical. :)

As it is reasonable to assume you're in no position to provide the guarantees mentioned; which are prerequisite for making unnecessary the punctuation-usages in question which have been necessary to minimize scope for trollish intentional exploitation of typos/alternate meanings etc out of context. I know you've seen such trollish tactics more than once before here and elsewhere; so I trust I won't have to again allude to said troll/saboteur tactics further?
Let's just do and say what we think to be right and what we can back up and not involve in tactics to fight any trolls. The proper way to fight them is a ban In absence of that, expose them and dispose of them.
Implementing your 'final solution' not so easy/fair when rules/moderation involves double standards; eg, even when I post known/correct science I am trolled/sabotaged even by those who should know better! Shall you ban/expose them too? :)
OdinsAcolyte
not rated yet Jan 21, 2016
Exactly like a boiling pot on a galactic scale. Imagine how scary that would have been. This all happened long ago. The light we see is a fossil of then. A true time machine. Everything we see has already happened. ahh well, get off the gas. Physics/astrophysics birth philosophy and vice/versa. fun stuff

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.