G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz
Deep field is 13.2 Gyrs 10,000 galaxies
Re link
Hubble sees galaxies galore
Hubble sees galaxies galore
If the universe is 13.7 Gyrs than these galaxies would have taken 500 million years to form.
The standard model allows for the formation of these galaxies within the 500 million year period.
I say, because of the extreme large number of galaxies and comparing it to the simple life of a star it is highly unlikely that such a formation could have been formed.
Zoom on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
Zoom on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
Interesting link
How Did Structure Form in the Universe?
WMAP Formation of Universe Structures
Gravitational Formation of Structure
Quote:
Most cosmologists believe that the galaxies that we observe today grew gravitationally out of small fluctuations in the density of the universe through the following sequence of events:
When the universe was one thousandth its present size (roughly 500,000 years after the Big Bang), the density of matter in the region of space that now contains the Milky Way, our home galaxy, was perhaps 0.5% higher than in adjacent regions. Because its density was higher, this region of space expanded more slowly than surrounding regions.
As a result of this slower expansion, its relative over-density grew. When the universe was one hundredth its present size (roughly 15 million years after the Big Bang), our region of space was probably 5% denser than the surrounding regions.
This gradual growth continued as the universe expanded. When the universe was one fifth its present size (roughly 1.2 billion years after the Big Bang), our region of space was probably twice as dense as neighboring regions. Cosmologists speculate that the inner portions of our Galaxy (and similar galaxies) were assembled at this time. The stars in the outer regions of our Galaxy were probably assembled in the more recent past. Some cosmologists suspect that some of the objects recently detected by the Hubble Space Telescope may be galaxies in formation.
|
One needs to understand that this is a theory and not fact. Look at the logic 1.2Gyrs to form the inner parts of the galaxies.
But! we see old and new and different sizes and ages, a complete ZOO of galaxies. But! we are led to believe that these galaxies were formed in jut 500 million years and in that time completed their form and merging etc, etc.
One may need to read this
[0806.1065v1] B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy
B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy
Authors: G. Burbidge
(Submitted on 5 Jun 2008)
Quote:
Abstract: In this talk I shall start by describing how we set about and carried out the work which led to the publication of B2FH in 1957. I then shall try and relate this work and the circumstances that surrounded it to the larger problem of the origin and formation of the universe. Here it is necessary to look back at the way that ideas developed and how in many situations astronomers went astray. Of course this is a personal view, though I very strongly believe that if he were still here, it is the approach that Fred Hoyle would take.
I start by describing the problems originally encountered by Gamow and his associates in trying to decide where the helium was made. This leads me to a modern discussion of the origin of 2D, 3He, 4He and 7Li, originally described by B2FH as due to the x-process. While it is generally argued, following Gamow, Alpher, and Herman, that these isotopes were synthesized in a big bang I shall show that it is equally likely that these isotopes were made in active galactic nuclei, as was the cosmic microwave background (CMB), in a cyclic universe model. The key piece of observational evidence is that the amount of energy carried by the CMB, namely about 4.5 x 10-13 erg cm-3
|
Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift
[0804.3595v1] Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift
[0802.4094v1] Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse
Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse
Authors: Pieter van Dokkum, Marijn Franx, Mariska Kriek, Bradford Holden, Garth Illingworth, Daniel Magee, Rychard Bouwens, Danilo Marchesini, Ryan Quadri, Greg Rudnick, Edward Taylor, Sune Toft
(Submitted on 27 Feb 2008)
Quote:
|
Abstract: Using deep near-infrared spectroscopy Kriek et al. (2006) found that ~45% of massive galaxies at z~2.3 have evolved stellar populations and little or no ongoing star formation. Here we determine the sizes of these quiescent galaxies using deep, high-resolution images obtained with HST/NIC2 and laser guide star-assisted Keck/AO. Considering that their median stellar mass is 1.7x10^11 Solar masses the galaxies are remarkably small, with a median effective radius of 0.9 kpc. Galaxies of similar mass in the nearby Universe have sizes of ~5 kpc and average stellar densities which are two orders of magnitude lower than the z~2.3 galaxies. These results extend earlier work at z~1.5 and confirm previous studies at z>2 which lacked spectroscopic redshifts and imaging of sufficient resolution to resolve the galaxies. Our findings demonstrate that fully assembled early-type galaxies make up at most ~10% of the population of K-selected quiescent galaxies at z~2.3, effectively ruling out simple monolithic models for their formation. The galaxies must evolve significantly after z~2.3, through dry mergers or other processes, consistent with predictions from hierarchical models.
|
So! What am I saying?
It does not add up, I expected some of the moderators with their advance info could help with the adding up rather than warn me of a Mr Meaner.
I'm not that smart, give me another 4 years. Than maybe I will learn a little more.
