[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


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)

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.

This type of evolution would take billions of years compared to 500 million years predicted by the BBT. Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

This type of evolution would take billions of years compared to 500 million years predicted by the BBT. Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs.

The link to the study above is here:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/s...es%20paper.pdf

I'm not sure what you mean by 500 million years. The age of the universe at redshift 2.3 according to the concordance model would be 2.9 billion years. The study above suggests that galaxies evolve rather significantly from that time until now.

This study offers supporting evidence that galaxy mergers are a major mechanism of their evolution in the past ten billion years. There are a number of other studies that support that as well.

As you may know, the big bang theory is not a theory of small scale structures of the universe such as galaxies. While any theory of galaxy formation and evolution should agree with the big bang - BBT itself is silent on the subject.

To get a good idea of what galaxies were like in the early universe there are a number of recent discoveries associated with the gravitational lens Abell 1689 which is a cluster of galaxies a couple billion light years away. The mass of Abell 1689 works to magnify things that are behind it increasing the chances of finding very remote galaxies.

A1689-zD1 is an example. I believe it is considered one of the furthest yet discovered galaxies at redshift 7.6 which is 700 million years after the big bang.

Spitzer’s images show that the galaxy’s mass is typical of galaxies in the early Universe. Its mass is equivalent to several billions of stars like our Sun, or just a tiny fraction of the mass of the Milky Way.

“This observation confirms previous Hubble studies that star birth happens in very tiny regions compared with the size of the final galaxy”, Illingworth said.

-ESA Hubble news

This is consistent with the study you reference above and the Big Bang

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I have read the links, There is no evidence supporting the BBT and the little info on galaxy evolution is very limited.

I will come back to this topic after reading a few papers on abell 1689

Galaxy mergers are part of the ongoing process, there is little indication of evidence to support greater mergers in the past. Although some parts show greater mergers than others.

As for the formation of over 100 billion galaxies in 500 million years is a bit of wishful thinking, more like ad hoc ideas to support the BBT.

Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs indicate a variety of galaxy forms.
Which indicates to me that time for the formation of galaxies and time for merger is required. Again 500 million years in the scope of things is quite small and not probable.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

This is an interesting paper

[0802.2506] Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

Authors: L. D. Bradley, R. J. Bouwens, H. C. Ford, G. D. Illingworth, M. J. Jee, N. Benitez, T. J. Broadhurst, M. Franx, B. L. Frye, L. Infante, V. Motta, P. Rosati, R. L. White, W. Zheng
(Submitted on 18 Feb 2008 (v1), last revised 13 May 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Using HST and Spitzer IRAC imaging, we report the discovery of a very bright strongly lensed Lyman break galaxy (LBG) candidate at z~7.6 in the field of the massive galaxy cluster Abell 1689. The galaxy candidate, which we refer to as A1689-zD1, shows a strong z-J break of at least 2.2 mag and is completely undetected (<1 sigma) in HST/ACS g, r, i, and z-band data. These properties, combined with the very blue J-H and H-[4.5] colors, are exactly the properties of an z~7.6 LBG and can only be reasonably fit by a star-forming galaxy at z=7.6 +/- 0.4. Attempts to reproduce these properties with a model galaxy at z<4 yield particularly poor fits. A1689-zD1 has an observed (lensed) magnitude of 24.7 AB (8 sigma) in the NICMOS H band and is ~1.3 mag brighter than the brightest-known z-dropout galaxy. When corrected for the cluster magnification of 9.3 at z~7.6, the candidate has an intrinsic magnitude of H=27.1 AB, or about an L* galaxy at z~7.6. The source-plane deprojection shows that the star formation is occurring in compact knots of size ~<300 pc. The best-fit stellar population synthesis models yield a median redshift of 7.6, stellar masses (1.6-3.9) x 10^9 M_sun, stellar ages 45-320 Myr, star-formation rates ~<7.6 M_sun/yr, and low reddening with A_V <= 0.3. These properties are generally similar to those of LBGs found at z~5-6. The inferred stellar ages suggest a formation redshift of z~8-10 (t~<0.63 Gyr). A1689-zD1 is the brightest observed, highly reliable z>7.0 galaxy candidate found to date.

and

[0803.1199] LensPerfect: Gravitational Lens Massmap Reconstructions Yielding Exact Reproduction of All Multiple Images

LensPerfect: Gravitational Lens Massmap Reconstructions Yielding Exact Reproduction of All Multiple Images

Authors: D. Coe, E. Fuselier, N. Benitez, T. Broadhurst, B. Frye, H. Ford
(Submitted on 9 Mar 2008)

Abstract: We present a new approach to gravitational lens massmap reconstruction. Our massmap solutions perfectly reproduce the positions, fluxes, and shears of all multiple images. And each massmap accurately recovers the underlying mass distribution to a resolution limited by the number of multiple images detected. We demonstrate our technique given a mock galaxy cluster similar to Abell 1689 which gravitationally lenses 19 mock background galaxies to produce 93 multiple images. We also explore cases in which far fewer multiple images are observed, such as four multiple images of a single galaxy. Massmap solutions are never unique, and our method makes it possible to explore an extremely flexible range of physical (and unphysical) solutions, all of which perfectly reproduce the data given. Each reconfiguration of the source galaxies produces a new massmap solution. An optimization routine is provided to find those source positions (and redshifts, within uncertainties) which produce the "most physical" massmap solution, according to a new figure of merit developed here. Our method imposes no assumptions about the slope of the radial profile nor mass following light. But unlike "non-parametric" grid-based methods, the number of free parameters we solve for is only as many as the number of observable constraints (or slightly greater if fluxes are constrained). For each set of source positions and redshifts, massmap solutions are obtained "instantly" via direct matrix inversion by smoothly interpolating the deflection field using a recently developed mathematical technique. Our LensPerfect software is straightforward and easy to use and is made publicly available via our website.

These papers show little evidence for the BBT, but! indicate an ongoing process. Galaxy evolution and star formation stages.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

This is an interesting paper

[0802.2506] Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

Pluto, that's the same galaxy I linked to and talked about two posts ago! Remember, you dismissed it saying: "I have read the links, There is no evidence supporting the BBT and the little info on galaxy evolution is very limited."

And now you're posting a link to the same galaxy

I don't think you're reading these papers you're posting at all - let alone the links I give you. The paper you just linked says this:

One of the most important frontiers of observational cosmology is the characterization of the earliest galaxies in the universe. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been at the forefront of such high-redshift searches, which have recently provided significant insights to the mass assembly and buildup of the earliest galaxies (z & 6, t . 0.95 Gyr) and the contribution of star

• It says the galaxy is imaged at a time the universe was 700 million years old.
• It uses standard cosmology in the interpretation
• The mass of the galaxy is less than 4e9 which is much, much smaller than a current mature galaxy.
• The size is 300 pc which is much, much smaller than a current mature galaxy.
• They estimate the age of the stars in the galaxy at 45-320 million years
• They estimate the redshift at which the galaxy formed to be approx 8 which is at T 630 million years.

If you read all that how could you possibly follow it up with this:

Originally Posted by Pluto

These papers show little evidence for the BBT, but! indicate an ongoing process. Galaxy evolution and star formation stages.

I would like to challenge you (in a nice way) to quote one thing in the link you give that is in any way opposing the big bang theory or standard cosmology:

Most Distant Galaxy Ever Found - A1689-zD1 - Consistent With Big Bang

Considering that you've read it and came to the conclusion "These papers show little evidence for the BBT, but! indicate an ongoing process. Galaxy evolution and star formation stages." this should be easy. With a conclusion like that you should be able to quote two or three things quickly and easily.

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for the formation of over 100 billion galaxies in 500 million years is a bit of wishful thinking, more like ad hoc ideas to support the BBT.

This claim has been thoroughly refuted. In case you missed it, CraigD explains where you've gone wrong in post #82. I will quote him:

Originally Posted by CraigD

This number is on the order of the commonly given “hundred billion galaxies observable with present-day instruments”. I imagine these galaxies were not “made” in the sense that an artifact is made in a factory, but formed under the influence gravity. I also imagine that all galaxies of a given stellar population (or “generation”) formed concurrently (at the same time), rather than consecutively (one after another, the way artifacts produced by a single factory assembly line are).

So the argument that there are too many stars visible to have formed in the time period required for a single star to form is not, I think, a valid one. One can use this same reasoning to argue that, because a modern assembly line require nearly one full day to assemble one car, the theory that most of the roughly 600,000,000 cars currently in the world were assembled within the last 36,000 days is invalid.

I further explained your mistake in posts #85 and #87

Considering how many times you've made this claim (I've quoted you below) and the fact that you continue to make it after it has been refuted: You need to give a source backing up this claim. I remind you that backing up your claims is a site rule.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Till this date not one person has explained how over a 100 billion galaxies can form in just 500 million years using science.

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for the Chaos theory its not relevant to the formatiion of over 100 billion galaxies where some are clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies. over a period of 500 million years.

Originally Posted by Pluto

But if the deep field is 13.3 Gyrs there is not enough time, just 500 million years.

Originally Posted by Pluto

How can over 100 Billion galaxies in varies stages, in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs form in just 500 million years?

Originally Posted by Pluto

This type of evolution would take billions of years compared to 500 million years predicted by the BBT. Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I'm trying to look at the scientific evidence not hear say.

The evidence needs to stand alone and be proved by others.

I'm reading all the links. Please do not use the position of moderator to influence the evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory.

Not one evidence that I have read over and over can support the BBT.

Telling me its so is not evidence.

Please do not say I have not read the links.

You said

It says the galaxy is imaged at a time the universe was 700 million years old.
It uses standard cosmology in the interpretation
The mass of the galaxy is less than 4e9 which is much, much smaller than a current mature galaxy.
The size is 300 pc which is much, much smaller than a current mature galaxy.
They estimate the age of the stars in the galaxy at 45-320 million years
They estimate the redshift at which the galaxy formed to be approx 8 which is at T 630 million years.

and you take this as evidence.

What is a mature galaxy? Have you researched galaxy evolution?
What is the age of stars? Have ypu researched the phases (stages) of star formation and their effect on dating?

630 Million years is not evidence, its an interpretation of the data from redshift and till this date have not been confirmed, only an opinion. It will take several more years before we are looking at the so called evidence.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

What is a mature galaxy?

The Milky Way is a mature galaxy as are many of the ‘near by’ galaxies we see. Most all of the galaxies we’ve found at high redshift are not mature. They have low mass and young stars. There are, however, exceptions which you would be interested in such as:

Mature Galaxy Found In Early Universe Eight Times More Massive Than Milky Way

Originally Posted by Pluto

Have you researched galaxy evolution?

I have not studied much in the way of galaxy evolution

Originally Posted by Pluto

What is the age of stars?

The age of a star is the length of time the star has existed in the form of a star.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Have ypu researched the phases (stages) of star formation and their effect on dating?

Yes. I know a lot more about stars and theory of stellar evolution than I do galaxies.

Originally Posted by Pluto

630 Million years is not evidence, its an interpretation of the data from redshift and till this date have not been confirmed, only an opinion. It will take several more years before we are looking at the so called evidence.

Yes, the date of 630 million years given above is based on a model. It is, however, consistent with BBT which I thought was important to point out considering you implied it was not.

On another issue Pluto, if you do ever repeat the claim that one hundred billion galaxies cannot form in 500 million years please provide a source for that claim. It is a site rule to back up your claims and it’s a bit troubling that you continue to repeat this despite multiple members refuting it.

I really do think you would be interested in this, it seems to be more what you were looking for:

Mature Galaxy Found In Early Universe Eight Times More Massive Than Milky Way

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

Modest my statement comes from deep field obseravyion such as the million second images that indicate 10,000 galaxies in a very small area of dark space. Working this out over the total space we do get over 100 billion galaxies in deep field.

I do not have to give supporting evidence to indicate that the probabilty of forming all those galaxies in just 500 million years is highly unlikely.

Now I have read this link before
Mature Galaxy Found In Early Universe Eight Times More Massive Than Milky Way

The galaxy was pinpointed among approximately 10,000 others in a small patch of sky called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (UDF). It is believed to be about as far away as the most distant galaxies known.

Bahram Mobasher of the Space Telescope Science Institute, leader of the science team, explains, "We found this galaxy in Hubble's infrared images of the UDF and expected it to be young and small, like other known galaxies at similar distances. Instead, we found evidence that it is remarkably mature and much more massive. This is the surprising discovery."

Not only is it surprising, the galaxies are of varies forms in the evolution of galaxies as compared to local galaxies. What does this tell us? That the Big Bang is underfire.

Two other Spitzer observations, one reported earlier by Ellis and his colleagues at the University of Exeter, UK, and the other by Haojing Yan of the Spitzer Science Center, had already revealed evidence for mature stars in more ordinary, less massive galaxies at similar distances, when the universe was less than one billion years old.

However, the new observation extends this notion of surprisingly mature galaxies to an object which is perhaps ten times more massive, and which seemed to form its stars even earlier in the history of the universe.

The above quotes indicate to me, that the writer assumes that the Big Bang is a fact than proceeds to discuss the information to make it fit the Big Bang Theory.

and this quote is classsic

While astronomers generally believe most galaxies were built up piecewise by mergers of smaller galaxies, the discovery of this object suggests that at least a few galaxies formed quickly and in their entirety long ago. For such a large galaxy, this would have been a tremendously explosive event of star birth.

The writer goes out of his way and refutes scientific observations to make the information fit the Big Bnag model.

This is not science, it is science gone mad.

I may not know enough information and I'm learning as I'm going, but! to see science abused, it really bugs me.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I do not have to give supporting evidence to indicate that the probabilty of forming all those galaxies in just 500 million years is highly unlikely.

Where do you get "just 500 million years?"

Is continually making this statement what you call science?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by REASON

Where do you get "just 500 million years?"

Is continually making this statement what you call science?

Gentlemen,

I think what Pluto is trying to say (despite the possibility that his numbers might be off) is that there appears to be too little time in a big bang universe (one that is ~13.7 Gyr old) for the formation of particular galaxies and the large-scale structures of which they form part.


Let's look at what was predicted by the BBT and compare it to what is observed:

The BBT predicted (pre-Hubble Ultra Deep Field) that there was an epoch, called the 'dark age,' located near the visible horizon where galaxies had yet to form (or began to form).

Observations showed that galaxies—some of them quite luminous, large, massive, abundant in heavy elements (metal-rich) and already containing potential spiral structure: the signature of mature galaxies—extending back to this epoch.

Observation reveal that some of these objects show lines of C, N, and O, providing evidence that nucleosynthesis was already well underway prior to this look-back time. One interpretaion of the data is that these heavy elements had been spread by the massive explosion of stars that themselves which had to evolve over time scales that surpass the suspected age of the universe. The enriched material would eventually find its way to the core of parent galaxies (and old globular clusters), again, providing evidence that considerable stellar evolution had already taken place (at those ‘early’ times), that the universe is much older than suspected (or, that galaxy formation took place much earlier than suspected).

It follows, at least according to some interpretations based on observations, that there is no galaxy formation epoch at the greatest visible distances?there is no evidence of large-scale structures condensing out of primordial plasma by exponential collapse within initial density fluctuations near the visible horizon. Observations showing large galaxies (some with high-metallicity) at that supposed distance/era seem to contradict the prediction made.

These galaxies can be seen in the most distant view ever of the universe called Hubble Ultra Deep Field, though metallicity still needs to be determined for quite a number of these objects. Definitive proof, either way, should come in 2012-13 (?) when ESA and NASA launch the higher resolution James Webb Space Telescope.

The supposition that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact, when redshift and surface brightness are taken into account.

What is clear form the HUDF images, at this premature stage in their interpretation, is the fact that there are many galaxies at distances where according to the standard model there should be none, or few. Galaxies were thought to have been forming at an even later stage, by gravitational collapse out of initial density fluctuations. Completion of the initial collapse phase was believed to have been less than 10 billion years ago (Sandage 1993 p. 5). Galaxies would have had to evolve so quickly that their most important changes occurred less than a billion years of ground zero, t = 0. The new findings show galaxies thought to have existed 400 to 800 million years after the initial blast. Visibly, the new evidence contradicts all predictions. This is not how it was meant to be.


Despite attempts to transcend the new constraints, this post-rayless era is not observed, contrary to the cheerful musing of hard-liners. But this chapter is not yet finished. There is the possibility that the JWST will confirm of refute the latest predictions.

I wouldn’t take off my Ray Bans yet.






CC