Hubble telescope finds 'never-seen' galaxies
Oh No
redshifts of these galaxies
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/wl_uk_afp/britainusspaceastronomyhu
bble_20091209083101
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Oh No
>Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
>redshifts of these galaxies
>
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/wl_uk_afp/britainusspaceastronomyhu
>bble_20091209083101
>
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies
can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of
the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According
to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of
1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies
jacob navia
> Thus spake Oh No <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>
>> Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
>> redshifts of these galaxies
>>
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/wl_uk_afp/britainusspaceastronomyhu
>> bble_20091209083101
>>
> I did find this
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
>
> There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies
> can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of
> the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According
> to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of
> 1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies
>
>
>
> Regards
>
Anyway, how can a GALAXY form in a mere 500 million years?
The milky way doesn't have the time to make 2 revolutions in
that time.
And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
10, even much farther away.
The photograph is vertiginous for its scope... Each small fudge is
a galaxy with billions of stars in it.
There are several grand design galaxies in the photograph.
There are two spiral galaxies merging (in the middle, near
the top margin). To the left of that merge there are 4 spirals.
Obviously they aren't ALL at z=8 but they should be quite far away
anyway.
Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,
similar to what our ancestors thought: 4500 years for the Universe
counting generations since Adam in the Bible...
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
> And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
> 10, even much farther away.
The quantity of interest here is the time between various redshifts, not
some measure of distance.
> Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,
Rather than saying "a galaxy can't form in 500 million years" (which, to
carry on you analogy, sounds like "humans couldn't evolve from
monkey-like ancestors"---just a statement with no proof), do you have
any reference to a paper which demonstrates that there is NO WAY that a
galaxy could form in the time available, rather than that it is just
"difficult" within a scenario which is not completely understood anyway?
Oh No
>Oh No a �crit :
>> Thus spake Oh No <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>
>>> Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
>>> redshifts of these galaxies
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/wl_uk_afp/britainusspaceastronomyhu
>>> bble_20091209083101
>>>
>> I did find this
>>
>> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
>>
>> There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies
>> can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of
>> the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According
>> to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of
>> 1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies
>>
>
>The milky way doesn't have the time to make 2 revolutions in
>that time.
>
>And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
>10, even much farther away.
Given the importance of this, I am inclined to wait until they are seen.
But I am expecting redshifts up to ~20-30.
>
>Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,
>similar to what our ancestors thought: 4500 years for the Universe
>counting generations since Adam in the Bible...
In fact there are a number of very good reasons for thinking that
~14Gyrs is about right (most particularly the mix of light elements
predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis). But I think this is powerful
evidence that the age of galaxies at given redshift is incorrect.
According to rqg, galaxies at z=8 are ~2.3 Gyrs old.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>> Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,
> similar to what our ancestors thought: 4500 years for the Universe
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Another possibility is that the "little bang" did happen 13.7 billion
years ago, but that galaxies and especially QSOs and AGNs predated the
"little bang".
For me it is easier to believe the above hypothesis, than to believe
that something as incredbly complex as a galaxy could form ab initio
in a cosmological "instant". The latter hypothesis is logically
possible, but it increasingly strains credibility as the size of the
"instant" decreases.
Just a random thought,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Oh No
ax.de>
>In article <mt2.0-10506...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, jacob navia
><ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
>
>> And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
>> 10, even much farther away.
In fact they say that stars must have formed at redshift 10, which may
not be too difficult.
>
>The quantity of interest here is the time between various redshifts, not
>some measure of distance.
>
>> Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,
>
>Rather than saying "a galaxy can't form in 500 million years" (which, to
>carry on you analogy, sounds like "humans couldn't evolve from
>monkey-like ancestors"---just a statement with no proof), do you have
>any reference to a paper which demonstrates that there is NO WAY that a
>galaxy could form in the time available, rather than that it is just
>"difficult" within a scenario which is not completely understood anyway?
Actually I think the equations of motion leading to formation of stars
and galaxies are well understood. It is, after all, just a classical
process, and there is no particular reason to think that computer models
would be wildly inaccurate in modelling such a process.
On the other hand the equations for unification with quantum mechanics
and general relativity are not understood at all (unless, of course, rqg
is right, in which case they are only understood by me).
It seems to me somewhat bizarre therefore to insist that we know the
age-redshift relation when a quantum process (transfer of light) is
involved, when there is no empirical evidence for this relation, and
quite a bit of empirical evidence that it is wrong, and at the same time
it insist that we do not understand classical processes for which the
equations have been empirically established for quite some time.
Nicolaas Vroom
news:mt2.0-25391...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
> Thus spake Oh No <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>
>>Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
>>redshifts of these galaxies
>>
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/wl_uk_afp/britainusspaceastronomyhu
>>bble_20091209083101
>>
> I did find this
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
>
> There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies
> can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of
> the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According
> to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of
> 1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies
>
I agree with you that there are problems.
The whole problem IMO boils down to the question:
What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.
A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted
in the past.
Does that value mean we can say anything about the present
of that Galaxy (its present position and speed)
IMO the answer is No. (or very little)
Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed
of this Galaxy in the past ?
Also very little.
The most we can say is that this Galaxy is (was) far away
because the redshift is large, mostly caused by space expansion
A smaller part of the redshift is caused by the peculiar motion of
the Galaxy at the time of transmission (Dawn of the Galaxies)
For more information See the discussion:
"Neophyte question about Hubble's Law"
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.
It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was
emitted. That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/
> A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted
> in the past.
> Does that value mean we can say anything about the present
> of that Galaxy (its present position and speed)
> IMO the answer is No. (or very little)
> Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed
> of this Galaxy in the past ?
> Also very little.
If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then
we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we
want.
> The most we can say is that this Galaxy is (was) far away
> because the redshift is large, mostly caused by space expansion
> A smaller part of the redshift is caused by the peculiar motion of
> the Galaxy at the time of transmission
Yes, but at a redshift of 6 this is negligible.
Nicolaas Vroom
schreef in bericht news:mt2.0-13867...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
> In article <mt2.0-16133...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Nicolaas Vroom"
> <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
>
>> What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.
>
> It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was
> emitted.
Are you sure you mean universe ?
Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
proves your point of view ?
What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what
the present situation is.
In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.
For more comments look here:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Hubble-Faq.htm#balloon
> That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/
Implying that this last could change your answer ?
>> A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted
>> in the past.
>> Does that value mean we can say anything about the present
>> of that Galaxy (its present position and speed)
>> IMO the answer is No. (or very little)
>> Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed
>> of this Galaxy in the past ?
>> Also very little.
>
> If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then
> we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we
> want.
How do you know that ?
Is this not too optimistic ?
What are the other observations ?
Gravitational lenses ?
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> "Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
> schreef in bericht news:mt2.0-13867...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
> > In article <mt2.0-16133...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Nicolaas Vroom"
> > <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> >
> >> What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.
> >
> > It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was
> > emitted.
>
> Are you sure you mean universe ?
> Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
> proves your point of view ?
> What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what
> the present situation is.
> In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.
That is what it means assuming that the universe is described by the
Friedmann-Lemaitre equations, i.e. that it a) is described by general
relativity and b) it is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (for
which there is observational evidence, so this is not really an
assumption). It also assumes that the image above was caused by photons
travelling from the galaxies to the CCD in the camera, and not put there
by angels or whatever. Yes, one can question all assumptions, and I
think it is only after several pages in their big book that Russell and
Whitehead prove that 1+1=2, but explicitly stating all
assumptions---especially those which we have good reason to believe are
true---hampers communication.
> For more comments look here:
> http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Hubble-Faq.htm#balloon
>
> > That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/
> Implying that this last could change your answer ?
Sure. If I know the parameters Omega, lambda and H, I can calculate the
light-travel time and so on.
> > If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then
> > we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we
> > want.
>
> How do you know that ?
See the assumptions above.
> Is this not too optimistic ?
Why do you think so?
> What are the other observations ?
> Gravitational lenses ?
Yes, and many others, such as the m-z relation for supernovae, the CMB
etc.
Nicolaas Vroom
> In article <mt2.0-13558...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Nicolaas Vroom"
> <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
>
>> >> What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.
>> >
>> > It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light
>> > was
>> > emitted.
>>
>> Are you sure you mean universe ?
>> Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
>> proves your point of view ?
>> What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what
>> the present situation is.
>> In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.
>
> That is what it means assuming that the universe is described by the
> Friedmann-Lemaitre equations, i.e. that it a) is described by general
> relativity and b) it is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (for
> which there is observational evidence, so this is not really an
> assumption).
The evidence exists of for example what "this picture" shows and
that is an image of the past.
And if I interpret that picture correct than it shows an evolution
in galaxy structures.
To claim anything about the present situation is inferred and based
on assumptions.
That does not mean that the present universe is not homogeneous.
But even if the Universe is homogeneous there is a problem with
the law v = H * d with v and d being the proper distance
(i.e. the present distance).
The problem is the relation z = (H/c) * d with d being the
distance at emission (i.e. in the past)
This relation is used to calculate the Hubble constant H
(based on observations of both z and d).
The problem is that the two Hubble constants can not be
the same.
This problem is explained here:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/bigbangh.htm
which explains that the two laws are in conflict with
each other.
The problem is identical if H is constant in time or variable
Nicolaas Vroom.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> But even if the Universe is homogeneous there is a problem with
> the law v = H * d with v and d being the proper distance
> (i.e. the present distance).
> The problem is the relation z = (H/c) * d with d being the
> distance at emission (i.e. in the past)
> This relation is used to calculate the Hubble constant H
> (based on observations of both z and d).
> The problem is that the two Hubble constants can not be
> the same.
This problem of yours has been addressed here in the newsgroup many
times. Why do you keep asking it?
Please state, clearly and exactly, what you think the problem is.
Nicolaas Vroom
The problem is threefold.
First you have the law : v = H * d
With v and d (and H) being the present values. (proper values)
The question is how do you calculate those based on observations ?
The problem is neither one of those values can directly be observed.
For the sun a similar problem exits. What is observed is a position
in the past 8 minutes ago. To calculate the present position
you need a "model".
Second you have the law: z = (H/c) * d.
d is the distance in the past and z is the present value.
This is the equation used to calculate the Hubble Constant H.
Third again you have the law: v = H * d
but now with v, d and H values in the past.
IMO the real problem is that each of those three values
for H is different.
Q: is this "assumption" correct ?
For more information read:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/bigbangh.htm
Nicolaas Vroom
Oh No
No, it is not correct. The three laws you cite are approximations which
hold for near galaxies, and all three are equivalent within the range in
which these approximations hold. For greater distances the issue
(emission of light in the past) you describe does affect things, but
then you have to use the mechanisms and laws of general relativity, not
these simple approximations.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> "Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
> schreef in bericht news:mt2.0-712-...@hydra.herts.ac.uk...
> The problem is threefold.
> First you have the law : v = H * d
> With v and d (and H) being the present values. (proper values)
OK.
> The question is how do you calculate those based on observations ?
> The problem is neither one of those values can directly be observed.
Right.
> For the sun a similar problem exits. What is observed is a position
> in the past 8 minutes ago. To calculate the present position
> you need a "model".
Right.
> Second you have the law: z = (H/c) * d.
> d is the distance in the past and z is the present value.
> This is the equation used to calculate the Hubble Constant H.
Right. It is valid at low redshift; it is a limit.
> Third again you have the law: v = H * d
> but now with v, d and H values in the past.
Right.
> IMO the real problem is that each of those three values
> for H is different.
> Q: is this "assumption" correct ?
The first two are the same. The third is, in general, different. But
this is not a problem. We can determine the cosmological parameters
from observations (this was worked out in the 1930s) and then calculate
H at any time.
> For more information read:
> http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/bigbangh.htm
I had a look. After clicking away 4 pop-ups informing me that I was the
one-millionth visitor or whatever, I had a read through it. My advice
is to read Edward Harrison's textbook COSMOLOGY: THE SCIENCE OF THE
UNIVERSE cover to cover. That should clear up any confusion.
Steve Willner
"Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
>For the sun a similar problem exits. What is observed is a position
>in the past 8 minutes ago.
Actually, because of aberration of light, what is observed is very
nearly the position of the Sun "now."
> To calculate the present position you need a "model".
You need a model to interpret any observation you make. (In some
cases, the model may be fairly simple.)
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA