Can the Universe really form over 70 sextillion stars in 13.7 billion years?

  • 40 Replies
  • 15942 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Deep field images

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2004-07-d-full_jpg.jpg

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/cosmology/universe:%20age_size/2004/07/image/d/

http://www.fripro.com/STEREO%20UNIVERSE%20UIDE.htm

Show a potential of over 100,000,000,000 galaxies and within those a variety of galaxy form from spiral to elliptical.

How can all these be formed in just 13.7 Billion years?

Do we explain this by science or by using ad hoc theories?

Do we allow the thinking of the BBT stop us in our tracts to go out on a limb and formulate new theories?


http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4771
The origin of 'Great Walls'

Authors: Sergei Shandarin
(Submitted on 27 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Jan 2009 (this version, v2))

Quote
Abstract: A new semianalytical model that explains the formation and sizes of the 'great walls' - the largest structures observed in the universe is suggested. Although the basis of the model is the Zel'dovich approximation it has been used in a new way very different from the previous studies. Instead of traditional approach that evaluates the nonlinear density field it has been utilized for identification of the regions in Lagrangian space that after the mapping to real or redshift space (depending on the kind of structure is studied) end up in the regions where shell-crossing occurs. The set of these regions in Lagrangian space form the progenitor of the structure and after the mapping it determines the pattern of the structure in real or redshift space. The particle trajectories have crossed in such regions and the mapping is no longer unique there. The progenitor after mapping makes only one stream in the multi-stream flow regions therefore it does not comprise all the mass. Nevertheless, it approximately retains the shape of the structure. The progenitor of the structure in redshift space depends on a few non-Gaussian fields and also it is strongly affected by two anisotropic fields that determine the pattern of great walls as well as their huge sizes. All the fields used in the mappings are derived from the linear potential smoothed at the current scale of nonlinearity which is $R_{nl} = 2.7$ {\hmpc} for the adopted parameters of the \lcdm universe normalized to $\sigma_8 = 0.8$. The model predicts the existence of walls with sizes significantly greater than 500 {\hmpc} that may be found in sufficiently large redshift surveys.
« Last Edit: 30/12/2009 10:22:27 by chris »

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
The scientific models of the evolution of material and structures in the expanding universe fit with the experimental and observational physics very well indeed.

There is plenty of time and space for the observed complexities to form.  Gravitational collapse tends to form stringy shapes but the first large stars and quasars push material away from them with their radiation and explosive shock waves. and this tends to great bubbles and walls.

material can collapse to form large stars in a million years or so and these large stars only last about a million years before exploding violently

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

You said

Quote
The scientific models of the evolution of material and structures in the expanding universe fit with the experimental and observational physics very well indeed.

There is plenty of time and space for the observed complexities to form.  Gravitational collapse tends to form stringy shapes but the first large stars and quasars push material away from them with their radiation and explosive shock waves. and this tends to great bubbles and walls.

material can collapse to form large stars in a million years or so and these large stars only last about a million years before exploding violently

If that is so, please provide the science to support such a statement.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

You said

Quote
The scientific models of the evolution of material and structures in the expanding universe fit with the experimental and observational physics very well indeed.

There is plenty of time and space for the observed complexities to form.  Gravitational collapse tends to form stringy shapes but the first large stars and quasars push material away from them with their radiation and explosive shock waves. and this tends to great bubbles and walls.

material can collapse to form large stars in a million years or so and these large stars only last about a million years before exploding violently

If that is so, please provide the science to support such a statement.
What, all of it?
Every scientific  observation made in astronomy since Copernicus?
That would be rather a long post.
If you have any evidence refuting it let us know.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Thanks BC I was about to say the same thing.  The detailed information and evidence is in all the text books please read them and learn. We just cannot answer a question as big as that.  If there are any details that you have problems with please ask a more specific question and I will hopefully clarify it for you.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day from the land of ozzzz

Please supply evidence

Hear say what say means nothing.

I want to see evidence supported by science and not by ad hoc theories.

All observations and images show a clustering effect from solar systems to Galaxies to clusters of local galaxies to superclusters of galaxies.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
This
"Please supply evidence"
goes both ways. If you have an alternative hypotheis you need to evince it.

You have already been told that the evidence is in lots of textbooks. How many have you looked at since you read that?
If the answer is none then you need to think about whether the problem is a lack of evidence or your refusal to look at it.
You remind me of Galileio's critics who refused to look through the telescope.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day Bored

I do supply much evidence and yet when I request any form of evidence.

None are served.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Show a potential of over 100,000,000,000 galaxies and within those a variety of galaxy form from spiral to elliptical.

How can all these be formed in just 13.7 Billion years?
Why would you think they cannot be formed in that time? If you argue that it just seems too long you are employing the logical fallacy Argument from Incredulity. That won't wash, no matter how much it satisfies you personally.
[/quote]
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
G'day Bored

I do supply much evidence and yet when I request any form of evidence.

None are served.

Troll.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Agreed. Harry Costas we consider you are a troll just trying to start arguments without putting any useful input yourself.  Unless you frame your questions in a more reasonable and answerable manner we will have to ignore you.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Agreed. Harry Costas we consider you are a troll just trying to start arguments without putting any useful input yourself. 
In fairness, I think Harry believes he is correct. He genuinely thinks he is exposing some deliberate, or implicit conspiracy and a great flaw in our current cosmology. He has been roving internet forums for many years now spouting the same ideas. Trolling? I don't think so. Unsubstantiated delusions? Possibly. Time wasting persistence, with the best of intentions. Almost certainly.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
G'day Bored

I do supply much evidence and yet when I request any form of evidence.

None are served.

I assume you can see why people would think this is trolling?

If you're suggesting something other than the mainstream view, please provide your evidence first.  It's only polite.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Is this some form of a joke?

Refer back to my first post, than read your responses.

Think about it for a sec.

If you wish to add to the discussion than please do so.

Leave out the troll parts.

So! who can supply scientific evidence to support the BBT

or are you too busy trying to insult.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Refer back to my first post, than read your responses.

Think about it for a sec.

If you wish to add to the discussion than please do so.

Leave out the troll parts.

So! who can supply scientific evidence to support the BBT

or are you too busy trying to insult.

Well, clearly you can (offer evidence in support of the Big Bang), for you did so in your first post. On the other hand you have offered nothing that is contrary to Big Bang Theory, except your personal incredulity. That won't wash.

I think that's the second time I've pointed this out to you, but no response.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day from the land of ozzzz

What is evidence?
Is there evidence supporting the BBT?
It seems that there is no evidence.

This paper is quite interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0153
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)
(Submitted on 1 Oct 2008)

Quote
Abstract: The space expansion physics contains several paradoxes which were clearly demonstrated by Edward Harrison (1981, 1995, 2000), who emphasized that the cooling of homogeneous hot gas (including photon gas of CBR) in the standard cosmological model based on the violation of energy conservation by the expanding space. In modern version of SCM the term "space expansion" actually means continuous creation of vacuum, something that leads to conceptual problems. Recent discussion by Francis, Barnes, James, and Lewis (2007) on the physical sense of the increasing distance to a receding galaxy without motion of the galaxy is just a particular consequence of the arising paradoxes. Here we present an analysis of the following conceptual problems of the SCM: the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equation, the absence of an upper limit on the receding velocity of galaxies which can be greater than the speed of light, and the presence of the linear Hubble law deeply inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity, where there is no a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field, no energy quanta - gravitons, and no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity because gravity is not a material field.

and
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0162
Field Fractal Cosmological Model As an Example of Practical Cosmology Approach

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)
(Submitted on 1 Oct 2008)

Abstract: The idea of the global gravitational effect as the source of cosmological redshift was considered by de Sitter (1916, 1917), Eddington (1923), Tolman (1929) and Bondi (1947), also Hubble (1929) called the discovered distance-redshift relation as "De Sitter effect". For homogeneous matter distribution cosmological gravitational redshift is proportional to square of distance: z_grav ~ r^2. However for a fractal matter distribution having the fractal dimension D=2 the global gravitational redshift is the linear function of distance: z_grav ~ r, which gives possibility for interpretation of the Hubble law without the space expansion. Here the field gravity fractal cosmological model (FGF) is presented, which based on two initial principles. The first assumption is that the field gravity theory describes the gravitational interaction within the conceptual unity of all fundamental physical interactions. The second hypothesis is that the spatial distribution of matter is a fractal at all scales up to the Hubble radius. The fractal dimension of matter distribution is assumed to be D = 2, which implies that the global gravitational redshift is the explanation of the observed linear Hubble law. In the frame of the FGF all three phenomena - the cosmic background radiation, the fractal large scale structure, and the Hubble law, -could be consequences of a unique evolution process of the initially homogeneous cold gas. Within field gravity fractal framework a new qualitative picture of the structure and evolution of the Universe has emerged, with some quantitative results that may be tested by current and forthcoming observations.

*

lyner

  • Guest
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

. . . . .

Refer back to my first post, than read your responses.

. . . . . .

So! who can supply scientific evidence to support the BBT

or are you too busy trying to insult.


I read the OP and it consists of some stunning pictures and a link to an alternative theory / hypothesis.

I have to ask you, have you really read through any more than the abstract and do you actually understand what is said? Also, have you actually read any serious Cosmology and are you aware of just how consistent the evidence which indicates a BB. (No one on this forum needs to supply evidence of the BB as it is to be found all over the place. The burden of proof is with you, as you're introducing the new idea.)
How much Cosmology (mainstream and the new stuff you quote) do you actually UNDERSTAND and how much do you just fancy having a go at the establishment?

It's very easy to post stuff that will be read. It's harder to write stuff that people will actually appreciate. Perhaps you could assemble some of the new ideas and present them in an understandable way, rather than posting a couple of links and then having a rant at the old stuff.
I presume you want to establish some credibility?

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I read all the ABS that I post.

As far as Astrophysics and Cosmology is concerned, I read daily a few scientific papers.

Over the last 40 years it adds up.

As for the support of the BBT 95% of all papers support the BBT.

But! most assume the BBT is correct than proceed to fit the data.

Science is about questioning and testing.

So! how can over 100,000,000,000 galaxies found in deep field images 13.2 Grs away form in just 500 million years.
Now what evidence can support that.

Also looking through all the images Hubble site, Chandra site and many others we find a clustering effect and not an expansion. Time taken to form these objects has to be accounted for. Also the evolution of Galaxies and the sequence of how they evolove. We are not talking of one star we are talking of over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars some small some 100 times that of our Sun.

The question pops up: Are we lead by data that contains errors?

*

Offline Pwee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 114
    • View Profile
Hi Harry!

Maybe I can help you.

Here is 2 podcast episodes of the Astronomycast. They are talking about astronomy and always state the supporting evidence too:
http://www.astronomycast.com/cosmology/the-big-bang-and-cosmic-microwave-background/
http://www.astronomycast.com/extragalactic/more-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

(Hope TNS volks dont mind me posting about a concurent science podcast  [;)] )

It could be a good summary of the evidence out there and you can read forward from there as this podcast doesn't go too much into the details.

I must say that I didn't listen to those 2 episodes as there are other things that interest me more in astronomy, but I know that in all other episodes they always aim to support everything with hard evidence.

Good luck finding your answer!

*

lyner

  • Guest
There is nothing in the BB idea to prohibit clustering. It's just a matter of the local situation regarding Gravitational Potential and Kinetic Energy. The same Critical Density criterion applies in small regions as over the whole Universe. No one is surprised that the Solar System isn't expanding, for the same reason.

I was not aware that there is any conflict between the calculated time for a star to form and the calculated available time since the postulated BB. The sheer large numbers involved are no serious objection per se. They all get on with their own formation at the same time.

I was suggesting that there is more to a paper than just the Abstract and that, if you'd read the whole paper, you might have constructed some argument based on the content. That would certainly have made people sit up and listen.
You must have seen the plethora of posts on all fora which are just after having a rant and your OP rather gave that impression. Hence the hostile reception from a few regulars.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Thank you for those links supporting the BBT.

The problem is that the data can aslo be explained by the static theory.

At the ned of the day I do not show favorite to any. If most people were on the static theory, I'm the one testing on the opposite fence.

Why? Because since is more fun testing the limits.

This paper comes to mind

Observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe   
Jan-09   

http://ads.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/abs/2009arXiv0901.4172C   
http://ads.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2009arXiv0901.4172C&link_type=PREPRINT&db_key=PRE
   
Quote
Analysis of type 1a supernovae observations out to a redshift of $z$=1.6 shows that there is good agreement between the light-curve widths and $(1+z)$ which is usually interpreted as a strong support for time dilation due to an expanding universe. This paper argues that a strong case can be made for a static universe where the supernovae light-curve-width dependence on redshift is due to selection effects. The analysis is based on the principle that it is the total energy (the fluence) and not the peak magnitude that is the best `standard candle' for type 1a supernovae. A simple model using a static cosmology provides an excellent prediction for the dependence of light curve width on redshift and the luminosity-width relationship for nearby supernovae. The width dependence arises from the assumption of constant absolute magnitude resulting in strong selection of lower luminosity supernovae at higher redshifts due to the use of an incorrect distance modulus. Using a static cosmology, curvature-cosmology, and without fitting any parameters the analysis shows that the total energy is independent of redshift and provides a Hubble constant of $63.1\pm2.5$ kms$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. There is no indication of any deviation at large redshifts that has been ascribed to the occurrence of dark energy.
   

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Right harry I will take you seriously for a moment. going back to your first posting. I have looked at the deep field pictures and am very familiar with them I have a large copy stuck on my study wall.  The synthetic stereo pictures are just what they say.  Artificially created by image processing and not related to actual stereo images.  The black blobs are just artifacts of the processing that gives the impression of layers of galaxies at different distances.  All these are quite interesting but appear to bear no relation to your fundamental problems which you do not state.

As I said in my first reply the scale and behaviour of the expanding universe is based on solid scientific evidence.

Firstly the distance scale.

Nearby stars can be measured using the earth's orbit to measure parallax (I presume you accept that the scale of the earth's orbit has been adequately measured by parallax and space probes)

The luminosity spectral type and colour of the stars shows that most stars fall o what id called the main sequence and their brightness is pretty consistently related to their spectral type so the distance of most stars can be estimated just from their brightness and colour.  This main sequence also agrees with the theoretical modelling of the nuclear reactions going on in stars and so is proved from two directions (the nuclear reactions can be confirmed in the laboratory with high energy collision experiments)

This allows the local shape of the galaxy to be observed and also some bright stars and violent events like Cepheid variables and type 1 supernovae to be understood to give good measurements out to local and then distant galactic measurements.

This then allows the red shift to be observed and calibrated to give a general observation of objects at great distances.

Galactic modellers can run through computer models of large scale galaxy and cluster formation with slightly different parameters of expansion rate dark matter etc and see the difference this would make in what the universe looks like and they fit very well.

So where is your problem.  The model works from the general to the fine detail all the way from the basic formation of hydrogen and helium in the first few minutes out to the current scene.  As you might expect there are some areas at both edges where understanding is currently poor but that will improve in time.

Now precisely where is your problem with this?

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

Mate

What are you trying to say?

Are you saying that Stars within our Galaxy are moving apart?

Are you trying to say that the local group that the MW is part is moving apart?

Are you trying to say what?

As for star types and galaxy forms I can direct you to some great links.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Science is about questioning data

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2513
Spectral variation of the WMAP 5-year degree scale anisotropy

Authors: Bi-Zhu Jiang, Richard Lieu, Shuang-Nan Zhang
(Submitted on 16 Apr 2009)

Quote
Abstract: The black body nature of the first acoustic peak of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was tested using foreground reduced WMAP 5-year data, by producing subtraction maps between pairs of cosmological bands, viz. the Q, V, and W bands, for masked sky areas that avoid the Galactic disk. The resulting maps revealed a non black body signal that has two main properties. (a) It fluctuates on the degree scale preferentially in one half of the sky, producing an extra {\it random} noise there of amplitude $\approx$ 3.5 $\mu$K, which is $\gtrsim$ 10 $\sigma$ above the pixel noise even after beam size differences between bands are taken into account. (b) The signal exhibits large scale asymmetry in the form of a dipole ($\approx$ 3 $\mu$K) in the Q-V and Q-W maps; and (c) a quadrupole ($\approx$ 1.5 $\mu$K) in the Q-V, Q-W, and V-W maps. While (b) is due most probably to cross-band calibration residuals of the CMB COBE dipole, the amplitude of (c) is well beyond systematics of the kind, and in any case no {\it a priori} quadrupole in the CMB exists to leave behind such a residual. The axes of symmetry of (a), (b), and (c) are tilted in the same general direction w.r.t. the axes of the Galaxy. This tilt prevents the immediate `trivialization' of (a) and (c) in terms of known effects or anomalies, including and especially those of the foreground. In particular, should future attempts in demonstrating the non-cosmological origin of (a) continue to prove difficult, it would mean that degree scale departures from the acoustic model of perturbations is occurring on the last scattering surface at the 4 -- 5 % level, and moreover the behavior varies significantly from one half of the universe to another.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

You are saying that people who write against the BBT are TROLLS.

Very interesting. What do you do with science papers?

If space was expanding than you would expect space between atoms expanding. But! we are told that matter does not expand. If it did so we would notice it.

Direct Observations of galaxies do not indicate an expansion.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0147
The spatial distribution of galaxies within the CMB cold spot in the Corona Borealis supercluster

Authors: C.P. Padilla-Torres, C.M. Gutierrez, R. Rebolo, R. Genova-Santos, J.A. Rubino-Martin
(Submitted on 1 Apr 2009)

Quote
Abstract: We study the spatial distribution and colours of galaxies within the region covered by the cold spot in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) recently detected by the Very Small Array (VSA; Genova-Santos et al. 2005, 2008) towards the Corona Borealis supercluster (CrB-SC). The spot is in the northern part of a region with a radius ~1 degree (~5 Mpc at the redshift of CrB-SC) enclosing the clusters Abell 2056, 2065, 2059 and 2073, and where the density of galaxies, excluding the contribution from those clusters, is ~2 times higher than the mean value in typical intercluster regions of the CrB-SC. Two of such clusters (Abell 2056 and 2065) are members of the CrB-SC, while the other two are in the background. This high density intercluster region is quite inhomogeneous, being the most remarkable feature a large concentration of galaxies in a narrow filament running from Abell 2065 with a length of ~35 arcmin (~3 Mpc at the redshift of CrB-SC) in the SW-NE direction. This intercluster population of galaxies probably results from the interaction of clusters Abell 2065 and 2056. The area subtended by the VSA cold spot shows an excess of faint (21<r<22) and red (1.1<r-i<1.3) galaxies as compared with typical values within the CrB-SC intercluster regions. This overdensity of galaxies shows a radial dependence and extends out to ~15 arcmin. This could be signature of a previously unnoticed cluster in the background.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

You are saying that people who write against the BBT are TROLLS.
Soul Surfer is saying very clearly that you are a troll. Not because you write against BBT, but because of the way you write against it. SS gave a very clear exposition on how we determine distances in the universe and asked if you have any problems with that. You responded by posting links that had no relevance to the question.

I am still waiting, after asking twice, why you think the observed stars and stellar systems could not form in 13.7 billion years.

Your persistent refusal to answer such direct questions is typical behaviour for a troll. If you do not wish to be thoght of as one then answer the questions.
« Last Edit: 19/07/2009 09:35:00 by Ophiolite »
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day Ophiolite

The huge amounts of Galaxies and the complexity cannot form in just 13.7 Gyrs regardless of how many ad hoc theories you present.

It seems Ophiolite that you lack any understanding of star formation and galaxy evolution.

You are wasting my time and your time with silly troll remarks.

I think you are happy with your thoughts. It seems you have not read one link that I posted.
 
This may help your thoughts along.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0002
The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling II: The challenge of comparing galaxy evolution models to observations

Authors: Charlie Conroy, Martin White, James E. Gunn
(Submitted on 31 Mar 2009)

Quote
Abstract: Models for the formation and evolution of galaxies readily predict physical properties such as the star formation rates, metal enrichment histories, and, increasingly, gas and dust content of synthetic galaxies. Such predictions are frequently compared to the spectral energy distributions of observed galaxies via the stellar population synthesis (SPS) technique. Substantial uncertainties in SPS exist, and yet their relevance to the task of comparing galaxy evolution models to observations has received little attention. In the present work we begin to address this issue by investigating the importance of uncertainties in stellar evolution, the initial stellar mass function (IMF), and dust and interstellar medium (ISM) properties on the translation from models to observations. We demonstrate that these uncertainties translate into substantial uncertainties in the ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared colors of synthetic galaxies. Aspects that carry significant uncertainties include the logarithmic slope of the IMF above 1 Msun, dust attenuation law, molecular cloud disruption timescale, clumpiness of the ISM, fraction of unobscured starlight, and treatment of advanced stages of stellar evolution including blue stragglers, the horizontal branch, and the thermally-pulsating asymptotic giant branch. The interpretation of the resulting uncertainties in the derived colors is highly non-trivial because many of the uncertainties are likely systematic, and possibly correlated with the physical properties of galaxies. We therefore urge caution when comparing models to observations.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day

One more post

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0006
Early assembly of the most massive galaxies

Authors: Chris A. Collins (LJMU), John P. Stott, Matt Hilton, Scott T. Kay, S. Adam Stanford, Michael Davidson, Mark Hosmer, Ben Hoyle, Andrew Liddle, Ed Lloyd-Davies, Robert G. Mann, Nicola Mehrtens, Christopher J. Miller, Robert C. Nichol, A. Kathy Romer, Martin Sahlen, Pedro T. P. Viana, Michael J. West
(Submitted on 31 Mar 2009)

Quote
Abstract: The current consensus is that galaxies begin as small density fluctuations in the early Universe and grow by in situ star formation and hierarchical merging. Stars begin to form relatively quickly in sub-galactic sized building blocks called haloes which are subsequently assembled into galaxies. However, exactly when this assembly takes place is a matter of some debate. Here we report that the stellar masses of brightest cluster galaxies, which are the most luminous objects emitting stellar light, some 9 billion years ago are not significantly different from their stellar masses today. Brightest cluster galaxies are almost fully assembled 4-5 Gyrs after the Big Bang, having grown to more than 90% of their final stellar mass by this time. Our data conflict with the most recent galaxy formation models based on the largest simulations of dark matter halo development. These models predict protracted formation of brightest cluster galaxies over a Hubble time, with only 22% of the stellar mass assembled at the epoch probed by our sample. Our findings suggest a new picture in which brightest cluster galaxies experience an early period of rapid growth rather than prolonged hierarchical assembly.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Harry, I appreciate that you like to play devils advocate, and feel the status quo should be challenged.  That's fine.

However, people have asked you for evidence, so please, rather than posting links to papers that may or may not support your arguement, can you tell us in your own words why you feel there is a problem with the current theory, and which hypothesis you believe to be more appropriate?

I for one do not have time to read the papers you link to.

Also, with my moderators hat on - please try to be a bit more civil.  Your attitude already has people suspecting you are a troll.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Harry,
I guess if I read the paper you cited it would tell me the answer to the "problem".
As they say, "Our findings suggest a new picture in which brightest cluster galaxies experience an early period of rapid growth rather than prolonged hierarchical assembly."
It is possible for the galaxies to have formed in the time available- it just happened in a slightly different way than had previously been thought. So the answer to the question which forms the title of this thread is "yes it can".
Great we now have a better model (subject to confirmation) for how it did this.
That's what science is about.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day Bored

You said

Quote
It is possible for the galaxies to have formed in the time available- it just happened in a slightly different way than had previously been thought. So the answer to the question which forms the title of this thread is "yes it can".

Bored to you know what "evidence" is and "here say" is?

What I'm saying :

Support you idea with some form of science logic.

The Big Bang Theory in a nut shell is this: Not that I agree with it.

This is a standard quote

Quote
The Standard explanation of the Big Bang has it that all matter came from a small point. The matter emerged and was flung (moved) outwards.

No, that is completely wrong. It is a popular myth that survives because it takes too much time and effort to explain what the Big Bang really is. But it is not any kind of explosion into pre-existing space. It has no center and no edge. Instead, the Big Bang is an explosion OF space, not an explosion INTO space. Since the very beginning, all matter and galaxies remain pretty much in place in their local space except for small local motions. The reason that galaxies get farther apart is not because of motion of galaxies through space, but because more empty space is continually being created between them. The whole universe is a 3D analog of an expanding balloon surface with dimes taped to it. All the dimes (representing galaxies) are getting farther apart from all the others even though none of them is moving, and there is no center and no edge to the balloon surface.
T

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day

If redshift can be explained by other means. What doe this mean to evidence and data from Redshift.Do we close our eyes and feel comfortable with what ever model we do have, or do we question it until the cows come home one way or another.

Possible Interpretations of the Magnitude-Redshift Relation for Supernovae of Type IA

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000AJ....119.2583B&db_key=AST&high=3abd925d4714244

Quote
It has been shown by Riess et al. and Perlmutter et al. that the observed redshift-magnitude relation for supernovae of type Ia, which suggests that the deceleration parameter q0 is negative, can be explained in a Friedmann model with a positive cosmological constant. We show that a quasi-steady state cosmology (QSSC) model can also fit the supernova data. Since most of the emphasis and publicity have been concentrated on explanations involving the Friedmann model, we show how a good fit can be obtained to the observations in the framework of the QSSC. Using this model, we show that absorption due to intergalactic dust may play an important role. This may explain why a few of the supernovae observed show large deviations from the curve determined by the majority of the data.

*

Offline AllenG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 503
    • View Profile

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
I agre allenG a clear case of troll like behaviour.  Just one final note Harry I will not bother to reply again unless you behave more sensibly and present your arguments and do not just quote papers that you do not understand.

I am not against to arguments in favour alternatives to the conventional big bang from a singularity and in fact present some of them myself in the new theories area in these pages under the title of "Evolutionary cosmology" but you are not presenting coherent ideas in an understandable form and until you do I am out.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

You said

Quote
I am not against to arguments in favour alternatives to the conventional big bang from a singularity and in fact present some of them myself in the new theories area in these pages under the title of "Evolutionary cosmology" but you are not presenting coherent ideas in an understandable form and until you do I am out.

Why bother with silly statements?

Do you have any form of undertsanding of cosmology?

I have not seen one discussion issue.

So please do not waste my time.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
The huge amounts of Galaxies and the complexity cannot form in just 13.7 Gyrs regardless of how many ad hoc theories you present.
As part of my one man crusade to counteract poor English I am compelled to make this off-topic remark.
You cannot have 'huge amounts of galaxies'. Amount is an analog term refering to anything that exists as a continuum. Galaxies are discrete, digital things. The correct expression is 'huge numbers of galaxies'. Even BBC announcers are making this basic error which suggests that the end of civilisation may be near.

Now back on topic: simply repeating endlessly that the galaxies cannot form in 13.7 billion years does not make it so. We have a number of plausible models describing galaxy formation and stellar evolution. Clearly they cannot all be true in detail, but the theoreticians have no difficulty offering viable explanations. If you deny this you need to dismantle the arguments for each model of galaxy formation and stellar evolution. Good luck with that! May we expect your first attempt anytime soon? Or will you simply continue to deny, deny, deny?

It seems Ophiolite that you lack any understanding of star formation and galaxy evolution.
You are not very discerning. I have an elementary grasp of galaxy formation and a passable amateurs understanding of stellar formation and evolution, since the latter is intimately tied into planetary formation, a subject I do no something about.

You are wasting my time and your time with silly troll remarks.
That is both inaccurate and offensive. Numerous posters here (and countless posters on other forums) have accused you of trolling. I, and others, have pointed out why your actions are seen as trolling. I have suggested how you can counter these claims. Once again you have chosen not to do so. With the best will in the world I find it difficult not to believe all those voices directed at you, crying "troll", may be correct.

I think you are happy with your thoughts. It seems you have not read one link that I posted.
 
This may help your thoughts along.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0002
Again Harry, you don't seem to understand what you are reading. The authors do not claim the Big Bang did not happen. The authors do not claim that galaxies could not form in 13.7 billion years. The authors do not claim anything comparable with your claims. All they say is, to paraphrase, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the specifics of our observations and that makes it difficult to determine which model of galaxy formation and the like we should follow.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
G'day Ophiolite

You said

Quote
All they say is, to paraphrase, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the specifics of our observations and that makes it difficult to determine which model of galaxy formation and the like we should follow.

That I agree with.

Please leave the Troll and othe forums out of it, you are above such silly statements.

So far you have not expressed your thoughts on the discussion you have spent more time being a critic.

So far, from all the Forums that I have discussed, not one has provided concrete evidence for the BBT. I do not have to prove that the BBT is correct. I put more weight on star formation and galaxy evolution to explain the ongoing processes that do not require the ad hoc theories of the BBT.


Regardless, this paper is informative.

Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Authors: Michal Chodorowski (Copernicus Center)

(Submitted on 9 Jan 2006 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))

Quote
Abstract: In all Friedman models, the cosmological redshift is widely interpreted as a consequence of the general-relativistic phenomenon of EXPANSION OF SPACE. Other commonly believed consequences of this phenomenon are superluminal recession velocities of distant galaxies and the distance to the particle horizon greater than c*t (where t is the age of the Universe), in apparent conflict with special relativity. Here, we study a particular Friedman model: empty universe. This model exhibits both cosmological redshift, superluminal velocities and infinite distance to the horizon. However, we show that the cosmological redshift is there simply a relativistic Doppler shift. Moreover, apparently superluminal velocities and `acausal' distance to the horizon are in fact a direct consequence of special-relativistic phenomenon of time dilation, as well as of the adopted definition of distance in cosmology. There is no conflict with special relativity, whatsoever. In particular, INERTIAL recession velocities are subluminal. Since in the real Universe, sufficiently distant galaxies recede with relativistic velocities, these special-relativistic effects must be at least partly responsible for the cosmological redshift and the aforementioned `superluminalities', commonly attributed to the expansion of space. Let us finish with a question resembling a Buddhism-Zen `koan': in an empty universe, what is expanding?

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Harry,  we're receiving complaints about you now.

We would all appreciate it if you could lay out your criticisms of the big bang theory, rather than endlessly state your opinion and link to random scientific papers.

It's also been pointed out to me that you've been banned from other fora for trolling - maybe you're just very bad at communicating, but if I receive one more complaint you can add this to the list of fora you have been banned from.

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
Harry,  we're receiving complaints about you now.

We would all appreciate it if you could lay out your criticisms of the big bang theory, rather than endlessly state your opinion and link to random scientific papers.

It's also been pointed out to me that you've been banned from other fora for trolling - maybe you're just very bad at communicating, but if I receive one more complaint you can add this to the list of fora you have been banned from.



erhmm..I well..kinda banned him already !...please change accordingly if appropriate !..or if you feel I was too hasty.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Well, I think that's fair enough!