Oldest spiral galaxy challenge to established age of universe?

[aramis720]

A new study finds a very calm and defined spiral galaxy 11 billion years old: http://zeenews.india.com/space/scientists-discover-most-ancient-spiral-galaxy-2054481.html. Does this finding present a challenge to the 13.8 billion year age of the universe in terms of the general view that it takes far longer for this kind of spiral galaxy to form through normal gravitational processes? 

[Strange]

Do you have a reference that says it takes longer than this for galaxies to form?

[mathematic]

2.8 billion years is a long time.

[Outrider]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Do you have a reference that says it takes longer than this for galaxies to form?

That was my understanding as well. Here from a 2012 article. 

http://www.space.com/16641-oldest-spiral-galaxy-hubble-telescope.html

Quote

 

"The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," study lead author David Law, of the University of Toronto, said in a statement. "Current wisdom holds that such ‘grand-design’ spiral galaxies simply didn’t exist at such an early time in the history of the universe."

snip

 

Today, spiral galaxies like our own Milky Way are common throughout the cosmos. But that wasn't the case long ago, when galaxy collisions were much more common, gas raining in from the intergalactic medium fed more dramatic star formation and black holes grew faster than they do now, researchers said.

"The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks," said co-author Alice Shapley of UCLA. "Our first thought was, why is this one so different, and so beautiful?"

 

 

 

The galaxy in the article was said to only be 10.7 billion years old so it got nudged out by a mere 300 million years.

[aramis720]

The article I linked to also includes statements about the unusual nature of finding such an old spiral galaxy. I'm not suggesting that this is a kind of falsification of the Standard Model, but from my understanding it is a challenge b/c it is generally though that it takes more time for defined spiral galaxies to form. 

[Outrider]

44 minutes ago, aramis720 said:

The article I linked to also includes statements about the unusual nature of finding such an old spiral galaxy. I'm not suggesting that this is a kind of falsification of the Standard Model, but from my understanding it is a challenge b/c it is generally though that it takes more time for defined spiral galaxies to form. 

Yes I read your article with much interest. Thank you for the link. In the article I read where one of the researchers considered that the discovery might affect our understanding of galaxy formation.  Which I find a more likely result.

Quote

"Studying ancient spirals like A1689B11 is a key to unlocking the mystery of how and when the Hubble sequence emerges," said Renyue Cen from Princeton University in the US.

Of course anything in cosmology is open to question.

Here is a star older than the universe. Note that the researchers are trying to understand where they went wrong with the star and not the universe.

http://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html

Quote

 

Previous research had estimated that the Milky Way galaxy's so-called "Methuselah star" is up to 16 billion years old. That's a problem, since most researchers agree that the Big Bang that created the universe occurred about 13.8 billion years ago.

Now a team of astronomers has derived a new, less nonsensical age for the Methuselah star, incorporating information about its distance, brightness, composition and structure.

"Put all of those ingredients together, and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," study lead author Howard Bond, of Pennsylvania State University and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said in a statement. [Gallery: The Methuselah Star Revealed]

 

In this thread T. McGrath discusses a way we might be misunderstanding the age of the universe. I'll leave a little bit below but please go read the thread.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/110756-why-do-we-think-there-is-dark-matter-and-dark-energy/

T. McGrath  said

Quote

Since that label was created we have since discovered that Type Ia SN are not the "Standard Candle" astronomers originally presumed them to be.  Originally it was assumed that all Type Ia SN had an absolute magnitude of -19.46.  However, in 2006 we discovered the first of several "superluminous" Type Ia SN.  Then in 2013 a whole new classification of supernovae was created.  This new classification, Type Iax SN, had an absolute magnitude ranging between -14.2 and -18.9, much dimmer than Type Ia SN.  Furthermore, it is estimated that between 18% and 48% of all the Type Ia SN prior to 2013 have been misclassified and should actually be Type Iax SN.  Which calls into question the Type Ia SN data collected during the 1990s used to calculate the age of the universe and its alleged acceleration.

 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, aramis720 said:

The article I linked to also includes statements about the unusual nature of finding such an old spiral galaxy. I'm not suggesting that this is a kind of falsification of the Standard Model, but from my understanding it is a challenge b/c it is generally though that it takes more time for defined spiral galaxies to form. 

As we know far more about the Big Bang than we do the formation of galaxies, it is a challenge to the assumptions and hypotheses about the latter, rather than the age of the universe.

[MigL]

The biggest issue does seem to be distance determination ( and has been constantly revised for the last century ).
It would be nice if a new 'standard candle' or metric for distance determination also did away with accelerated expansion and dark energy.
It would simplify cosmology ( slightly ).

[aramis720]

On 11/5/2017 at 10:43 PM, Strange said:

As we know far more about the Big Bang than we do the formation of galaxies, it is a challenge to the assumptions and hypotheses about the latter, rather than the age of the universe.

What is the basis for this comparison of yours? Generally accepted views or your own opinion? 

[Mordred]

In a sense Strange has a valid point. Early structure formation arises from regions where particles effectively drop out of thermal equilibrium.

 Dark matter is strongly supported as being one of the earliest matter particles to do so. However as we know so little about DM we can only estimate when this will occur. Unfortunately we cannot lab test the properties of DM to even estimate its total mass to apply a calculation as to when it will drop out of thermal equilibrium.

 IF DM drops out of equilibrium early enough then structure formation can occur far earlier, the rates can then be estimated via Jeans Instability and Density wave theory as to the time for Spiral galaxy formation, however there is two major problems.

Lack of mass value for DM and the Dark ages beyond the surface of last scattering, using light we can only see so deep into the CMB opacity regions where baryonic matter starts to decouple and form atoms. Evidence supports DM  as the original anistropy seeds and not baryonic matter. (baryonic matter decouples far too late)

[aramis720]

18 hours ago, Mordred said:

In a sense Strange has a valid point. Early structure formation arises from regions where particles effectively drop out of thermal equilibrium.

 Dark matter is strongly supported as being one of the earliest matter particles to do so. However as we know so little about DM we can only estimate when this will occur. Unfortunately we cannot lab test the properties of DM to even estimate its total mass to apply a calculation as to when it will drop out of thermal equilibrium.

 IF DM drops out of equilibrium early enough then structure formation can occur far earlier, the rates can then be estimated via Jeans Instability and Density wave theory as to the time for Spiral galaxy formation, however there is two major problems.

Lack of mass value for DM and the Dark ages beyond the surface of last scattering, using light we can only see so deep into the CMB opacity regions where baryonic matter starts to decouple and form atoms. Evidence supports DM  as the original anistropy seeds and not baryonic matter. (baryonic matter decouples far too late)

Thanks for these insights. A further major problem arises, however, when we consider that we still have no good evidence of dark matter beyond the original anomalous observations that led to its hypothesis. None of the candidates for DM have panned out. So it seems we should at this point be reconsidering the DM hypothesis IMHO. 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, aramis720 said:

A further major problem arises, however, when we consider that we still have no good evidence of dark matter beyond the original anomalous observations that led to its hypothesis.

The original observation was the speeds of galaxies within clusters. Since then we have had:

• Galactic rotation curves
• The power spectrum of the CMB
• Gravitational lensing
• The bullet cluster
• Large scale structure formation
• Big Bang nucleosynthesis

And probably other things that I am not aware of.

Quote

So it seems we should at this point be reconsidering the DM hypothesis IMHO. 

None of the other models work any better.

[Outrider]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

The original observation was the speeds of galaxies within clusters. Since then we have had:

• Galactic rotation curves
• The power spectrum of the CMB
• Gravitational lensing
• The bullet cluster
• Large scale structure formation
• Big Bang nucleosynthesis

So we have multiple lines of evidence pointing to a 13.8 billion year old universe and thousands (more?) of observed objects that fit very well into that framework. And we have a very small handfull of anomalies that suggest a different age. It should be easy to see where to start the inquiry. 

[beecee]

http://nineplanets.org/news/oldest-spiral-galaxy-yet-found/

 

excerpt:

Quote

“This galaxy is forming stars 20 times faster than galaxies today – as fast as other young galaxies of similar masses in the early Universe. However, unlike other galaxies of the same epoch, A1689B11 has a very cool and thin disc, rotating calmly with surprisingly little turbulence. This type of spiral galaxy has never been seen before at this early epoch of the Universe!”

Spiral arms form due to a galaxy's angular momentum, correct? Perhaps, (just a thought for comment on) this galaxy developed within say 300 million years post BB, (which I have read is when they first develop} as a elliptical or irregular galaxy, but unlike the vast majority of galaxies in that early post BB era, did not undergo mergers and/or collisions with other ellipticals and/or irregulars, thereby giving in a far longer time to form spiral arms.

 

[Mordred]

To add to the above the biggest challenge supporting DM is in fact the early large scale structure formation.

 No other model including MOND could account for it. This is one of the primary reasons why two of the main competing models fail. MOND and Spin and torsion via Poplowskii.

 Currently we have some maps of DM distribution as well as the Millenium simulation. The latter though it is a simulation strongly supports DM in so far as to its influence on nucleosynthesis and the metalicity we see in direct observation.

 We are even developing specialized equipment specifically designed to measure DM distributions. Granted mostly through the indirect evidence ie x rays and mass luminosity relations.

 Originally Zwicky used the mass/luminosity relations to discover the need for DM to account for the galaxy rotation curves and why there is no Kepler decline previously predicted. 

Only one mass distribution can possibly prevent Kepler decline. That being a uniform mass of a isothermal halo. Baryonic matter distributes on a disk/bulge distribution. Which will automatically cause a Kepler decline l, the calculations are intense I've personally spent several years studying Spiral galaxy formation using virial and Density wave theorem coupled with Jeans instability. 

Even went so far as to program N-body codes (though only 250 particle count) any more and a typical home computer will bog down and take forever to complete a single calculation loop.

edit last two posts are cross post. the above is to add to Strange reply 

22 minutes ago, Outrider said:

So we have multiple lines of evidence pointing to a 13.8 billion year old universe and thousands (more?) of observed objects that fit very well into that framework. And we have a very small handfull of anomalies that suggest a different age. It should be easy to see where to start the inquiry. 

Essentially correct, but keep in mind we never ignore any body of evidence regardless of how few those observations are.

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

http://nineplanets.org/news/oldest-spiral-galaxy-yet-found/

 

excerpt:

Spiral arms form due to a galaxy's angular momentum, correct? Perhaps, (just a thought for comment on) this galaxy developed within say 300 million years post BB, (which I have read is when they first develop} as a elliptical or irregular galaxy, but unlike the vast majority of galaxies in that early post BB era, did not undergo mergers and/or collisions with other ellipticals and/or irregulars, thereby giving in a far longer time to form spiral arms.

 

 

Spiral arms form specifically due to Density waves of matter under rotation. It is a direct application of Newtons f=ma though many miss that.

 A central potential force under rotation will naturally cause different rates of velocity of particles with the heavier particles moving slower than the lighter particles. This gradually creates traffic jams as the lighter particles overlap the heavier particles left behind.

An easy at home method to clearly demonstrate this is fill a sink full of water, then toss in some semi bouyant particulates of varying mass and unplug your sink.

You see spiral arms forming as the water drains in the whirlpool....

Same phenomena, Density wave theory is also the primary theory for Saturns rings...

It is actually surprising how fast this process occurs as it only takes a miniscule number of complete rotations to start forming Spiral arms.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Mordred

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Spiral arms form specifically due to Density waves of matter under rotation. It is a direct application of Newtons f=ma though many miss that. 

Yes certainly. I am familiar with density waves and spiral arms, and totally forgot all about them..So how about my hypothetical reasoning as to why some spiral galaxies appeared earlier then expected.

 

 

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, Outrider said:

So we have multiple lines of evidence pointing to a 13.8 billion year old universe and thousands (more?) of observed objects that fit very well into that framework. 

Actually, those things were evidence for dark matter. I don't know how we got on to that. It hardly seems relevant to the thread topic.

[Mordred]

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes certainly. I am familiar with density waves and spiral arms, and totally forgot all about them..So how about my hypothetical reasoning as to why some spiral galaxies appeared earlier then expected.

 

 

Accurate, as mergers disrupt galaxy formation so any galaxies that avoid mergers do indeed have more time to develop dominant Spiral arms and can indeed form with stability earlier than galaxies that have undergone mergers. The Milky way itself is an older galaxy.

Also keep in mind that the higher density past causes a larger number of supernovas, quasars and BH events as Stars etc burn out far faster than the younger stars today. Such events contributes to nebulae collapse and aids in the development of galaxy rotation. 

This could very well be the case in regards to the galaxy of the OP discussion.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Mordred

[Outrider]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Actually, those things were evidence for dark matter. I don't know how we got on to that. It hardly seems relevant to the thread topic.

Ah yes I was wrong...again...sigh.

But it does stand that we have alot of evidence for a 13.8 billion year old universe and very little for an older or younger universe?

Also much of the evidence for the age of and the expansion of our universe,DM and DE overlaps?

I have a related question that I would appreciate your opinion on in just a sec.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Essentially correct, but keep in mind we never ignore any body of evidence regardless of how few those observations are.

Well maybe not and I apologize for the confusion I caused. But as I said to Strange I think the point still stands. And yes I understand we must consider all data points.

Here is my question that I hope both of you will offer your opinions.

It has been  claimed "estimated that between 18% and 48% of all the Type Ia SN prior to 2013 have been misclassified and should actually be Type Iax SN."

Any idea as to the accuracy of the claim? If true would this be a real game changer?

I'm guessing it would definitely change the age of the universe. Remove the need for dark matter and/or dark energy or possibly increase the need. Among other things. 

T.McGrath made the claim in this thread.  http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/110756-why-do-we-think-there-is-dark-matter-and-dark-energy/

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Outrider

[Mordred]

I'd prefer to review the current studies before replying on this topic. I have some resources available via colleague's etc. However I will state we never place too much faith in any cosmic distance measure methodology.  Every method of the cosmic distance ladder has its range of applicable use and accuracy.

This includes redshift, parallax, Stellar parallax, mass/luminosity, Tully Fisher.

This also includes standard candles, there have been well published boundaries as to some of the inherent properties as long as I can remember. So a review of current findings I will need to familarize with.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Mordred

[Outrider]

Thanks Mordred I know I'm not the only one on the board keepin you busy ATM so no hurry. 

[MigL]

I can see it having an effect on the established age of the universe, and universal expansion/acceleration, depending on the preponderance of these types of supernovae at different stages of galactic formation/age of the universe.
This would then have an effect on the need/quantity of dark energy required.

But I don't see how it would affect the need for dark matter.

[Outrider]

MigL

I thought the mass determinations of distant galaxies  were done in part by luminosity/apparent magnitude so that if the distances are different than our current understanding they might have more or less mass. One of the key indicators that DM exists is that most (all?) galaxies we observe don't have enough visible matter to hold themselves together. So if the distance to a particular galaxy is adjusted I assume it's mass would be adjusted as well. 

Or I could be wrong.

[T. McGrath]

On 11/8/2017 at 1:09 PM, Outrider said:

Ah yes I was wrong...again...sigh.

But it does stand that we have alot of evidence for a 13.8 billion year old universe and very little for an older or younger universe?

Also much of the evidence for the age of and the expansion of our universe,DM and DE overlaps?

I have a related question that I would appreciate your opinion on in just a sec.

Well maybe not and I apologize for the confusion I caused. But as I said to Strange I think the point still stands. And yes I understand we must consider all data points.

Here is my question that I hope both of you will offer your opinions.

It has been  claimed "estimated that between 18% and 48% of all the Type Ia SN prior to 2013 have been misclassified and should actually be Type Iax SN."

Any idea as to the accuracy of the claim? If true would this be a real game changer?

I'm guessing it would definitely change the age of the universe. Remove the need for dark matter and/or dark energy or possibly increase the need. Among other things. 

T.McGrath made the claim in this thread.  http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/110756-why-do-we-think-there-is-dark-matter-and-dark-energy/

My claim actually comes from the paper that originally created the Type Iax supernova category in March 2013.

Quote

We estimate that in a given volume there are SNe Iax for every 100 SNe Ia, and for every 1 M _☉ of iron generated by SNe Ia at z = 0, SNe Iax generate ~0.036 M_☉.

Source:  Type Iax Supernovae: A New Class of Stellar Explosion - The Astronomical Journal, Volume 767, Number 1, March 25, 2013

If between 18% and 48% of all the Type Ia SNe prior to March 2013 should have been classified as the much dimmer Type Iax SNe, then the age of the universe, the acceleration of the universe, and the existence of Dark Energy need to be re-examined.  However, it has absolutely nothing to do with Dark Matter.

Dark matter exists independently from supernovae data.  Nor are supernovae used to determine the existence of Dark Matter.  We are able to directly observe the gravitational effects Dark Matter has on galaxies and light.  However, we cannot say the same thing about Dark Energy.  Dark Energy only exists because of the questionable supernovae data collected during the 1990s.

Edited November 16, 2017 by T. McGrath

[T. McGrath]

1 hour ago, T. McGrath said:

My claim actually comes from the paper that originally created the Type Iax supernova category in March 2013.

Source:  Type Iax Supernovae: A New Class of Stellar Explosion - The Astronomical Journal, Volume 767, Number 1, March 25, 2013

If between 18% and 48% of all the Type Ia SNe prior to March 2013 should have been classified as the much dimmer Type Iax SNe, then the age of the universe, the acceleration of the universe, and the existence of Dark Energy need to be re-examined.  However, it has absolutely nothing to do with Dark Matter.

Dark matter exists independently from supernovae data.  Nor are supernovae used to determine the existence of Dark Matter.  We are able to directly observe the gravitational effects Dark Matter has on galaxies and light.  However, we cannot say the same thing about Dark Energy.  Dark Energy only exists because of the questionable supernovae data collected during the 1990s.

Dark Energy also has absolutely no bearing on the original question.  It is currently believed that the very first galaxies formed just  prior to reionization some 400,000 years after the Big Bang.  It is suggested that the active galactic nuclei (a.k.a. quasars/blazars) from what is widely believed to be elliptical galaxies that caused this reionization.  However, it has also been suggested that the shape of a galaxy is determined by its rotation, and that is where Dark Matter does play a role.  Elliptical galaxies having a relatively slow or no rotation, while the spiral types have a much greater rate of rotation.  In such a case, the age of the galaxy would not necessarily determine whether it is elliptical or spiral, but rather the rate of its rotation.  Thus, it could be possible for spiral galaxies to exist at redshifts z > 6.

Sources:
Early Reionization by the First Galaxies - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 344, Issue 1, 1 September 2003
Early star-forming galaxies and the reionization of the Universe - Nature 468, 49-55, November 2010 (free preprint)

Edited November 16, 2017 by T. McGrath