Picture of galaxy from when expansion only 600 million years old

[Martin]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4312

Look at the attached PDF. It has the pictures they took of the galaxy.

 

 

Galaxy is now 13.1 billion years old. The baby picture that European Southern Observatory (ESO) took of it is when the universe had been expanding for only 600 million years.

 

ESO is great. Somewhere down in Chile. They have done some terrific things. Like make a timestop movie of stars orbiting the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Like over 10 to 20 years.

 

They see in the infrared, need to because for z=8.6 the wavelengths have been stretched out by a factor of 9.6. What used to be visible light has gone way infrared.

 

I hope someone finds more media coverage of this and posts link.

 

This is the most distant galaxy ever photographed, by Hubble telescope or anything else.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Martin

[Spyman]

"New Record! Ancient Galaxy is Most Distant Thing in Space

 

An ancient galaxy has broken the record for the most distant point in the sky known to date, with its light taking roughly 13.1 billion years to reach Earth.

 

This galaxy may provide insight into what the first stars were like and how they influenced the formation of the universe, researchers said.

 

The new record-holder is named UDFy-38135539 and contains roughly a billion stars that would have formed within 600 million years of the Big Bang, which scientists think started the universe 13.7 billion years ago."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/most-distant-galaxy-discovered-101020.html

[michel123456]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFy-38135539

 

The discussion (in the wiki article) is interesting.

 

Galaxy is now 3.1 billion years old.

?

[Sisyphus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFy-38135539

 

The discussion (in the wiki article) is interesting.

 

Which part do you find interesting?

 

?

 

I assume it's a typo, and Martin meant 13.1, not 3.1.

[michel123456]

Which part do you find interesting?

 

Especially part 2 (Fallacy) to 4 (accuracy of distance).

Don't worry, I don't like especially part 9 (comments from a sceptic), I don't agree with his points. Maybe I don't understand his points very well.

 

What does he mean when he writes "If the Big Bang happened 600 million years before this light was emitted, then it means that, in 600 million years, particles travelled 13 billion light-years to get into position when they emitted that light which we now received."??

 

It has no logic to me, and the answer don't help. Both seem to say that we are today in the centre of the universe, or I understand nothing.

[IM Egdall]

I find the following link helpful in trying to understand the relationship between the age of the universe and the "visible" universe we can see. I think it relates to the discussion:

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN

 

 

[michel123456]

I find the following link helpful in trying to understand the relationship between the age of the universe and the "visible" universe we can see. I think it relates to the discussion:

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN

 

Yes. In your link also under "If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, why isn't the most distant object we can see 7 billion light years away?"

 

We can read : "This question makes some hidden assumptions about space and time which are not consistent with all definitions of distance and time. One assumes that all the galaxies left from a single point at the Big Bang, and the most distant one traveled away from us for half the age of the Universe at almost the speed of light, and then emitted light which came back to us at the speed of light." emphasis mine.

 

This is something similar, where it seems to me that people believe that we are at the center of the Universe, or that we were once upon a time. Or i understand very badly.

 

In the OP, I think it is understandable that the Big Bang, if it were visible (we know it is not) should be BEHIND the UDFy-38135539 galaxy, and not in front of it.

Edited October 25, 2010 by michel123456

[Sisyphus]

 

 

In the OP, I think it is understandable that the Big Bang, if it were visible (we know it is not) should be BEHIND the UDFy-38135539 galaxy, and not in front of it.

 

Indeed. It would be the most distant thing in every direction.

[michel123456]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4312

(...)

 

Martin, do you agree with Sisyphus?

[Spyman]

Indeed. It would be the most distant thing in every direction.

Well, "the most distant thing" sounds a little wrong for several reasons:

 

First of all, the Big Bang is not a thing, it is a state of our Universe or a transition from a previous one, with a duration of time depending on definition. As such there should be signals from the beginning of the Big Bang which would appear to be more distant than signals from the end of the Big Bang.

 

Secondly, I doubt that at the very first time stamp of our Universe it was infinite small and totally without distances, which therefor leads me to think that there will be more or less distant objects to view, from even the very first time stamp of the Big Bang.

 

Also if the Universe is infinite in size, of which we currently do not know, then it was infinite in size back then at the very first time stamp of the Big Bang too, only with a higer density, thus there could be objects infinite distant already at the very first time stamp of the Big Bang.

 

The Big Bang would therefor not likely be observed like a sharp point like single shell surrounding us but more probably have a large or infinite depth with signals from more and more distant objects in the Big Bang state reaching us. (Not taking into account limits from an accelerated expansion.)

 

Third and much more speculative are signals from before the Big Bang. If there was a previous Universe collapsing before the Big Bang then it is not impossible that there could be some cind of signals surviving the Big Bang and passing through to us and then appear to be even more distant than very close objects during the Big Bang. Or at least in theory objects in a previous Universe would be more distant than the Big Bang itself.

[Sisyphus]

I don't know what you think I meant, but I was just saying that if you were able to look far enough in any direction, you would eventually be seeing the big bang. (And of course nothing farther than that.) You're not disagreeing with me.

[michel123456]

Which sketch is right, and which is wrong?

The arrow represents where we are looking to.

A

 

 

B

Edited October 26, 2010 by michel123456

[Spyman]

Which sketch is right, and which is wrong?

The arrow represents where we are looking to.

Picture B represents how we perceive our observable part of the Universe surrounding us.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Spyman

[michel123456]

Picture B represents how we perceive our observable part of the Universe surrounding us.

 

Very careful answer.

I think we all agree sketch B is correct. Not in the sense that the Universe is like that, but in the sense that it is what we are observing.

As I see it, we are inside the Bang. The Bang is huge, it is all around us, and it belongs to the past.

-----------------------------

And it is complete nonsense.

That is the reason why I disagree with the Big Bang Theory.

Edited October 27, 2010 by michel123456

[michel123456]

Indeed. (...)

 

This was just to be sure you are still here.

 

Picture B represents (...)

 

& so for you.

 

I wrote

(...) As I see it, we are inside the Bang. The Bang is huge, it is all around us, and it belongs to the past.-----------------------------

And it is complete nonsense.

That is the reason why I disagree with the Big Bang Theory.

Edited October 27, 2010 by michel123456

[Spyman]

This was just to be sure you are still here.

The Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.

 

You do not have to concede to this theory, you are free to have your own opinion and belief. But making provocations and calling it "complete nonsense" without providing any support for why you disagree is neither very inviting nor gives us much to debate...

 

If you want a serious discussion around this topic, I suggest that you make a new thread for that purpose in a very humble attitude, asking for explanations instead of challenging scientific consensus. Start it out with really good arguments and questions and it's a good change that helpful people will join and contribute.

[michel123456]

The Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.

 

You do not have to concede to this theory, you are free to have your own opinion and belief. But making provocations and calling it "complete nonsense" without providing any support for why you disagree is neither very inviting nor gives us much to debate...

 

If you want a serious discussion around this topic, I suggest that you make a new thread for that purpose in a very humble attitude, asking for explanations instead of challenging scientific consensus. Start it out with really good arguments and questions and it's a good change that helpful people will join and contribute.

 

48 hours I was wondering what would be the reaction.

 

I think the best argument is observation.

What I observe is a universe wider and wider as much I look far away, and wider & wider as much I look in the past. Something like sketch B. This observation , which some members here agree with, is exactly the contrary of what the BBT proposes, and i see no reason why I should refute observation.

 

My last post was a bit provoquing, I was impatient. I 'll return to a more humble attitude.

Edited October 28, 2010 by michel123456

[Spyman]

What I observe is a universe wider and wider as much I look far away, and wider & wider as much I look in the past.

Do you claim to make this observation by yourself or do you have a reference to a reputable resource showing galaxies to be generally more spread out at distances further away from Earth or in a more remote past?

[michel123456]

Do you claim to make this observation by yourself or do you have a reference to a reputable resource showing galaxies to be generally more spread out at distances further away from Earth or in a more remote past?

 

This is ridiculous.

[Spyman]

This is ridiculous.

It seems that both your argument from observation and your humble attitude failed...

[michel123456]

It seems that both your argument from observation and your humble attitude failed...

 

This is observation.

Look at this presentation made by the American Museum of Natural History (secure), make a stop in the middle, at 3min 36sec, it is a travel in the past, and it's the believed time of the Big Bang. What do you see?

Edited October 29, 2010 by michel123456

[michel123456]

I'll tell you what i see.

This video is a travel at inimaginable speed IN THE PAST, for the first half, ant then a travel FORWARD IN TIME for the second half.

 

Back in time, what are we observing? An incommensurable sphere of about 13 10⁹ LY radius. Something big. Nothing to do with a singularity or nothing getting smaller, but something getting bigger & bigger as much we go back in time. Inside this sphere (which is not really a sphere but only "perceived-by-us-as-a-sphere"), within, we have the laws of physics, gravity, interactions, speed of light: everything is "normal".

And then suddenly, everything changes:

_in order to put this "sphere" in place in only a few millions years, we need superluminal speed (according to inflation theory).

_we also need a mechanism: repulsive gravity.(according to inflation theory).

_and we need suddenly to "observe" this "sphere" shrinking" (because we go backward in time) till it becomes a "singularity".

 

In other words, at the moment we lose any observation, laws of physics change, and better, observation itself changes.

InMyVeryHumble opinion, the BBT is all pure nonsense.

Edited October 29, 2010 by michel123456

[pioneer]

It makes more sense if the light, close to the time of the BB, is looping back making a second pass. The light from the BB, or shortly thereafter, will get beyond all the matter of the universe, since light is not dependent on reference and can outrun matter according to SR. The light then follows a curved path and returns. We see the recycled light from the second pass. If we wait long enough, we will see the light from the formation of our solar system, after it follows a curved path and returns.

 

If you look at GR and gravity, the bending of space-time is due to mass. We don't have zones of contracted space-time without mass in the center. Yet for some reason, we have decided to reverse cause and effect and place space-time before mass/energy. The practical problem this creates is mass/energy is not relative, like space-time references. If mass was relative, we could violate the conservation of energy.

 

For example, we have two space ships side-by-side with parallel path at the same relativistic velocity. Since velocity is the same and parallel, there is no relative motion. That means for any common V, we would not be able to determine the relativistic mass of the two ships. It could appear to be zero,according to reference, not matter how much mass/energy was added to get this common velocity.

 

If we have to place mass before space-time, the trick will not work. There is a different constraint; absolute reference. What we would need to do is find a reference that allows us to come up with a velocity, even if we don't see any relative velocity. If we do see relative velocity, we still need at absolute reference since relative reference can still violate energy conservation.

Edited October 29, 2010 by pioneer

[Sisyphus]

I'll tell you what i see.

This video is a travel at inimaginable speed IN THE PAST, for the first half, ant then a travel FORWARD IN TIME for the second half.

 

Back in time, what are we observing? An incommensurable sphere of about 13 10⁹ LY radius. Something big. Nothing to do with a singularity or nothing getting smaller, but something getting bigger & bigger as much we go back in time.

 

There is nothing contrary about this. To go "back in time" you have to go a farther distance away. There are more things far away than close, by simple geometry. We see what we would expect to see. (Which makes sense, since the theory is based on observations.)

 

_in order to put this "sphere" in place in only a few millions years, we need superluminal speed (according to inflation theory).

 

Superluminal motion isn't part of it. Objects do recede at speeds greater than C, but that would be true of any expansion whatsoever. (And it is in accordance with relativity, not contrary to it.)

 

_and we need suddenly to "observe" this "sphere" shrinking" (because we go backward in time) till it becomes a "singularity".

 

The "sphere" we observe was indeed much smaller when it emitted the light we are seeing than it is "now." The CMBR that we now see was emitted 40 million LY from us. The light has taken 13.7 billion years to reach us, and that matter is now about 46 billion LY from us.

[michel123456]

There is nothing contrary about this. To go "back in time" you have to go a farther distance away. There are more things far away than close, by simple geometry. We see what we would expect to see. (Which makes sense, since the theory is based on observations.)

 

I can go back in time (virtually) in several directions. I can go back in time and encounter galaxy UDFy-38135539 3,1 billions LY away. And I can go back in time through another galaxy, also 3,1 billions LY away, in the opposite direction. Those 2 galaxies are not close together, although they belong to the same past. And the further I go in the past, the further away from each other will be such kind of galaxies.

 

The "sphere" we observe was indeed much smaller when it emitted the light we are seeing than it is "now." The CMBR that we now see was emitted 40 million LY from us. The light has taken 13.7 billion years to reach us, and that matter is now about 46 billion LY from us.

 

Are you claiming that if we could look at the "sphere" in an even further past, it was smaller and smaller?

I am claiming that the sphere gets bigger as much we go in the past.

Edited October 29, 2010 by michel123456