Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Number of stars in old galaxies “defies all current models of galaxy evolution”?

arroba Email
Omega Centauri /NASA,ESA; Anderson, van der Marel

From “Under ‘Dark Halo’ Old Galaxies Have Many More Stars,” (ScienceDaily, May 1, 2012) , we learn,

Some of the oldest galaxies in the Universe have three times more stellar mass, and so many more stars, than all current models of galaxy evolution predict.

Barry? BARRY? Where is that guy who said, “ “It’s not so clear that there will be any more revolutions in physics”? Can we get him up here to have a look at this, or is he too busy uttering profundities to compliant, non- curious media?

The finding comes from the Atlas3D international team, led by an Oxford University scientist, who found a way to remove the ‘halo’ of dark matter that has clouded previous calculations.The team’s analysis means that all current models, which assumed for decades that the light we observe from a galaxy can be used to infer its stellar mass, will have to be revised.

It also suggests that researchers have a new riddle to ponder: exactly how galaxies forming so early in the life of the Universe got to be massive so fast.

A situation that fits no standard model does not always signal a revolution in science.* But it  indicates that the potential for revolution is always there.

* See, for example, the lizard with a placenta. Strictly speaking, it’s compatible with common descent if we assume that the common ancestor of reptiles and mammals had the ability to form a placenta and perhaps regularly used that method of nourishing young. Then later, reptiles and mammals diverged in different directions. But the type of evolution this points to is more like ID theorist Mike Behe’s idea that the information already existed and was unpacked later as needed than like Darwin’s idea that it randomly evolved through natural selection. How likely is it that a lowly recent lizard randomly evolved a placenta with no pre-existing genetic information? So common descent survives, but its meaning changes.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Lets back up to the part where we don't even know what is causing Red-shift. Mytheos
Well, I would say that the cosmologists who think they understand the universe by fine-tuning their models, are like the climatologists who use all sorts of fudge-factor "dials" to get their models to agree with current data. The scam is detected, however, when their predictions of the future turn out to be really bad. It used to be that scientists were more honest with their models, and admitted that they fit the model "parameters" to match the data, and otherwise have no earthly reason to pick the values of the "free" parameters. Darwin did this with biology. Everything that produces more progeny will last and contribute to evolution--except for things that diminish progeny. We call those "sexual selection". Take the peacock tail, that keeps him from running away from hungry dogs as quickly as he otherwise might. You'd think survival of the fittest would remove them from the gene pool. But since it didn't, it must be due to sexual selection--peahens really dig the big tail. Except that when experimenters cut off the tails, the peahends didn't seem to notice. Adjustable parameters are a weakness of any theory, and they can be tested by making predictions. If the predictions don't work, it says something very profound about the adjustable parameters--whatever they adjust is the wrong thing, and a theory that relies on them is a wrong theory. Cosmology had some adjustable variables--initial baryon density of the Big Bang--that were tweaked to agree with the distribution of galaxies. Only it gave the wrong answer for the number of stars in a galaxy. What is wrong? My answer is that the theory has the wrong density in it. And that all that mysterious dark matter is not mysterious at all--it is the missing density that was removed to make the models fit the cosmology data. We need to put all that dark matter back in, and rework the theory. And along the way, I think that dark matter is comets, and comets are responsible for initial galaxy formation as well as initial star formation. It all makes coherent sense but for those pesky Big Bang Nucleosynthesis models that choke on the density. I argue that it is because they have no magnetic fields either, a spoonful of plasma makes the density go down... So it is time to rework the BBN models and redo the predictions. Robert Sheldon

Leave a Reply