Astronomy News

Early galaxy behaves as if mature

Spread the love
lensed galaxy S0901/NASA/STScI

From ScienceDaily:

Firstly, the team fitted the overall rotation of the galaxy, and then the turbulence in the gas clouds. To their surprise they found that galaxy S0901 was extremely well behaved. Instead of turbulence, it was found to be in orderly rotation, much more akin to the majestic galaxies of today.

“Usually, when astronomers examine galaxies at this early era, they find that turbulence plays a much greater role than it does in modern galaxies. But S0901 is a clear exception to that pattern, and the Clone could be another,” says Rhoads.

The Clone, the second galaxy in their study, could also be fitted by an orderly rotation. However, because it was somewhat dimmer, the quality of the data was not so good. This meant that the data could also be fitted with a highly turbulent model, as conventional wisdom would expect.

“Galaxies 10 billion years ago were making stars more actively than they do now,” says Malhotra, “They usually also show more turbulence, likely because they are accumulating gas faster than a modern galaxy does. But here we have cases of early galaxies that combine the ‘calm’ rotation of a modern one with the active star formation of their early peers. This suggests first that these galaxies have finished accumulating their gas, at least for now. But it also seems that turbulence is not actually required to trigger that early, active star formation.”

Good news: No one has so far suggested that the simple explanation is that they are left over from the universe that predated this one.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

It could be as simple as something like “Was that big gravity wave find just dust? Not a multiverse?” Save time backtracking. Just don’t say it in the first place. 😉

 

Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “Early galaxy behaves as if mature

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    Good news: No one has so far suggested that the simple explanation is that they are left over from the universe that predated this one.

    Well, ‘so far’ does not mean they’re not going to say it eventually. What else is new?
    Besides, in a hypothetical ‘infinite’ multiverse, anything is possible. Didn’t we read the memo yet?
    We just don’t understand evolution. 😉

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    To their surprise they found that…

    I recall seeing this same phrase before… 😉

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    I’ve always been intrigued how the ‘Dark Age’ for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage in Job 38:4-11.

    History of The Universe Timeline- Graph Image
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/.....meline.jpg

    For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the “Big Bang” shone forth at that time. This “light” is still detectable today as the Cosmic Background Radiation.
    This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era. It was during the dark age of the universe that the heavier chemical elements necessary for life, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest, were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen and helium.
    It was also during this dark period of the universe the great structures of the modern universe were first forged. Super-clusters, of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years, had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous “missing dark matter”, was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars under these crushing pressures, the chemical elements necessary for life were first forged out of the hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can’t see the light from these first mega-stars, during this dark era of the universe’s early history, is because the mega-stars were shrouded in thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. These thick clouds prevented the mega-stars from spreading their light through the cosmos as they forged the elements necessary for future life to exist on earth. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark age came to the cosmos. The universe was finally expansive enough to allow the dispersion of the thick hydrogen and helium “clouds”. With the continued expansion of the universe, the light, of normal stars and dwarf galaxies, was finally able to shine through the thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark age to a close. (How The Stars Were Born – Michael D. Lemonick)
    http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....-2,00.html

    Job 38:4-11
    “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!”

    also note how this following passage also matches up to what has now been discovered by modern science:

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    Planck’s view of the Universe (Cosmic Background Radiation) – Oct. 18, 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn0FgOwyu0w

    As a sidelight to this, every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist on earth. The three most abundant elements in the human body, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, ‘just so happen’ to be the most abundant elements in the universe, save for helium which is inert. A truly amazing coincidence that strongly implies ‘the universe had us in mind all along’. Even uranium the last naturally occurring ‘stable’ element on the period table of elements is necessary for life. The heat generated by the decay of uranium is necessary to keep a molten core in the earth for an extended period of time, which is necessary for the magnetic field surrounding the earth, which in turn protects organic life from the harmful charged particles of the sun. As well, uranium decay provides the heat for tectonic activity and the turnover of the earth’s crustal rocks, which is necessary to keep a proper mixture of minerals and nutrients available on the surface of the earth, which is necessary for long term life on earth. (Denton; Nature’s Destiny).

    The Elements: Forged in Stars – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-LXUHJmzzc

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_59-07_00

    Of particular note to carbon, Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated:

    From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? … I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. –
    Sir Fred Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.

    Also of note:

    Sun’s Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists – (Aug. 16, 2012) —
    Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....150801.htm

    Bucky Balls – Andy Gion
    Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,,
    http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm

    Verse and Music:

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    John Lennon We All Shine ON
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqP3wT5lpa4

  4. 4
    tjguy says:

    BA: I’ve always been intrigued how the ‘Dark Age’ for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage in Job 38:4-11.

    For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. ….(How The Stars Were Born – Michael D. Lemonick)

    BA, with all due respect, this cannot be proven. You are as bad as the evolutionists here. There are tons of problems for the Big Bang. Lemonick talks as if star formation is understood, but that would be a mistake to think such a thing. You have read creation evolution headlines enough that you should know better than to take such claims as settled science. Discoveries like this continue to remind us that we should not cling to our theories with a closed fist, but be rather hold them with an open hand.

    Sorry. Just my opinion.

    You want to add God to the mix to save the theory? Fine. Others see the problems with the theory as evidence it is false.

    But whatever, just remember, cosmology suffers from the same problem that biological evolution suffers from. It is history and cannot be verified by experimentation. The theory still has holes in it, in spite of having some support.

    It is not fact and reading the Big Bang into the Bible when it is not even fact or settled science – not sure it could ever be – seems a bit irresponsible.

    If you are going to make such a statement, please at least qualify your opinion by saying “current theory” or something like that.

    For example: “I’ve always been intrigued how current theory seems to match up with ….”

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Actually I’m rather comfortable with how the SCIENTIFIC evidence for the beginning of the universe matches up with Genesis. I hold YEC’s are the ones misinterpreting scripture and trying to force science into their philosophical bias,,, For example, how was there a 24 hour day before there was a sun???? But I know its not even open to debate with you. So I’ll make you a deal, I want tell you how to interpret scripture and science and you grant me the same leeway?!?

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    correction: So I’ll make you a deal, I WON’T tell you how to interpret scripture and science and you grant me the same leeway?!?

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    BA, did you even read my post? YOu didn’t interact with what I wrote at all.

    Can you please point out where I told you how to interpret the Bible?

    I simply said that reading the Big Bang into the Bible is dangerous when the science is not even settled.

    I simply made an opinion statement about what I believe, just like you made an opinion statement about what you believe.

    Did I offend you by giving my opinion?

    I simply said that I did not think the passage you brought up was a good fit for the science story you quoted.

    My point was that you speak as if the science story is settled science. It is not.

    Why is that? You seem able to see the problem with evolutionists doing that concerning biological evolution, but when it comes to cosmology, you forget that you are dealing with history.

    You ignore all the problems with the theory and just add God to the mix to keep it afloat.

    I don’t know why you take two different approaches. Those who believe in common descent and solve the problems with that idea by simply adding God to the mix, you disagree with.

    But you don’t take that approach with cosmology. This time you accept the materialistic theory and you do the same thing you criticized the common descenters of doing – you simply add God to the mix to shore up the holes in the theory.

    But we are on a free chat board here. We are both free to offer our opinions and to interact or disagree with the opinion of someone else. And free to give the reason for why we disagree. So, if you offer your opinion, please don’t be offended if I interact with that and give a different side of the issue. We are brothers in the Lord and we should be able to talk about disagreements without getting offended and upset.

    I’m sorry you have such a disdain for the YEC view. There are real smart scientists who hold this position – I admit that I am not that.

    Yes, I noticed that you stressed the word “SCIENTIFIC” in your first sentence above. It highlights our different approach to Scripture which is the source of this problem – but I don’t want to get into all of that.

    But besides that, there are other ways to interpret the “scientific” evidence as well. And that is why I question the wisdom of reading the Big Bang into the Bible. That is why I made the suggestion to at least qualify your statement to say that the CURRENT theory SEEMS to match up nicely with the Bible.

    Making it an opinion statement seems more accurate. I hope you can agree to give me the right to voice my opinion as well. Thanks.

    God bless!

Leave a Reply