Gigantic Galaxy String Defies Age of Universe

Wide-field telescope observations of the remote early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved, which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early.

source link here

so how to explain this one.............
for the amount of material to have condenced into the galaxies in the time allowed under the current galaxy evolution theories this is a curve ball.



so what does this mean?
if you relate the amount of time required for these galaxies to form where they are, they are much more advanced than should be possable given the time frame from the big bang.
how can the universe be younger than the time required for these massive clusters to form?
and how can these galaies be forming where they are, "not far" the edge of the visable universe and still fit into the time frame for expansion of the universe.




when i see evidence like this i think
1. we are going to have to change the evolutionary rate of galaxies to fit the big bang
2. we need a better theory than the big bang to explain the new evidence

either way this does make the age of the universe acording to the big bang theory in doubt
or at least the evolution of galaxies is incorrect

wounder what the answer is?

xploder

they've always been, nothing can explain it otherwise. time is infinite like the universe

Considering what we actually know as fact about our universe, you really have to take what you think you know with a grain of salt.

As "modern" humans, as we so call ourselves, have been around less than a blink of an eye in comparison to what the age of the Earth is, so I can pretty confidently say that we really don't know jack. It all fascinates me so much and I hope I find answers one day but if I'm not meant to, just the thought of how tiny and insignificant my little breath of a life is in this infinite expansion of a universe makes me hold the thought that maybe we're just not meant to know all the answers.

reply to post by yourmaker


Time is not infinite, that's a contradiction. Time is measurable, changeable.. Things like decay rates wouldn't exist if time was infinite. Time is relative, yes, us Humans perceive it and organize it around the Sun and the rotation of our solar system, but it is not infinite. All things come to an end eventually.

I'm not sure if this is another take on something I read a while back, but I came across an article(don't ask me where, I don't remember) that talks about a celestial structure called The Wall(actually, there were two of them) in the Orion constellation(if I remember correctly). Astronomers figure, with our current measuring techniques, that these structures are at least 140 billion years old. Definitely makes you rethink our Universe model, doesn't it? And that's going WITH the status-quo. I think the Universe is infinite, and we grossly underestimate the antiquity of the stars and planets.

Do they come to an end or do they just change into something new?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by yourmaker

 

Time is not infinite, that's a contradiction. Time is measurable, changeable.. Things like decay rates wouldn't exist if time was infinite. Time is relative, yes, us Humans perceive it and organize it around the Sun and the rotation of our solar system, but it is not infinite. All things come to an end eventually.

eventually, but then the process starts all over again,
it had no beginning and it will never end, but the stuff that makes it up will shift it's energy around into new forms within it.

time is only measureable to the things within the universe, not itself. stars and people decay, not the universe thats holding them

This is one answer we will never find out...
As someone has already mentioned, we have been on this earth for a blink of an eye..
The thing thats makes us human is the ability to think, but I fear that before we get any answers to any unanswered questions, the human race will not exist...

Originally posted by KnightwhosaysNi
I'm not sure if this is another take on something I read a while back, but I came across an article(don't ask me where, I don't remember) that talks about a celestial structure called The Wall(actually, there were two of them) in the Orion constellation(if I remember correctly). Astronomers figure, with our current measuring techniques, that these structures are at least 140 billion years old. Definitely makes you rethink our Universe model, doesn't it? And that's going WITH the status-quo. I think the Universe is infinite, and we grossly underestimate the antiquity of the stars and planets.

are you thinking of the sloan wall?
wiki sloan wall

because i think (not sure) that this great structure is acually much further away
and in the big bang theory should not exist with current universe theories
but the sloan wall and others are out there staring us in the face

how does the amount of matter and the amount of time required for these walls to form
fit with the big bang?

thanks

xploder

Just a possible thought.

Could there have been more then one Big Bang with overlapping universes.

Originally posted by Annee
Just a possible thought.

Could there have been more then one Big Bang with overlapping universes.

this is a posability, if there were more than one big bang that overlapped then yes that would explain the galaxies that we have found.

its also possable that the universe has no age and has always been there and no bang is nessecery
but then you ask how did every thing get there?

i would rather say i have no way of explaining the origin of our universe than to say that one or more big bangs took place and started everything.

the reason is we cannot cling to out dated theories with evidence presented such as this
and still call our selves scientists

i know the light evidence contradicts the observations
but the quasar evidence contridicts the infomation in light
that supports the big bang

very interesting time in science at the moment

xploder

Prior to this revelation, my personal theory of the universe's creation was that before the physical universe in which we exist began, there was an eternal conciousness (a being often referred to as God). This conciousness' thoughts are a form of energy. The length of its pre-universal existence (which I imagine would be 1x10^(-∞) seconds) was spent imagining all things- matter, the laws of the universe, et cetera. When this task was complete and all things had been imagined, the pressure inside this mind was so great as to rupture the very fabric of space, breaking through into a new dimension, our universe. At a single point in space, all matter was created, almost infinitely dense. From there it exploded outwards, in what we had known as the big bang.

This string of galaxies shows a flaw in my old theory, so I've revised it slightly. I hypothesize that the single point at which "God's thought-energy" had broken through into our universal space had been open for some time, and matter had been spraying out of this point for some time...

But of course I am not a scientist, merely a free thinker.

Originally posted by XPLodER

are you thinking of the sloan wall?
wiki sloan wall
...
how does the amount of matter and the amount of time required for these walls to form fit with the big bang?

Yeah, Sloan Wall, that's it! I was close on the name.

I don't think the amount of time and matter really go against the Big Bang theory(more like big splash, because it wasn't an explosion, but rather a sudden expansion of space and time), because it's the age of the universe that's in question here. According to physicists, there really isn't a limitation to what you can squeeze into singularity. We don't even understand what happens at the core of a black hole. All you'd have to do is move the Big Bang timeline back, then it fits. But as I hinted at, I don't buy into the Big Bang theory anyways.

reply to post by Glass


your thoughts are welcome
thank you
star for open opinion

xploder

The reason is we cannot cling to out dated theories with evidence presented such as this and still call our selves scientists

Boy you sure got that right. Looking to fit the data into preconceived ideas, instead of letting the results of observations speak for themselves leads to overlooking what is right before our very eyes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3d6ec9a4dbe.png[/atsimg]

Consider these three galaxy pairs, the bottom one taken from the linked article. Notice a trend? Something they all have in common.

The spiral arms, if traced from the center spiral out counterclockwise for the galaxy on the left, and clockwise for the galaxy on the right.

Isn't that interesting.

If these are supposed to be randomly colliding galaxies how do they know not to colide with galaxies rotating in the same direction?

“The discovery of acceleration was an enormous shock,
because it went against everything we thought we knew about
gravity,” co-researcher Dr Tamara Davis from the University of
Queensland said. “The problem was, that supernova data couldn't
tell us whether dark energy was genuinely there, or whether
Einstein's theory of gravity itself was failing."

So in the effort to preserve the sanctity of the existing theories; some simple things, that a casual forum reader can notice, are passing by totally uncommented on by the scientific community.

Hmmm.

I wonder if I scroll up to the top of the page and look at the picture in the opening post again, if maybe I will see an arm spiraling out counterclockwise on the left, and clockwise on the right.



David Grouchy

Originally posted by XPLodER
wounder what the answer is?

This claim has been going on for 20 years as I said in the other thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Apparently this was raised 20 years ago by a guy named Lerner, and this claim was debunked here:...

It's better to look for more reliable sources. How can you tell if a source is reliable?

Physicsforums.com has a site rule, that if you can't find the source here, it's not reliable enough to even discuss so they won't even allow the discussion to take place from sources like the one you quoted.

While ATS has no such rule, it's still good to question the reliability of the source, even when posting on ATS.

Originally posted by Annee
Just a possible thought.

Could there have been more then one Big Bang with overlapping universes.

I agree with that.

Originally posted by XPLodER




its also possable that the universe has no age and has always been there and no bang is nessecery
but then you ask how did every thing get there?


xploder

This kind of stuff blows my mind.
It is hard to conceive of no beginning, It has always existed.
Human life is full of boundaries, it's what we know, and we cannot easily unknow it.

Infinite forward and back.

Originally posted by Toadmund

It is hard to conceive of no beginning, It has always existed.

True. Even if existence always was - - doesn't mean it was activated.

It reminds me of a panel of light bulbs. They are just glass bulbs until you activate them to produce light. And if you activate more then one - - the light of each overlaps the light of the others.

Let me get this straight. This 300 light year string of galaxies, is younger than it ought to be, based on the models that we use to determine such things? I see two vauge possibilities.

Either the mathematical models and calculations which the scientists have been using are incomplete, or faulty in some way, or something interesting is occuring which has altered the speed at which the light from these apparantly improbable galaxies is reaching us.

An omission from a scientific theory , or a piece of missing data skewing things is not unheard of , and it would not suprise me in the least to find that this is the case. On the more interesting note however, I suggest that if it is proven that the theories which are being slapped about by this discovery are sound, that the cause of the young appearance of these galaxies, is down to some massive alteration in the speed of light. Now many folks are stuck with the idea of light traveling at a constant speed, that never, ever changes at all. However we KNOW this is false. We can slow light down here on Earth using technology after all :

en.wikipedia.org...

And we also know that the passage of time itself can be drasticaly changed by gravity:

en.wikipedia.org...

We use gravitational lensing around lesser gravity sources than black holes, to focus our telescopes these days as well, so we know from expirience that gravity can effect the passage of light, and we know from our studies of black holes that times passage, as well as the speed of light, is NOT really a constant, because there are forces which can affect thier procession in the universe. Therefore, it is possible that the fact that we are seeing improbably aged galaxies, could be because something has altered , or slowed the light from those galaxies, or even altered the passage of time for some of the distance between here and the galaxies in question, giving us this bizzare and currently unexplained result.

Of course, the above is pure speculation, and I can provide no math to support it because I have the intellectual capacity of a cactus in a microwave, BUT, there are mechanisms in the universe, which allow for changes in the speed of light , and the passage of time, and I think it might be worth considering those more deeply, as well as re examining the theories which the presence of these galaxies appear to smash.

reply to post by XPLodER


I still dont think it quite puts current theories out the window... perhaps we need to make some minor adjustments.
What i mean is that these things may be possible in some ways. The universe may not be completly random and even in all places. Look at natural formations on Earth, they are not all equal and in proportion.


They may be exceptions to random displacment of matter, mass and particles as we see everyday on Earth on a muuuuch smaller scale.

The article didnt say how far this was from Earth?? Can you ellaborate on that?

That will make a big difference on the subject, although it may be 300,000 light years in length. The actual age plays an important role in making any judgments on how it affects current age estimates.