just found galaxy casts doubt on the age of the universe

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Also interesting is the weird galaxy called NGC 7603, mentioned in that documentary. Very relevant to this discussion. Here's a good article about it:

NGC 7603

Those two objects are unrelated. Unfortuanetly, a lot of the electric universe theories, and the myriad other alternate theories, rely on random line of site chance to add to their credibility. Thankfully, real science works a bit more objectively than that.

Walker et al. (1974) then proceeded to study the luminous connection and the halo brightening with high-resolution electrograph. They found that the companion’s luminosity profile is asymmetric in the side of the connecting bridge, but they were able to explain this asymmetry. The asymmetry arises because of the overlapping of the companion and the arm from NGC 7603 and there’s also a faint foreground star placed properly to enhance the asymmetry. They subtracted the luminosity of the NGC 7603 arm and the star, and the asymmetry vanished completely making them to conclude that they found no evidence for interaction between the companion and the connecting arm.

Arp (1975) provided new images of the system and noted that the arm to the companion continues beyond the companion:

"This 48-inch Schmidt photograph shows not only this second fainter arm, but also a fainter continuation of the main arm that extends on beyond the companion."

He also mentioned that there were some unpublished photographs by Roger Lynds that showed the same thing. Hoyle (1983) studied the system as part of his theoretical work on spiral galaxies and their halos. He mentioned five strange properties of the system that Arp had found, one being the fact that:

"The light distribution of the satellite has an unusually sharp boundary."

Hoyle argued that as the apparently connecting material were centered on the companion but weren’t leading to any special place in the main galaxy, the situation had to be so that the companion was tearing material out of the main galaxy. According to Hoyle that would then suggest that the companion would be more massive than the main galaxy. He argued further that the main galaxy is not likely to be of low mass, leading to the suggestion that the companion has very high mass which lead Hoyle to suggest that the redshift of NGC 7603B might originate from gravitational redshift. He derived the needed mass for this and arrived to too large mass which would tear NGC 7603 apart if the companion would be so massive and so close to NGC 7603 as it appears, so Hoyle suggested that the companion must be in front or behind of NGC 7603. He estimated the proper distance for the companion for it not to tear the main galaxy apart and then calculated that:

"The geometry is such that lines from the Galaxy to the satellite and to the Earth are inclined at about 5° if the satellite is in front, and at about 175° if the satellite is behind the Galaxy."

Sharp (1986) provided new images and spectra of the system. Sharp studied the hydrogen alpha images and found them to be largely featureless. He contrasted the situation with a reference system where companion didn’t have discordant redshift. In that system there were lot of hydrogen alpha emission. Sharp also noted that there were two knots in the arm of NGC 7603. Sharp also made surface brightness profiles for NGC 7603 and NGC 7603B and noted on NGC 7603B:

"However, the structure as revealed by the profile is only really acceptable for a background object: companions to bright galaxies generally show either tidally stripped cores alone or a broad diffuse appearance (Wirth and Gallagher 1984)."

But Sharp also noted that the profile not fitting to a companion galaxy doesn’t yet prove that NGC 7603 cannot be a companion. Sharp then proceeded to subtract smooth elliptical representation from the image of NGC 7603 to reveal faint features. Sharp confirmed the halo brightening that Arp originally noticed. Sharp also suggested that NGC 7603B had some spiral structure which enabled some distance indicator tests which resulted distances much further than NGC 7603 distance, but Sharp said the distance indicator results were only suggestive.

MacKenty (1990) presented new imaging of the system and concluded:

"In agreement with Sharp (1986), the CCD images obtained here show two arms or tails crossing the “companion” galaxy and extending beyond it. The original assertion by Arp (1971) that the “arm” ended at the “companion” galaxy is not borne out by the deeper images."

arijmaki.wordpress.com...

Notice how Arp himself had concluded that the two objects were not connected.

Also notice how the article I linked to uses scientific papers as sources, rather than opinion pieces!

In a 100 years from now we will still be confused.

Mysteries out there we cant even comprehend.

How about a big baloon bubble,a leak from another universe.

The big question is whats outside of our own galaxy and our universe(s)?

I myself wont by into any theory.
One cant.
Imagine a hubble 1000x's more advanced.

I need not say more.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


What I don't understand about these multiverse theories is that space and time is the universe (right?).
Where do you get space and time for the universes to move a round in if they themselves are supposed to be bubbles of space and time ?

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by XPLodER
so what happens if we find a fully developed galaxy older than the universe?

Either the universe is older than we thought, else the "universe" is part of a multiverse, and this is the origin of this particular galaxy

Of course we are in a multiverse. Name one other thing in our reality that there is only one of. If I told you I had something mysterious under a blanket, you might be intrigued, but you prob. wouldn't make the assumption that there's only one, because there are no such singular things we know of. Why do we treat the universe differently? One of the few things that is still mysterious that we shouldn't be making assumptions about, in fact.

Originally posted by Tindalos2013

This unique system constitutes the most distant cluster known to "host" a giant gravitationally lensed arc. Finding this ancient gravitational arc may yield insight into how, during the first moments after the Big Bang, conditions were set up for the growth of hefty clusters in the early universe.

I still maintain in my opinion that the standard theory of creation accepted and known as The Big Bang Theory is quite flawed and will remain an unknown quantity until more sophisticated technology allows the value of it to be realized. For instance, since our entire universe maintains status within a mega-black hole how can any measurement be taken at face value when the results only present a distorted variable.

This. If you watch newer documentaries (the kind with the pretty CG like The Universe or Into the Universe (Hawking's show)) the current theory of the big bang (starting with infinitely small point, the rate of expansion, etc.)... well it all sounds about as believable as a lot of the religious texts that many scientists love to mock.

Originally posted by WiseThinker
Ill dumb down my theory for the sake of time, but here is what i think the universe is and how big bang fits into it

The universe is a flat layer, like a piece of bread

However we are part of a multiverse, so there are many slices of bread and we are somewhere in the middle of the loaf (this loaf of bread is not 3D by the way, its higher dimensional, and for those who know Quantum mechanics the loaf represents the membrane between the universes which we live on)

Now each of these loafs will be super heaver, and the will most likely attract each other, now over billions of years, two of these loafs will eventually touch, and and the same time explode and repel away from each other again, and then take billions of years to repeat.

Therefore the Big Bang would be a local super event in space time (there was only a big bang at a specific part of our universe, the universe was there before, and fully formed). That would however also mean, that Big Bangs can happen anywhere and at anytime (when two of the universe membranes have spent billions of years attracting each other)

Therefore i think we will find maybe galaxies that defy our understanding of the age of the universe, as we just see a small portion of our universe, and that this part is basically like a newly formed solar system ( in that new galaxies are still constantly forming), the bummer is that the Big Bang (no matter what caused it) left a big bouble of noise around us, and we have already seen as far as we can see, but i believe if we could see beyond, we'd be billions of more fully formed galaxies (As in we'd see fully formed galaxies that had been formed many 10ths of bilions of years ago .

For your theory, you discard standard 3d to account for a bunch of the magic, but then you want to talk about distances shrinking in typical 3d constructs. So which is it?

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
reply to post by XPLodER

 

this is super exciting news. im hoping they can finally push back the estimated age of the universe.. if so the implications would be crazy.

Name one? Not trying to be a smartass. Genuinely wondering since we've got so many local issues atm.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Simple and logical theory. No other explosions we know cover the vast everything, why should the Big Bang?

2nd.

reply to post by AkumaStreak


Comparing a blanket to the universe

Go ahead.

I think your certainty is unfounded, but ultimately the debate is pointless.

There's no proof either way.

reply to post by XPLodER


Where does the article or linked paper suggest this discovery has cast doubt on the age of the Universe?

It doesn't.

Honestly ATS, 3 pages of Einstein was wrong supported individually by some really basic fundamental misconceptions, I guess its not really surprising nobody has bothered to read what was actually said?

This is the most distant yet observed gravitational lensing event, which is still well within possibility under the current theory of 14 billion years.

The OP appears to have made the rest up.

Ironically, as I understand it, this discovery actually supports current cosmological theory by expounding on early galactic cluster formation.

This unique system constitutes the most distant cluster known to "host" a giant gravitationally lensed arc. Finding this ancient gravitational arc may yield insight into how, during the first moments after the Big Bang, conditions were set up for the growth of hefty clusters in the early universe.

The arc was spotted in optical images of the cluster taken in 2010 by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys. The infrared capabilities of Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 helped provide a precise distance, confirming it to be one of the farthest clusters yet discovered.

"The chance of finding such a gigantic cluster so early in the universe was less than one percent in the small area we surveyed," said team member Mark Brodwin of the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "It shares an evolutionary path with some of the most massive clusters we see today, including the Coma cluster and the recently discovered El Gordo cluster."

An analysis of the arc revealed that the lensed object is a star-forming galaxy that existed 10 billion to 13 billion years ago. The team hopes to use Hubble again to obtain a more accurate distance to the lensed galaxy.

This title linked to the Rare case of gravitational lensing reported article belongs in skunk works or the grey area, not science and technology as it is only the OP's personal interpretation, not what was actually said, implied or discovered.

Mr. Nobody

Explains all.

Watch & learn.

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
Mr. Nobody

Explains all.

Watch & learn.

If this was intended for me, other than the failed sophomoric vitriol delivery, do you have a point on topic to contribute?

Did you read the linked article?

Would you care to share your opinion on the content?

In the bible 7 dayz=1 year.

if im not mistaken ,according to vedas the uiverse is 150 trillion years old and will live to be 300 trillion years.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
Mr. Nobody

Explains all.

Watch & learn.

If this was intended for me, other than the failed sophomoric vitriol delivery, do you have a point on topic to contribute?

Did you read the linked article?

Would you care to share your opinion on the content?

That is the name of a fim.

The film deals with and explains complex ideas about the universe.

Originally posted by AmmonSeth

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
Mr. Nobody

Explains all.

Watch & learn.

If this was intended for me, other than the failed sophomoric vitriol delivery, do you have a point on topic to contribute?

Did you read the linked article?

Would you care to share your opinion on the content?

That is the name of a fim.

The film deals with and explains complex ideas about the universe.

Thank you for the friendly clarification.

I have a thought. (oh no)

What if... galaxies move over periods of time, from one place in the universe to the next, is it possible that the light we're seeing is possibly farther off still? Maybe the forces behind the makup of galaxies surely will offer more magnification to more distant stars.. Which leads me to ask, why haven't we built bigger scopes that has a 13bly minimal mag on it. hehe fun stuff

That opens up another question, if anyone wishes to take a jab at this.. When a galaxy moves, say, from so far off, how does one see or not see the light from it's previous movements. Why do we only see that one spec of light from so many billions of light years away that may have moved somewhere else in the universe? Is it that the light is either past or not got to us yet? Surely that must be the case?

Wow ATS what has happened to the science board. This is an excellent find that pushes the boundries or our understanding...

In this thread there are posts saying Einstein says time is somewhat of a constant... This is false. Time is relative to motion and not a solid standardized tick tick tick... That would be Newtonian time.

Posts proclaiming M-theory obviously holds the answer to this question when so far it doesn't hold an answer to anything. It is just really difficult and ugly maths with no testable predicitons. (dont get me wrong I'm a string guy but I understand the fact that it so far from anything we can prove right now that if we speak of it we must first ingest a grain a salt)

The implications of this could be huge and none of us nor the discovering scientists have any idea what the true implications are here. We do a lot of conjecturing on here but the quality of it has gone way way down on the sci/tech board. This used to be my favorite part of the forum...

It just seems that every astrophysical anomolie or interesting event gets boiled down immediately to M-theory or other parallel universe theories.

If we want to talk about those things we can but only in a manner that fits in with our understanding of the model. Which just happens to be very limited.

So if we can (and feel free to completely ignore my rant) let us try and keep some of these discussions a little more grounded and tempered with evidence and insight. Regurgitating what we have heard in the latest flashy physics documentaries is not helping add to or expand our current understanding.

The facts are there is something out there that shouldn't be according to our model of the big bang and inflationary expansion. We may have to toss both ideas or modify them very heavily to fit the new data...

According to the theories about parallel universes we would not be able to see the other universes even though they may be closer to you than your clothes to your skin. The higher dimensional nature of the predicted parallel universes would prevent that. And if we are going to argue it based on M-theory again we would not be able to see anything from a parallel brane as light cannot leave a brane because it is an open ended string bound to the membrane itself. So if electromagnetism is bound by to its branes surface then we could not possibly in any way locate one or prove their exsistance using any tool that detects parts of the EM spectrum.

The only reasonable chance of detecting a parallel universe lies in gravitational anomolies as it is hypothesized that gravity is a closed string able to leave a brane and traverse the hyperspace in which the branes reside.

My whole point is if we can see it, it is part of our local space. It can't exist in a parallel universe and be visible to us no matter what its distance.

Cutting edge theory is amazingly fascinating complex and totally bizarre. Comparitively speaking this is mundane. And being that I'm not satisfied with every new astrophysical discovery being attributed to unsubstantiated in any way theory I hope the scientific community does not follow the lead of this board.

Hey guys look over here an anomolous galaxy... Let's just attribute that bugger to a parallel universe that may or may not even exist and just for fun we'll call it a Dark Galaxy... Yeah that's what we'll do another dark anomoly it will be fun and the general public will love it and increase our funding from the public sector...

I sincerely hope that does not happen. Sorry to rant fellow science enthusiasts but we have gotten lazy on this board and that in my opinion is a shame.

I wonder what possibilities open up to us or new physics are opened to us when we find out the forces by which those galaxies are being made.