Could the Universe Be Older Than We Think? New Findings Point That Way
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« Weird H2O -Science Catches Water Doing Some Bizarre Things | Main | Hot Zone: Africa's Cradle of Human Origins Supports "Thermal Hypothesis" of Evolution »

June 09, 2010

Could the Universe Be Older Than We Think? New Findings Point That Way

Black-hole-2
Could the Universe be much older than we think? Early on its life it appears that our Universe was a place of puzzling extremes and seeming contradictions. That’s the conclusion scientists are drawing from new infrared observations of a very distant, unusually bright and massive elliptical galaxy.

This galaxy [in the white square above] was spotted 10 billion light years away, and gives us a glimpse of what the Universe looked like when it was only about one-quarter of its current age.

Measurements show that the galaxy is as large and equally dense as elliptical galaxies that can be found much closer to us. Coupled with recent observations by a different research team - which found a very compact and extremely dense elliptical galaxy in the early Universe - the findings deepen the puzzle over how ‘fully grown’ galaxies can exist alongside seemingly ‘immature’ compact galaxies in the young Universe.

‘What our observations show is that alongside these compact galaxies were other ellipticals that were anything up to 100 times less dense and between two and five times larger - essentially ‘fully grown’ - and much more like the ellipticals we see in the local Universe around us,’ explains Michele Cappellari of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, an author of a report of the research in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

‘The mystery is how these two different extremes, ‘grown up’ and seemingly ‘immature’ ellipticals, co-existed so early on in the evolution of the Universe.’

Elliptical galaxies, which are regular in shape, can be over ten times as massive as spiral galaxies such as our own Milky Way and contain stars which formed over 10 billion years ago. One way of checking the density of such galaxies is to use the infrared spectrum they emit to measure the spread of the velocities of their stars, which has to balance the pull of gravity.

Measurements of a distant compact elliptical galaxy have shown that its stars were dispersing at a velocity of about 500 km per second, consistent with its size but unknown in local galaxies.

The new study, using the 8.3-m Japanese Subaru telescope in Hawaii, found a ‘fully grown’ elliptical with stars dispersing at a velocity of lower than 300 km per second, much more like similar galaxies close to us.

‘Our next step is to use the Subaru telescope to find the relative proportion of these two extremes, fully grown and compact ellipticals, and see how they fit in with the timeline of the evolution of the young Universe,’ Michele tells us. ‘Hopefully this will give us new insights into solving this cosmic puzzle.’

In earlier surveys, the Advanced camera for Survey (ACS) and the Infrared Camera for Multi-object Spectrometer (NICMOS), the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) have revealed the presence of estimated 10,000 fully formed galaxies in a patch of sky in the constellation, Formax - a region just below the constellation, Orion. According to the NASA, these fully formed galaxies emerged just 700 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was barely 5% of its current age.

A1835_chandraAlso, using ISAAC near- infrared instrument aboard ESO's Very Large Telescope(VLT), and the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, a team of French and Swiss astronomers using Very Large Telescope (VLT) of the European Southern Observatory, have identified an extremely faint galaxy, Abell 1835 (image left).

According to interpretations, Abell 1835 must have formed just 460 million years after the universe was born, during the "Dark Age" when the first stars and galaxies were supposedly being born More recently, fully formed galaxies were discovered which are at a greater distance, over 13.1 billion light years (American Astronomical Society 2010), and which may have already been billions of years in age, over 13 billion years ago .

There are fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old over 13 billion years ago; which would make them older than the Big Bang. Then there is the problem of the oldest globular clusters so far discovered, whose ages are in excess of 16 billion years. The Milky Way and other galaxies are also so old that they must have formed before the so called "Dark Ages" and thus almost immediately after the Big Bang, which is not consistent with theory.

Using the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) aboard NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, astronomers have detected about a dozen very red galaxies at a distance of 10 to12 billion light years from Earth (cfa Harvard 2005). According to the Big Bang model, these galaxies existed when the universe was only about 1/5 of its present age of 13.75 billion years. The unpredicted existence of "red and dead" galaxies so early in the universe challenges Big Bang theories relating to galaxy formation (cfa Harvard 2005). Analysis show that galaxies exhibit a large range of properties. Young galaxies with and without lots of dust, and old galaxies with and without dust. There is as much variety in the so called "early universe" as we see around "today" in galaxies closer to Earth.

Moreover, Spitzer Space Telescope, which is sensitive to the light from older and redder stars, has also revealed evidence for mature stars in less massive galaxies at similar distances (Spitzer 2005), when the Universe was supposedly less than one billion years old.

Casey Kazan

Sources:

http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/100520.html

Comments

We are lost between immensity and eternity.

The post is very nicely written and it contains many useful facts. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement. Thanks for sharing with us

Our big bang? universe
is one of many trillions
of such , floating as snowflocks
in a mother univers

This mother has equally trillions
of sisters , floating as islands
in a grandmother

This process repeats itself seven times
Hence the expression 7th heaven.

Each Higher Up 'place' has a completely
different but also more subtile
time/space environment

Call it the Wheels within Wheels within Wheels theorama.

ankhaton
see my favorite books in youtube channel
for some info and how it can be obtained
hear OBAMA BLUES

This galaxy was spotted 10 billion light years away, and gives us a glimpse of what the Universe looked like when it was only about one-quarter of its current age.

I've said this before here at the Daily Galaxy: What the evidence really shows us is that there was no Big Bang (or at least one that happened 13 billion years ago). What we're seeing are galaxies--some mature, some in the process of forming--in a region of space (similar to ours) but only 13 billion light years distant. There's no need to come up with a radical theory of galaxy formation when the universe was (supposedly) young. The universe is possibly tens of billions of years old, perhaps trillions of years old. I think that what these new telescopes will reveal is more mature galaxies (as well as some young ones) at greater and greater distances. Scientists will at first just push back the age of the universe to accommodate these new findings. But the fact is that our universe is probably older than we can conceive--and this is what terrifies most cosmologists.

Could it be that the appearance of the Hubble constant is the wake of a big ripple of time lensing or time warping distorting Earthly observational data of a Big Bang?

Are all these distances based on observations of those "standard candle" type 1a supernovae? Because the more I read about studies of distant galaxies and of type 1a supernovae, the more I'm starting to wonder if maybe our distance estimates are really off on some of these objects. Maybe some of these too-old-to-be-true galaxies are actually a lot closer (and therefore younger) than we think.

i hope its still under warranty.

The standard candles have time dilation slowed motion effects with increasing distance, which is the only way they measure the dark energy acceleration expansion of the universe. The redshifts are grossly distorted and far unreadable with better recent data, yet they cling to the prior belief of an expansion! Quasars have no time dilation which is unexplainable. Basically when a swarm of accelerated particles are moving in the same direction, a larger size scale cosmological object exists. The sun is a redshifted magnetic plasma swarm of 90 percent ionized hydrogen atoms. The greater the redshift, the greater the mass !

The whole problem stems from these idiots for astronomers. They looked for the oldest thing that they could see and dated the whole Universe based on this, nothing but pure stupidity. It never occured to them that they might not be seeing everything. Fact is that they will NEVER see everything so dating the Universe is a stupid exercise.
The Universe is 1.24 Trillion years old and there is NO Big Bang, it's a Flat Universe with no possibility of cold death since tunnels to other Universes keep feeding it enough energy to keep the expansion going. Humans will never be able to date the Universe since a) you will never have the technology to see the relevant distance to the Spark and b) The relevant bodies (galaxies) that you would use to date the Universe don't exist anymore.

Where did the 1.24 trillion years figure come from?

Of interest is spectroscopic aging up to 18 billion years for some isolated stars, and globular clusters that characteristcally hop different galaxies but contain only some stars that are older then the big-bang. Were they located in a safe region of space that was not disturbed by the big-bang? Could it have been a quantum gravity explosion from a massive white hole? And what is the briefest moment in time and the smallest of particles other then ever smaller particles? light is both a photon particle and a wave of energy. even the oldest cosmological structures in the visible universe are younger then the gravitational mass responsible for the dark flow at 100 billion light years. It doesn't take much brains to realize that they date the universe on the oldest thing that they can find, but the quantum universe could be much older and not younger then the most distant objects.

cosmologists need to consider that dark energy only increases the expansion of visible matter and can only be measured by redshifts of alpha-lyman hydrogen particles comprising larger cosmological structures, or by time dilation of type 1a supernovas. the dark matter halo surrounding every galaxy in the universe is a constant density without a runaway effect at the center. this is why larger objects have more relativistic accelerated particles. the briefer the time is the lesser is gravity and mass with many more new smaller sized particles relativistic accelerated that ultimately form a more massive larger particle or object with slower time experience such as a supercluster. redshifts are atomic spectra of particles, and not an actual visible matter receding galaxy existing together as a unit with spiral arms and having a shape as determined by 90 percent dark matter halo mass. the particles are receding more rapidly with distance, but not necessarily the galaxies.

This proves my theory that not only are their multiple Galaxies that make up our Universe there are multiple Universe's that make up the Omniverse. What they are seeing are Galaxies in a nearby Universe at the edge of our own Universe.

This leads me to doubt the measuring stick. I think redshift is going to have to be abandoned as an "aging" standard.

Or it could be something simple, such as that all our theories about cosmology are total bunk. Let's be honest, we (mankind) have basically been guessing about pretty much everything cosmological, basing the assorted theories on fragments of information which seems to confirm it while simultaneously acknowledging other fragments are not attended to.

In practice, most cosmological theories are equitable to religious beliefs, which by all appearances would actually be a better answer because no otherwise unanswered fragment of information would remain unanswered.

Thank you for the great tip, it’s all so pretty. I have just got interested in blogging.

The Universe is 1.24 Trillion years old and there is NO Big Bang, it's a Flat Universe with no possibility of cold death since tunnels to other Universes keep feeding it enough energy to keep the expansion going.

The actual Samsung i7500, known as Samsung Galaxy using countries, is the first cellular telephone manufactured by Samsung of which uses the open source Android operating-system.

Anyone read Paul LaViolette's book "Subquantum Kinetics"? In it and other books he postulates that the Universe may be Trillions of years old. That Hubble's Redshift data used to support recessional velocites was abandoned by Hubble himself several years after he published his redshift data. But was latched onto by Astronomers anyway forming the basis for the expanding Universe model which is one of the pillars supporting the Big Bang theory to begin with. He believes that the "Tired-Light" Theory which says that photons gradually lose energy over intergalactic distances and therefore "redshift" is a better fit to experimental and observational data.

He also disputes the Space Curvature theory first proposed by Einstein. Says that the observed bending of starlight around the edge of the Sun could easily be explained by gravatational refraction of the light rather than Space itself being bent. In that he agrees with Nikola Tesla who also held that gravity could not curve space itself because something (gravity) cannot act upon nothing.

Therefore in addition to explaining why stars have been discovered being older than the current theorized age of an expanding Universe, LaViolettes theoery if true makes several other astounding predictions, such as ; If the Universe is not expanding from a Big Bang. And space is not curved by gravity. Then Black Holes cannot exist. If they do not or cannot exist. Then what lies at the center of so many Galaxies? La Violette believes that what lies at the center of each galaxy is a creation center consisting of a supermassive superdense giant primordial star continously producing matter and energy at a prodigious rate.

Just some thoughts.

I strongly believe that our Universe is merging with an older and bigger parallel Universe(s) from vicinity... and that would explain why the astronomers can see fully formed "alien" galaxies at the age of the Universe! I guess in the Multiverse the Universes collide and merge like the galaxies in our Universe (our Milky Way merged with other galaxies in the past and it will merge with Andromeda in the far future) and actually the astronomers were able to identify "alien" stars in our galaxy. I also strongly believe that the Creation Process is Top-Down (One Super Dimension of Space with its projections on Sub-Dimensions) not Down-Up, simply because from Nothing the Multiverse couldn't evolve into Something! Actually the scientists can't explain the existence of our 3-D Universe without adding more dimensions into equations...


Post a comment

« Weird H2O -Science Catches Water Doing Some Bizarre Things | Main | Hot Zone: Africa's Cradle of Human Origins Supports "Thermal Hypothesis" of Evolution »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E