First Galaxies of the Universe Discovered With Shockingly Old Stars

[jayfish]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/universes-1st-galaxies-formed-much-earlier-than-thought.html

Astronomers have discovered a distant galaxy whose stars were born unexpectedly early in cosmic history. The team spotted the galaxy in recent observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, verified it with observations from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope and measured its distance using W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii.

“We have discovered a distant galaxy that began forming stars just 200 million years after the Big Bang," said Johan Richard, the lead author of a new study. "This challenges theories of how soon galaxies formed and evolved in the first years of the Universe. It could even help solve the mystery of how the hydrogen fog that filled the early Universe was cleared.”

IMHO, we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the universe is much older then we think and the Big Bang theory might not be all it's cracked up to be. We find mature objects deeper and deeper in the universe all the time now.

[JackRiddler]

1. The observational basis for the Big Bang is thin, the suppositions many.

It's a bit too suspicious for the way in which it speaks to primal human needs for beginnings and a story. It should not be confused with a fully grounded scientific theory. There is no strong argument for thinking we're not still only seeing the universe within a horizon.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Disney/frames.html

Published in General Relativity and Gravtitation, Vol. 32, Issue 6, p. 1125, 2000
For a PDF version of the article, click here.



THE CASE AGAINST COSMOLOGY
M. J. Disney

Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3YB, Wales, UK



Abstract. It is argued that some of the recent claims for cosmology are grossly overblown. Cosmology rests on a very small database: it suffers from many fundamental difficulties as a science (if it is a science at all) whilst observations of distant phenomena are difficult to make and harder to interpret. It is suggested that cosmological inferences should be tentatively made and sceptically received.



Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

THE OBSERVATIONS WHICH BEAR ON COSMOLOGY

THE SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES OF COSMOLOGY

THEORY AND OBSERVATIONS

THE COSMOLOGIST'S CREDO

THE PATHOLOGIES OF COSMOLOGY

COSMOLOGY IN PERSPECTIVE

REFERENCES

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Just think of the fun that will ensue if they find stars that predate the big bang.

Of course, then they'd just move the date of the big bang back a few hundred million years, just as they did when the billion year old earth started showing up with 3 billion, 4 billion year old rocks.

My theory, while I have difficulty with the concept of infinity, is that the universe really is infinite, both in time and space, and the big bang was actually a big bounce.

But what do I know?

[Confusious]

7. It's called science

you make a model based on the best available evidence and if you start finding a large enough quantity of evidence that disagrees with the model, you revise the model.

We all have our theories, but do you have any proof that they can use to make a new model? Some people think that the Universe is 6,000 years old, but that doesn't fit the evidence.

[laconicsax]

9. +1

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. That's because all evidence shows 7,022 years.

The holey book sez so!

[laconicsax]

3. 200 million years after the big bang seems to fit within the current model.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/26/universe.physics

200m years

Small, dense regions of cosmic gas start to collapse under their own gravity, becoming hot enough to trigger nuclear fusion reactions between hydrogen atoms. These are the very first stars to light up the universe.

[jayfish]

6. Agreed...

But they are at the very edge of the accepted theory. There's very little wiggle room left.

[exboyfil]

4. I have been thinking for a while now that

cosmology is in trouble. There are things which we do not understand. The cover story in the latest Scientific American - "Quantum Gaps in Big Bang Theory". Of course this will just give fuel to my New Earth Creationist boss to criticize science.

A Biology professor acquaintence of mine has concluded that some things involving origins may never be knowable (such as the kick start to life and the origin of the universe). We should keep looking, but much of the information is hidden in time.

[valerief]

5. That's the galaxy where Phyllis Diller and Abe Vigoda live. nt

[Ready4Change]

8. Could early universal environment effect this?

The early universe was a hotter place. With everything packed in tighter, stars would have been heating each other up. Could that have caused stars to age faster, making these stars prematurely 'old'?

[laconicsax]

10. No. n/t

[Ready4Change]

14. Why not?

Had the very early universe already expanded past the point where this would be an effect?

[laconicsax]

15. Yep. n/t

[AdHocSolver]

11. There are other theories besides the "Big Bang" theory to explain the universe.

Quite frankly, the claim that the universe was "created" by the expansion of a "pinpoint" of immense energy some 14 billion years ago sounds incredibly absurd.

New observations require ever more elaborate "adjustments" to maintain "Big Bang" cosmology. It is reminiscent of the hypothesis of "epicycles" used to maintain the validity of the Ptolemaic view that the sun, moon, and the planets all revolved around the Earth.

So when I found a copy of "The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe" by Eric Lerner I purchased it and decided that I had found a credible alternative that describes the universe.

In short, Lerner believes that the universe can be explained in terms of plasma physics and electromagnetic theory. Having worked in the electronics field for many years, I felt very comfortable with his writings.

This link to book reviews on Amazon.com should prove helpful.

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Happened-Refutation/product-reviews/067974049X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_img?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

If you want to read some introductory material that is more uptodate, then try this website:

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

In addition, this site gives a "low tech" overview of the technology that explains it fairly well, and supplies links to other information that, to put it mildly, is fascinating.

[girl gone mad]

13. People are free to believe what they wish..

but the evidence in support of big bang theory is overwhelming. The things we are talking about now are essentially fiddling at the edges. Like standard model particle theory, big bang theory has consistently made valid predictions and held up to various tests. It is likely that we will find the particle responsible for dark matter in this decade. It may make some unhappy, but it is what it is and we won't be throwing it away any time soon.