Distant Galaxy is Too Massive For Current Theories

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Distant Galaxy is Too Massive For Current Theories
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Walla
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
United States
Message 395076 - Posted: 12 Aug 2006, 1:20:29 UTC

I was reading a article on wikipedia about the Hubble Ultra Deep field and at the bottom was a news link to this article.

I for one have had a hard time believing the big bang theory ever since I first learned about it.

Distant Galaxy is Too Massive For Current Theories

Scientists studying the UDF found this galaxy in Hubble's infrared images. They expected it to be young and small, like other known galaxies at similar distances. Instead, they found evidence the galaxy is remarkably mature and much more massive, and its stars appear to have been in place for a long time.

ID: 395076 · Report as offensive
Profile littlegreenmanfrommars
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Jan 06
Posts: 1410
Credit: 934,158
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 395156 - Posted: 12 Aug 2006, 2:08:05 UTC - in response to Message 395076.  

I for one have had a hard time believing the big bang theory ever since I first learned about it.


I'm not a scientist, Walla, but I have to agree with you.
The site mentions the galaxy was "not evident", due to light absorption by hydrogen gas.

Does this mean there are plenty of distant galaxies we can't see for the same reason, and that the invisible ones are similarly mature?

It would blow the big bang theory right out of the window, I reckon.
ID: 395156 · Report as offensive
Profile Walla
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
United States
Message 395189 - Posted: 12 Aug 2006, 2:37:17 UTC - in response to Message 395156.  
Last modified: 12 Aug 2006, 2:38:45 UTC

Does this mean there are plenty of distant galaxies we can't see for the same reason, and that the invisible ones are similarly mature?

It would blow the big bang theory right out of the window, I reckon.


I am by no means a scientist either, I am 17 years old and still in high school.

But that could very well be so. All the information I've seen has indicated to me that the universe is infinite. However if the universe is not infinite it is still much larger than we currently think.
ID: 395189 · Report as offensive
Profile Mac Girl.
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 06
Posts: 679
Credit: 15,042
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 396777 - Posted: 13 Aug 2006, 22:33:13 UTC

I think the Big Bang theory is correct. The only problem I have is how it came about. It could be that a race of advanced beings in another dimension destroyed themselves in a cataclysmic explosion....which was the very Big Bang that set off our current Universe.

sarah
'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.
ID: 396777 · Report as offensive
Profile Tiare Rivera
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 03
Posts: 270
Credit: 254,004
RAC: 0
Chile
Message 396802 - Posted: 13 Aug 2006, 23:23:44 UTC
Last modified: 13 Aug 2006, 23:40:28 UTC

I think the Big Bang theory is correct. The only problem I have is how it came about. It could be that a race of advanced beings in another dimension destroyed themselves in a cataclysmic explosion....which was the very Big Bang that set off our current Universe.


I really like the idea of membrane universes, but first we need to understand what is Brane cosmology:

The central idea is that our visible, four-dimensional universe is entirely restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the bulk. Our brane may be one of innumerable others moving through extra dimensions.

And here is an explanation of our universe formation:

"Another new "Big Bang" model, and there are many, has been unveiled termed the "ekpyrotic (out of fire) model". According to this model, two ten-dimensional flat sheets of space-time stand parallel to each other. At some point, a random fluctuation in the space-time fabric of one of the sheets peels off a membrane that floats toward the other sheet. When the floater hits the other sheet a big bang occurs, leading to the release of energy and matter from the unfurling of space curvature, and, later, a universe of galaxies and stars".


Ref: Charles Seife, "Big Bang's New Rival Debuts with a Splash", Science 292 (2001): 189-90

Greetings,
Tiare Rivera.-


My photography world
ID: 396802 · Report as offensive
Profile Mac Girl.
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 06
Posts: 679
Credit: 15,042
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 396804 - Posted: 13 Aug 2006, 23:37:34 UTC - in response to Message 396802.  

I think the Big Bang theory is correct. The only problem I have is how it came about. It could be that a race of advanced beings in another dimension destroyed themselves in a cataclysmic explosion....which was the very Big Bang that set off our current Universe.


I really like the idea of membrane universes, but here is an explanation:

"Another new "Big Bang" model, and there are many, has been unveiled termed the "ekpyrotic (out of fire) model". According to this model, two ten-dimensional flat sheets of space-time stand parallel to each other. At some point, a random fluctuation in the space-time fabric of one of the sheets peels off a membrane that floats toward the other sheet. When the floater hits the other sheet a big bang occurs, leading to the release of energy and matter from the unfurling of space curvature, and, later, a universe of galaxies and stars".


Ref: Charles Seife, "Big Bang's New Rival Debuts with a Splash", Science 292 (2001): 189-90

Greetings,
Tiare Rivera.-


Hello Tiare,
That sounds fascinating. It sounds similar to the "Multiverse" theory, where instead of having one universe there are an infinite number of universes, like large globes floating in the void. When one 'globe' (or universe) collides with another one, there is a Big Bang and another universe is born out of the release of energy.

Regards,
Susan.

'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.
ID: 396804 · Report as offensive
Profile Tiare Rivera
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 03
Posts: 270
Credit: 254,004
RAC: 0
Chile
Message 396807 - Posted: 13 Aug 2006, 23:55:27 UTC

Hello Tiare,
That sounds fascinating. It sounds similar to the "Multiverse" theory, where instead of having one universe there are an infinite number of universes, like large globes floating in the void. When one 'globe' (or universe) collides with another one, there is a Big Bang and another universe is born out of the release of energy.


Hi Susan!

Yes, I think you are talking about the Bubble universe theory, which is another hypothesis from many others of the multiverse theory. Very interesting indeed ;)



Bubble theory posits an infinite number of open multiverses, each with different physical constants. These universes are farther away than even the farthest universe in our open multiverse, which is itself infinitely far from us.

This Bubble universe theory fits well with the widely accepted theory of inflation. The bubble universe concept involves creation of universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe."

On very small scales, the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence.

However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.


Greetings!!

Tiare Rivera.-


My photography world
ID: 396807 · Report as offensive
Profile Mac Girl.
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 06
Posts: 679
Credit: 15,042
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 396817 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 0:17:37 UTC - in response to Message 396807.  

Hello Tiare,
That sounds fascinating. It sounds similar to the "Multiverse" theory, where instead of having one universe there are an infinite number of universes, like large globes floating in the void. When one 'globe' (or universe) collides with another one, there is a Big Bang and another universe is born out of the release of energy.


Hi Susan!

Yes, I think you are talking about the Bubble universe theory, which is another hypothesis from many others of the multiverse theory. Very interesting indeed ;)



Bubble theory posits an infinite number of open multiverses, each with different physical constants. These universes are farther away than even the farthest universe in our open multiverse, which is itself infinitely far from us.

This Bubble universe theory fits well with the widely accepted theory of inflation. The bubble universe concept involves creation of universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe."

On very small scales, the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence.

However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.


Greetings!!

Tiare Rivera.-


Hello Tiare,
Yes, again that is interesting. The theory of multiple universes dispenses with the concept of a Creator, since our universe may turn out to be just one of an infinite number of possibilities. The theory of Intelligent Design, therefore, which proposes that our Universe came into being within a very narrow set of constants (and therefore must have been 'designed') can be easily explained away by the Multiple Universe theory. There may be many Universes where the right set of laws that brought about life never occurred, so maybe we just got lucky. Oh I think I have just gone down another avenue of discussion now, more philosophical than scientific.
Nice to talk with you.

Best wishes,
Susan, UK.

'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.
ID: 396817 · Report as offensive
Profile Walla
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
United States
Message 396846 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 1:07:45 UTC
Last modified: 14 Aug 2006, 1:07:57 UTC

I think you two are over complicating things.
ID: 396846 · Report as offensive
Airbuster

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 05
Posts: 115
Credit: 1,342
RAC: 0
United States
Message 396930 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 5:29:31 UTC
Last modified: 14 Aug 2006, 5:50:23 UTC

So, if there are an infinite number of random-universes, then even if the universes that are condusive to life are a tiny fraction of these, then there must still be an infinite number of them.

Say this is true: how did this all get started, if all universes are born from a parent universe?
Is the Cosmos (which is the word Carl Sagan liked to use instead of "multiverse") infinitely old, and will last FOREVER?

If Universes are multiplying, then I would assume the number of universes in existence is increasing, adding to infinity and expanding(?) the Cosmos; but, how can you add to an infinite number, and have an infinite size that's growing?

Mustn't there have been a beginning somewhere, or am I missing something?

It's enough to give one a headache. :)
ID: 396930 · Report as offensive
Profile Tiare Rivera
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 03
Posts: 270
Credit: 254,004
RAC: 0
Chile
Message 397213 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 15:35:05 UTC

So, if there are an infinite number of random-universes, then even if the universes that are condusive to life are a tiny fraction of these, then there must still be an infinite number of them.

Say this is true: how did this all get started, if all universes are born from a parent universe?
Is the Cosmos (which is the word Carl Sagan liked to use instead of "multiverse") infinitely old, and will last FOREVER?

If Universes are multiplying, then I would assume the number of universes in existence is increasing, adding to infinity and expanding(?) the Cosmos; but, how can you add to an infinite number, and have an infinite size that's growing?

Mustn't there have been a beginning somewhere, or am I missing something?


No one knows the answer.

Tiare Rivera.-



My photography world
ID: 397213 · Report as offensive
Profile Octagon
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Jun 05
Posts: 1418
Credit: 5,250,988
RAC: 109
United States
Message 397226 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 16:03:49 UTC - in response to Message 396930.  
Last modified: 14 Aug 2006, 16:04:53 UTC

So, if there are an infinite number of random-universes, then even if the universes that are condusive to life are a tiny fraction of these, then there must still be an infinite number of them.

Say this is true: how did this all get started, if all universes are born from a parent universe?
Is the Cosmos (which is the word Carl Sagan liked to use instead of "multiverse") infinitely old, and will last FOREVER?

If Universes are multiplying, then I would assume the number of universes in existence is increasing, adding to infinity and expanding(?) the Cosmos; but, how can you add to an infinite number, and have an infinite size that's growing?

Mustn't there have been a beginning somewhere, or am I missing something?

It's enough to give one a headache. :)

Infinity is a realy tough concept to wrap one's mind around.

Think of a simple sequence, the set of integers:

I = { -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... }

This sequence is infinite. You could make another sequence from this one by taking some of the elements, and call it the set of even positive integers:

E = { 2, 4, 6, 8, ... }

This sequence is also infinite. However, this sequence doesn't include all of the first one, so our intuition likes to think of the second set as somehow smaller than the first one... but they're both infinite. One "contains" the other, but each is infinite when viewed from "inside." Think of the even numbers being our Universe, the Multiverse (in this case the set I) has room for this and even a whole other Universe defined by the odd positive integers, one defined by prime numbers multiplied by -1, etc. Each would have no overlap with the others and therefore be completely unobservable.

The existence of a Multiverse is not going disprove the theists beliefs, at least not in their own belief systems. Some already believe that the entire observable Universe was created just so that our Earth would come into being. It is not a far leap to claim that an entire Multiverse was created just so that we'd end up here.
No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.
ID: 397226 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 397369 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 18:00:32 UTC

No one knows the answer.

Tiare Rivera.-


Have you talked to everybody yet? Or do you mean that the answer is impossible to know in principle?

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 397369 · Report as offensive
Profile Tiare Rivera
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 03
Posts: 270
Credit: 254,004
RAC: 0
Chile
Message 397425 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 18:40:56 UTC

Have you talked to everybody yet? Or do you mean that the answer is impossible to know in principle?


You have just answer it ;) it's your second option.

Tiare Rivera.-


My photography world
ID: 397425 · Report as offensive
Profile Mac Girl.
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 06
Posts: 679
Credit: 15,042
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 397621 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 22:11:57 UTC - in response to Message 396846.  

I think you two are over complicating things.


We are also locked up in the safe, so we should be able to find the 'combination' at some point.

Susan

'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.
ID: 397621 · Report as offensive
Profile Mac Girl.
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 06
Posts: 679
Credit: 15,042
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 397627 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 22:31:12 UTC - in response to Message 396846.  

I think you two are over complicating things.


It is always possible to over complicate things. Science prefers the principle of 'Occam's Razor' in which the simplest explanation is the best explanation.
We could apply Occam's Razor to Seti, and say that the only reason Seti has not received a communication to date is because we are alone in the Cosmos, that there is no intelligent life out there. That is the simplest explanation. But if that view was adopted, Seti would shut down.

Susan.
'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.
ID: 397627 · Report as offensive
Profile Walla
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 329
Credit: 177,013
RAC: 0
United States
Message 397634 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 22:42:25 UTC

We have evidence of intelligent life. Humans. SETI has only scanned 1,000 stars and with there being a total 10 sextillion stars to make the assumption that the simplest explanation is that we are alone is foolish.
You cant even prove that the 4th and 5th dimensions exist. Couldn't it all be much simplier instead of having to resort to membranes in the 5th dimension as to the beginnings of our universe.
ID: 397634 · Report as offensive
Profile Mac Girl.
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 06
Posts: 679
Credit: 15,042
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 397652 - Posted: 14 Aug 2006, 23:05:07 UTC - in response to Message 397634.  

We have evidence of intelligent life. Humans. SETI has only scanned 1,000 stars and with there being a total 10 sextillion stars to make the assumption that the simplest explanation is that we are alone is foolish.
You cant even prove that the 4th and 5th dimensions exist. Couldn't it all be much simplier instead of having to resort to membranes in the 5th dimension as to the beginnings of our universe.


Yes, it's probably premature to conclude that we are alone. But that more simple explanation could be adopted one day if we continue to have no luck. I for one happen to believe that intelligence has occurred more than once in our universe. Yes we have evidence of intelligent life in humans (and maybe also in the 'higher' animals, such as whales and dolphons) but the problem is that our particular intelligence could turn out to be a complete fluke of nature, a bizarre phenomenom that has occurred only once. I certainly hope that is not the case.
It is also true that we can't necessarily prove that that other dimensions exist but it's food for thought.

Susan.

'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.
ID: 397652 · Report as offensive
Profile Daykay
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 00
Posts: 647
Credit: 739,559
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 412359 - Posted: 1 Sep 2006, 0:55:24 UTC

It seems strange that all that we have observed of our universe to date seems to match our expectations of the big bang theory. That is to say that by looking so far back in time we see galaxies forming and so on. This seems to be an exception. One has to wonder why.

There are apparently other observations which appear to be evidentiary of a big bang, or at least theories which await the technology to observe the proof of these theories.

Personally, when I think of our universe i am reminded of atoms. The tiny particles that make up everything around us. They are seem similar enough to a planetary system to me. There are a number of planets/electrons orbiting a central sun/nucleus. Following that i wonder if everything just works on an infinite scale of impossibly tiny to impossibly gigantic.
Kolch - Crunching for the BOINC@Australia team since July 2004.
Search for your own intelligence...
ID: 412359 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 412537 - Posted: 1 Sep 2006, 6:42:06 UTC - in response to Message 412359.  
Last modified: 1 Sep 2006, 6:42:30 UTC

It seems strange that all that we have observed of our universe to date seems to match our expectations of the big bang theory.

That's because you have not been exposed to the proper data. Unfortunately, data is hand picked many times. And when you consider that inflation (unproven theory which breaks some of the previously defined laws) was created to explain how structures so large could occur so soon after the big bang, it becomes worse.


TEAM
LL
ID: 412537 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Distant Galaxy is Too Massive For Current Theories


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.