The Big Bang proven wrong? (1 Viewer)

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,128
#1
Success for galaxy quest
January 8, 2004 - 11:18AM


An Australian-led research team which was refused use of an American telescope has discovered a string of galaxies, challenging existing theories about how the universe evolved.

The team used telescopes in Chile and at the Siding Spring Observatory in western NSW to detect an enormous string of galaxies about 10.8 billion light-years away.

Australian National University astronomer Paul Francis, who led the research team, said existing scientific theories cannot explain how the galaxy string could have existed 10.8 billion years ago.

"We have detected 37 galaxies and one quasar in the string, but it probably contains many thousands of galaxies," Dr Francis said in a statement.

"The existence of this galaxy string will send astrophysicists around the world back to the drawing board to re-examine theories of the formation of the universe."

Dr Francis' team was refused the use of a telescope in the United States because the observations they wanted to carry out were considered to be technically impossible by many American astronomers.

The team have since presented their findings to the American Astronomical Society.

Dr Francis said computer simulations of the early universe had been unable to reproduce galaxy strings as large as the one his team found.

"There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it to form structures this colossal," he said.

The team believes the string probably contains thousands of galaxies, and work is now under way to map it.

The string of galaxies itself is thought to be 300 million light years long. A light year is about 9.5 trillion kilometres.
 

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,038
#2
I dont know mate... I mean, how the hell can you know how old something is just by looking at it. Maybe the conditions there have made possible faster development of galaxies.

What I'm saying is that the "Big Bang" cant be proven wrong nor right... yet.
 

Henry

Senior Member
Sep 30, 2003
5,517
#5
++ [ originally posted by -Z- ] ++
I dont know mate... I mean, how the hell can you know how old something is just by looking at it. Maybe the conditions there have made possible faster development of galaxies.

What I'm saying is that the "Big Bang" cant be proven wrong nor right... yet.
using existing models on the formation of galaxy clusters to find out approximately how old the cluster, find out how far away it is (using redshift or something-not sure), and findin out how much time it took for the light from the cluster to reach earth, and add that to the age of the cluster ;)
 

Henry

Senior Member
Sep 30, 2003
5,517
#7
no, it can't really, but they could, if it's is accurate, do lots of different tests to see if it is valid.......
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,575
#8
++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
using existing models on the formation of galaxy clusters to find out approximately how old the cluster, find out how far away it is (using redshift or something-not sure), and findin out how much time it took for the light from the cluster to reach earth, and that that to the age of the cluster ;)
You find out how far away it is by using some standards. Certain types of supernova are always the same brightness, so you can calculate how far away they are by how bright they appear here. You can then assume that the stars in the same cluster are more or less the same distance away.

Red shift tells you how fast a star is moving away from us, not how far away it is.
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#9
But isn't there a formula that links recessional velocity and distance from the earth? involving hubbles constant or something like that.?

If there is, then you can work out distance from red shift
 

Roverbhoy

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,840
#10
++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

You find out how far away it is by using some standards. Certain types of supernova are always the same brightness, so you can calculate how far away they are by how bright they appear here. You can then assume that the stars in the same cluster are more or less the same distance away.

Red shift tells you how fast a star is moving away from us, not how far away it is.
mikhail and Paolo_Montero are correct here. By using spectroscopic analysis of the star after it’s been classified, and once such things as the absorption of light in space have been taken into account, you can easily work out it’s distance away. By working out the distance and then the speed of light you get an idea you can work out how long ago the light started it’s journey.

Measuring the shifts can tell if the star is coming towards (Blue) us or away (Red). It can also tell us the make up of the elements of the star after it’s passed through certain gases.


This isn’t the first time this has occurred…a few years ago a red giant was discovered which was twelve billion years old! The same argument was used then against the Big Bang. All that happened was that the date of the BB was put back another five billion years to approximately 18-20 billion years ago. It still fits the model.
 

Henry

Senior Member
Sep 30, 2003
5,517
#14
++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

You find out how far away it is by using some standards. Certain types of supernova are always the same brightness, so you can calculate how far away they are by how bright they appear here. You can then assume that the stars in the same cluster are more or less the same distance away.

Red shift tells you how fast a star is moving away from us, not how far away it is.
yep, you are right-I couldn't remember for sure ;)
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,575
#17
++ [ originally posted by Gandalf ] ++
ok.. what was there before the big bang..?
A singularity. Don't ask me what it is - many people far smarter than me will spend whole lifetimes trying to figure that one out. One theory is that it might have been the remains of a big crunch - that the whole universe will eventually collapse in on itself and the whole think will start again. I think that this theory is in disrepute now though.
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#18
++ [ originally posted by Gandalf ] ++
ok.. what was there before the big bang..?
The current thinking goes a bit like this:

All matter can be broken down into atoms, and atoms broken down into sub atomic particles (electrons, nuetrons, etc.) and those can be broken into quarks, and quarks into gluons, and I'm sure that there's many more levels which have never been conceved, but at some point the universe was just a thin spread of the tiniest particles, and through some action (no one knows what), one particle met another, and through the force of gravity, particles beganto accumulate until they reached a critical mass, some say that it was all of the matter in the universe, but others think it was just most of it. And that point of critical mass there was a huge explosion, and I'm a bit foggy on why is exploded, but suffice it to say, it did, and the universe is currently working it's way back to that thin spread of near nothingness. At least that's the best I figure from reading up on the matter.
 

Henry

Senior Member
Sep 30, 2003
5,517
#19
basically, it is mostly theories-all of which haven't quite been worked out completely yet.......and there are lots of them
 
OP
OP
gray

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,128
#20
++ [ originally posted by Rickenbacker ] ++

The current thinking goes a bit like this:

All matter can be broken down into atoms, and atoms broken down into sub atomic particles (electrons, nuetrons, etc.) and those can be broken into quarks, and quarks into gluons, and I'm sure that there's many more levels which have never been conceved, but at some point the universe was just a thin spread of the tiniest particles
What was there before those tiny particles?

++ [ originally posted by Rickenbacker ] ++
and through some action (no one knows what), one particle met another, and through the force of gravity, particles beganto accumulate until they reached a critical mass
I don't really get that. How can there be a force of gravity when there's no objects significantly large enough to carry a force of gravity? Gravity has to come from objects with a large mass, and if there's a spread of the tiniest particles, i fail to see how these particles accumulated.

++ [ originally posted by Rickenbacker ] ++
And that point of critical mass there was a huge explosion, and I'm a bit foggy on why is exploded, but suffice it to say, it did
Is this explosion how the universe began?

Hmm.. when I picture an explosion, I see a movie scene where there's a bomb inside a car. It explodes and... the car's not there anymore. I've always thought explosions caused destruction, not creation... but that's just me
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)