If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 22-February-2005, 05:45 AM
imported_WINSTON imported_WINSTON is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
In a sense, galaxy formation is like star formation (which we don't understand either)...

....So where did these perturbations come from? Statistical fluctuations in particle density within a uniform field won't do it. There are of order 1068 nucleons in a galaxy (neglecting dark matter, whose effects only make matters worse). This gives relative density fluctuations DN/N ~ 10-34, much too small for the most nonlinear growth to give galaxies by z=5.

....We might try considering primordial fluctuations (pushing our ignorance back as far as possible), but there is no signature of these in the microwave background

....We end up with one major problem: how could galaxies form so fast from the homogeneous background seen in the 2.7 K radiation?

....Longair devotes an entire chapter to setting out the "classical" scheme for galaxy formation in a purely baryonic Universe, solely to illustrate that it doesn't work.

....Hot dark matter makes galaxy formation very difficult - density enhancements are smeared away by rapid particle motions before they can collapse. The only unstable masses are far too large (remember MJ ~ T3/2 above). Cold dark matter is more popular, since this stuff is gravitationally bound and can fall into perturbations just as well as ordinary matter. However, it undergoes a fully dissipationless collapse. A problem here is that any dark matter cold enough to allow galaxy-size masses to form also predicts an uncomfortable amount of delayed galaxy formation. This gives difficulties with limits on baryonic IGM. There is not a clear piece of parameter space that simultaneously satisfies the IGM and microwave-background limits while still producing things of galactic mass. Plainly there is something important we don't know about galaxy formation.

....A key question must be answered from observation - what was the source of reionizing photons? One could imagine that either stars or active nuclei could provide the energy. Current surveys suggest that QSOs fall well short of the space density required to be important, although they will certainly dominate in their immediate neighborhoods. From metallicity arguments, first-generation stars were not numerous enough to ionize more than their immediate cloud vicinities. Further into galaxy buildup, we can count bright galaxies at redshifts z~6 by Lyman-break selection, and find that there are too few luminous galaxies for their hot stellar populations to power reionization
__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 22-February-2005, 11:46 AM
dgruss23's Avatar
dgruss23 dgruss23 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 4,138
Default

What is the reference for this passage?
__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-March-2005, 03:49 AM
imported_WINSTON imported_WINSTON is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 145
Default

Sorry, here's the link. It desribes current mainstream galaxy theory from a believer's point of view.

I thought it demonstrated how current theory is not only unproven but problematic, according to it's most studied followers.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/galform.html
__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-March-2005, 10:48 AM
antoniseb's Avatar
antoniseb antoniseb is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chelmsford, MA
Posts: 14,562
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by WINSTON@Mar 4 2005, 04:49 AM
it demonstrated how current theory is not only unproven but problematic, according to it's most studied followers.
The current models for galaxy formation are relatively diverse. What you've identified is that this is one area that is actively being worked on in an attempt to understand it. No one thinks that galaxy formation is understood. Many upcoming astronomy efforts are aimed at making observations to tell us more about this poorly understood time.
__________________
Forming opinions as we speak
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today